rumitoid

What we have in this and similar anti-gay legislation in other states is not a protection of religious freedom but simply people tying their discrimination to a religious belief.

Two highly respected Evangelical authors, Merritt and Powers, give a brief summary way this law is bad Christianity. You can read the article in full here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/conservative-christians-selectively-apply-biblical-teachings-in-the-same-sex-marriage-debate.html


"Many on the left and right can agree that nobody should be unnecessarily forced to violate their conscience. But in order to violate a Christian’s conscience, the government would have to force them to affirm something in which they don’t believe. This is why the first line of analysis here has to be whether society really believes that baking a wedding cake or arranging flowers or taking pictures (or providing any other service) is an affirmation. This case simply has not been made, nor can it be, because it defies logic. If you lined up 100 married couples and asked them if their florist “affirmed” their wedding, they would be baffled by the question."

"Strangely, conservative Christians seem to have little interest in this level of analysis and jump right to complaints about their legal and constitutional rights. It’s not that these rights don’t matter. Rather, they should be a SECONDARY ISSUE for Christians.
Before considering legal rights, Christians wrestling with this issue must first resolve the primary issue of whether the Bible calls Christians to deny services to people who are engaging in behavior they believe violates the teachings of Christianity regarding marriage. The answer is, it does not.

"Nor does the Bible teach that providing such a service should be construed as participation or affirmation. Yet Christian conservatives continue to claim that it does. So it seems that the backers of these bills don’t actually believe what they are saying. Because if they truly believe that a vendor service is an affirmation, then they need to explain why it is only gay and lesbian weddings that violate their conscience.

"Before agreeing to provide a good or service for a wedding, Christian vendors must verify that both future spouses have had genuine conversion experiences and are “equally yoked” (2 Corinthians 6:14) or they will be complicit with joining righteousness with unrighteousness. They must confirm that neither spouse has been unbiblically divorced (Matthew 19). If one has been divorced, vendors should ask why. Or perhaps you don’t even have to ask. You may already know that the couple’s previous marriages ended because they just decided it wasn’t working, not because there were biblical grounds for divorce. In which case, you can’t provide them a service if you believe such a service is affirming their union."


(Below are two more links on this subject. The first is an attempt at a rebuttal of the above article and the second is a support for the above.

http://erlc.com/article/are-christians-hypocritical-on-weddings-and-conscience-protection

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/02/25/can-you-be-pro-gay-and-stay-evangelical-yes-and-no/

jay-are

I agree with the article that Christians should not do business with people they disagree with. If they take money from anybody for services, they are no better than prostitutes. They should have principles and standards, and those should extend to every aspect of their life. By refusing to take money from others who represtent un-Christian standards they set an example for them and offer them an alternative and a place to go if they ever decide to do the right thing, and make something better of their life.

Christians also should not sell alcohol, or participate in liquor sales, they should not sell drugs or cigarettes. Let non-Christians service those industries, and let them refuse to do business with Christians. That is only fair. But Christians should not participate in homosexual activities, or any other activities that are against Biblical standards, including unequal yoked weddings, and remarriages of divorced people.

Every business owner should have the right to choose who he is willing and not willing to do business with.

skott Loc: Bama

I liked your article. Personally, I think that people who agree with this law would have to not serve anyone who has lied, dishonored their parents, coveted another's wife, and a whole list of other commandments, before they got to gays. When will self proclaimed Christians start following Christ's teachings? He said not to judge and that he died for people's sins. He didn't just say some people's sins. He also didn't say not to judge except for gays.

jay-are

You misuse the teaching about not judging. Go here and get it right.

http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-9317-1.html

rumitoid

I agree with you. The law is silliness personified (to be kind). If we take denying gays services is somehow biblical because homosexuality is a sin (the act is, not the claim of being so), a protection of our religious freedom, then to be fair all sinners should be denied. It seems many Conservatives and Christians are simply blinded by their prejudice and cannot follow the point to its logical conclusion.

jay-are

Well, shouldn't Christians at least disapprove of lying, dishonoring parents, coveting another's wife, etc. How do they disapprove? Should Christians proclaim that they approve of people who do those things? Does that make them true Christians, and the ones who disapprove are non-Christians? How can that be?

jay-are

Perhaps the best approach is don't ask, don't tell. If you know someone is a liar, wouldn't you be hesitant to do business with them? Wouldn't you hesitate to do business with them for fear that their dishonesty would hurt your business?

What if a guy comes in and says he wants to buy a ski mask to use to go rob a convenience store? Do you have a right to refuse to sell him the ski mask?

What if a guy wants to buy condoms and candy to use to commit rapes of little boys and girls? If you are a rapist, you might be more than happy to sell him the condoms, but if you don't approve of rape, you might not want to sell him the condoms, or the candy. Should government force you to sell condoms and candy to rapists? If you disapprove of sodomy, why should government be able to force you to sell anything to people who openly admit to wanting to commit sodomy?

MrEd Loc: Georgia

Ever hear of the right to refuse service to ANYONE? If they own that store and are running it according to their standards, then they have a right to refuse service to anyone that they feel like. There is no law that says they MUST serve anyone that enters their doors. I have seen many signs on doors that say they have the right to refuse service to anyone. If I refused to do business with you, where does that give you the right to take me to court and force me to do business with you? You talk about your rights to get service from anyone. How about the store owners right's? Doesn't he have any rights? I think you are not only wrong, but wrong headed and just because 5 or so people on this board agree does not make it right.

Kevyn

Wasn't this addressed by the Civil Rights Act when lunch counters and hotels were required to allow black guests?

rumitoid

Are we not all sinners? If the point of that bill is that doing business with a sinner is somehow affirming their sin, then any and all products and services that can be purchased will almost certainly mean affirming sin of some kind. Which is why the law is "silliness personified."

jay-are

It is not about the products or the affirming, it is about the rights of the business owner to decide who to do business with. If government forces business, do we have a free market? Are we better off with a free market that discriminates, or government controlling everything and no freedom?

rumitoid

It is okay to do so based on race?
So many times these questions come down to people just squealing about their own rights while ignoring those of others or the responsibilities that come with all our freedoms.
Th point in the AZ law is the premise for denial: selling a service or product affirms the sin of the purchaser, which is unbiblical and ridiculous.

jay-are

There is a big difference between discrimination on the basis of skin color and discrimination on the basis of behavior. We discriminate all the time and rightfully so, on the basis of behavior.

vernon

WELCOME TO GERMANY 1937

madshark

That is beautiful. Those buffoons can exercise their religion as they wish. And under this law any one else in Arizona will be assured the right to exercise their religion as they choose.