27 ¶ And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.
28 And he left all, rose up, and followed him.
29 And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.
30 But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Luke 5: 27-31
Surely the Lord was not endorsing the behavior of publicans by eating with them, was he? And when the woman who was taken in adultery was brought before Jesus...
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
John 8 10,11
Jesus didn't condemn her but He didn't forgive her either. He merely stated "Go and sin no more." Did He, in doing so, endorse her adultery? Of course not. So, given His example, are we to completely disassociate ourselves from sinners and deny their existence and legitimate rights as human beings? The gay marriage fight is about redefining rights and giving the radical gay rights movement legal say over what any and all religions can and cannot believe. This particular law simply deals with housing and employment discrimination. So, are we following His example if we refuse any and all contact with sinners by denying their legitimate rights? Or should we, as He did, recognize their humanity with all its frailties? Hate the sin, not the sinner, right?
“Go and sin no more.”
And this is the whole point. Isn’t it? The scriptural injunction is to condemn the sin not the sinner. By knowingly renting to gay couples is not one complicit in the celebration of a sin?
Wouldn’t the proper imperative be: “Yes, we’d rent to you on condition you don’t engage in gay sex” But the law will not allow for this imperative- it would be criminal discrimination.