Posted on 02/23/2014 11:31:35 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Conservative Christian groups in Arizona cheered the passage Thursday of legislation that would allow individuals and businesses in the state to deny service to same-sex couples due to religious beliefs.
All eyes have shifted to Governor Jan Brewer, who must now decide whether to sign the bill. Similar legislation died in Kansas last week, but has also been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Oklahoma.
The Arizona law seems to apply to services beyond those tied to weddings, but same-sex weddings are the impetus for these bills. Specifically, they are in response to lawsuits against three different Christians who refused to photograph, bake a cake, and sell flowers for same-sex weddings. The backers of these laws claim that a Christian cannot, in good conscience, provide a good or service for a same-sex wedding because it violates the teachings of Christianity.
If these bills become law, we could see same-sex couples being denied service not just by photographers and florists, but also restaurants and hotels and pretty much anyone else who can tie their discrimination to a religious belief.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
“also been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Oklahoma.”
Where’s Utah and Alabama? Let’s get these on the books in every red state.
Sorry, Kirsten, but if I run a photography business, there’s no way on God’s green earth that I am going to be a hypocrite and snap pictures of two men or two women as if it’s acceptable.
Frankly, when I see two people of the same sex acting like they’re a couple, it makes me a little sick to my stomach. I should not be forced to partake.
The Christians who have been threatened, sued, prosecuted, had business licenses suspended and other harassments HAVE SAID they would be willing to perform the service for an individual but not for homosexual marriage or for sleeping together.
The innkeeper in Hawaii would not rent a room to homosexuals because it violated their faith. I agree, faith in God would not allow in good conscience to rent a bed to a couple that is same-sex nor would it allow to rent a bed to a couple that are unmarried.
Homosexuals can steer clear of Christian businesses or Jewish businesses. They have plenty of secular businesses to contract with. They are only interested in equating themselves with the Black civil rights movement.
Businesses need only post a Christian or Jewish symbol to let homosexuals know not to ask for services that promote homosexuality or to let heterosexual unmarried couples know not to ask for services that promote fornication.
Whether one thinks this is backwards or discriminatory is not the issue, it is a line drawn in the sand that certain behaviors are not tolerated on the premises by reason of religious belief.
Homosexuals and prostitutes can find secular businesses to carry on their activities. There is no need to allow them to infringe on the rights of the faithful.
I suppose that homosexuals could just request a cake that says "Congratulations Bob and John" and theoretically, that wouldn't be a violation of conscience, but in the details of these lawsuits, it seems that the "engaged" parties announce it directly.
(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. er)
What else is it? The person (baker photog etc.) would not be there of their own accord. They would only be there because they are forced by the Government.
That's your/our ticket not to take part of it.
Bob and Bill, I can bake but seeing you two makes me sick to my stomach. So you will have no guarantee, I won't throw up a bit in the cake mixture. So go somewhere else where what they see doesn't have an effect on them.
Jesus never helped a sinner sin and neither should Christians.
This is either the home the brave and the land of the free, or it is not. If I have a business and do not wish to serve someone for whatever reason, that, in my opinion, ends the matter, period.
That’s exactly what I was thinking!
If a bunch of people created a golden calf and worshiped it, and asked a christian caterer to provide and staff the event, there will be many christians who would balk at that.
When I owned my Automotive Business, and someone came in and wanted to write a check and their checks had previously bounced I told them I would not accept a check from them, cash only. Also if I did not want to do work for someone I was not comfortable with, my calendar was booked. So was that wrong??? I was picking and choosing who I would do business with.
Unfortunately no one will even consider this. Most FReepers seem committed to chrstianity primarily because it is "the American religion" rather than because it is objectively true.
I think the government needs to be removed from marriage. I also believe you have the right to refuse service for any reason because we are free people, whether or not it is ethically right, all people should have the freedom to deny service, its free market.
If the authors premise is that Christians are already violating scripture by serving people engaged in bigamy, then how is violating scripture again a remedy?
So much for freedom. Government should not have the power to tell any person or private entity how to live or with whom to associate. Period.
No, Arizona Bill Protecting Religious Freedom is Not “Jim Crow”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3126185/posts
‘Star Trek’ Actor Promises Trouble for Arizona If Gov. Signs What He Calls ‘Turn Away the Gay’ Bill
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3126203/posts
Kirsten Powers reflects on her blockbuster Gosnell column and the complicity of the pro-abortion media
http://liveactionnews.org/kirsten-powers-reflects-on-her-blockbuster-gosnell-column-and-the-complicity-of-the-pro-abortion-media/
If I am asked to give a package to someone I don't tear it open to make sure I am not giving them anything illegal, immoral or fattening.
But if someone hands me a package and tells me that it is half pound of cocaine and a copy of "The Audacity of Hope" then I can rightly decide that I would prefer not be involved thank you.
Where have you been the last 50 years? Seems like every day is Divorce Pride Day in the USSA. When the Sexual Revolution started people who wanted to get divorced were “in your face” about it; the reason they aren’t demanding affirmation anymore is because they won that battle long ago. Try suggesting to a divorced person that no-fault divorce should be repealed and they probably will call you a bigot or a trogolydite.
If anything affirming divorce is far worse for the sanctity of marriage than affirming homosexuality because there are more divorced people than there are homosexuals. At the end of the day homosexuals are just a small, though vocal, minority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.