Thanks for the rebuttal. I understand Kipling’s message not to gather tribute and pay a tax to the outside invaders hoping they will go away and leave us alone. It is a good idea with which I agree. But I believe this an issue between the state and our Constitutional right to express our religious beliefs. Therefore consider the following choices:
From a Christian perspective, it would be applicable for the bakery owners not to “give tribute” to the sinners and to resist the state if they feel they are being forced to commit a sin. They must follow their religious beliefs above all.
But from a business perspective, the bakery owners should have been prepared to render unto Caesar. But now the question has evolved. Do they still have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason including religious beliefs. Or, can Caesar force them to indiscriminately sell to everybody without exception? It’s a devil of a question our judges must decide.
My idea was only meant to help the bakery owners render unto Caesar by passing the buck from one sinner to another. I agree it was not the best idea but I’ll try to outsmart the devil whenever the opportunity arises.
BTW, do you know if Kipling was a Christian or a Muslim? :)
They have long ago decided. The opinions of our modern federal judiciary have nothing to do with what is the law, or what is sane and rational, they have to do with whatever their current preference happens to be, and they are wholly immersed in this vile modern culture.
As a commenter at "Instapundit" noted when the voters in California voted down "gay marriage", "Why don't we just save a lot of time and ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks?"
It is my opinion that they are going to impose a draconian policy of intolerance for people not willing to accommodate homosexuality. No one will be allowed to dissent because dissenting makes them "Untermenschen", and therefore unprotected by the law.
Indeed, they mean to come down on "intolerant people" with the full force and both jackboots of the law. Trying to ameliorate or avoid this confrontation is just naive.
BTW, do you know if Kipling was a Christian or a Muslim?
I would assume Kipling was a Christian but even if he were not, you can't demean wisdom just because it comes from an undesirable source. I think the old saying is "res ipsa loquitur".("It speaks for itself.")