by Sandy » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:13 pm
In the application of the law, in the case of bakers or florists, or any other businesses where a consistent principle can be applied, no religious principle should be involved. The customers are seeking a product or a service, and approached the business owners without knowing that their sexual orientation would get them turned away. The government doesn't recognize the "establishment of religion" when applying personal liberties, but it does recognize refusal to provide service as discrimination, and so far, it has not allowed people to hide behind religious beliefs to re-define discrimination.
There's nothing in Christian faith or teaching that leads to the conclusion that it's' OK to sit in judgement of someone else's sin, and refuse to serve them because of it. It's an argument from silence, because it's just not there in the scripture, in the very words of Jesus himself. I see "Love your enemies," and "do good to those who spitefully use you." I see "do not judge" because you will be judged by the same measure. But I don't see where the self-righteousness required to judge someone else's morality in order to refuse to serve them is supported anywhere. Jesus healed all the lepers, in spite of the fact that only one returned to thank him. He admonished the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, but didn't withold his protection from here based on whether or not she took his advice. Which message is more effective? "I'm refusing to serve you because I believe what you are doing is wrong and my righteousness won't allow me to be involved with you," or "I'm serving you because even though I believe what you are doing is sinful, I am demonstrating how powerful is the love of Christ my savior."