Progress

[Haruo]

Jon, I'm not concerned about the etiology of homosexuality. It doesn't matter whether it's genetic or precognitive or a response to early abuse or a conscious, uncoerced choice. The point is the discrimination or even violence directed AT persons PERCEIVED TO BE gay by those inflicting it, who come close to the Biblical sin of Sodom by their lack of hospitality. Just as discrimination or violence against those PERCEIVED as black is equally wrong whether the the one mistreated is actually dark-skinned or has undergone cosmetic darkening for the purpose of experiencing what it is like to be black, as in the old book "Black Like Me".

[Jon Estes]

[Jon Estes]

[JE Pettibone]

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

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."

[KeithE]

[Rvaughn]

[Jon Estes]

[Jon Estes]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Keith, you write as if you are unfamiliar with the prominent cases here.

[Rvaughn]

[Sandy]

[JE Pettibone]

[Rvaughn]

[Haruo]

Then there was a case involving an acquaintance and her (male) fiancé who had been planning on being married by their pastor but who made the mistake of making public statements in favor of gay marriage and were told by their pastor shortly before their planned wedding that he could not marry them because of their views on marriage.

[Jon Estes]

[Jon Estes]

[Haruo]

[William Thornton]

May have been shabby by the pastor but not anything that should involve gummit.

[Stephen Fox]

In current issue of bjconline.org on this matter.

another distinguishing mark of the BJC vs ADF. One is authentic Baptist. The ADF is a child of the Reagan administration operatives and Baptist Peace Committee and Mississippi past President Chuck Pickering.

ADF buttresss the likes of Roy Moore though Collinsville staffer on their DC board was a never Trumper. Still the ADF's abortion politics may make the diference for Moore in Bama

[Haruo]

[Sandy]

[JE Pettibone]