Jesus befriended and washed the feet of a prostitute. This act of respect could easily be seen by many as condoning her lifestyle but in reality he was trying to help her foster her relationship with God. This same man wouldn't make a wedding arbor for a gay marriage? Absolutely he would! He would use that opportunity to engage the person and help them see that God is all forgiving and loving? In many cases Jesus performed acts that might have seen as him condoning the sin of the sinner. In every case he used that opportunity to show God's forgiveness.
Now, let me clarify. It's my belief that if you want to be a Christian you should serve as Jesus did. To the best of your ability. But it's not the government's job to force us to.
One emperor appointed his horse to the senate and would have orgies with men and women. He would also pay children to swim around inside his pool and pretend to be minnows, nipping at his genitals.
Homosexuality was completely acceptable by the roman empire. He was never forced by his father to marry a woman. Upper class women often engaged in lesbian relationships and even fine art was made of homosexual relationships. I don't know where you get your history from but if you want to clear up a lot of your misunderstandings I would suggest simply googling homosexuality in ancient rome.
Never mind this has no bearing on how a Christian should treat fellow humans and that attempting to pass legislation under the guise of religion is wrong.
Again, Government has no right telling you or I or the Hindu owned gas station down the street who they must serve. It's a law that should be passed... Using Christianity to pass it just lessens Christianity's value.
Requiring businesses advertize and make known their legal policies is hardly "tyranny". Unless you mean the tyranny of the conscience. If advertizing your various and sundry bigotries would embarass and shame you, maybe it would be best not to attempt to enforce those bigotries on members of the public with whom you would, if their prejudicial status were unknown to you, engage in commerce quite profittably.
This topic is really getting "religiousy" because that's how the law was passed, "Religious Freedom". I didn't bring religion into this debate, the bill itself does. If this was SBXXXX - Business should have the right to chose to deny service, then we wouldn't be discussing religion at all.
Ladies and Gentleman.. This is my point exactly. Pass the law because it's the right thing to do, let people be free. Don't try to get support for your bill by pretending it's for religion.
I'm more interested in seeing the big 'L' Libertarians defend their position as 88GT so accurately paraphrased, "Since the government has imposed a small level of tyranny, in order to create that elusive equality the whiners are complaining for, let's just impose a greater level of tyranny."
This topic really shouldn't have anything to do with religion at all. A private business either has a right to chose its customers or it doesn't. And if you really must regulate equality at all, then you should either have no protected classes, or make EVERYONE a protected class.
Requiring businesses advertize and make known their legal policies is hardly "tyranny". Unless you mean the tyranny of the conscience. If advertizing your various and sundry bigotries would embarass and shame you, maybe it would be best not to attempt to enforce those bigotries on members of the public with whom you would, if their prejudicial status were unknown to you, engage in commerce quite profittably.
Requiring businesses advertize and make known their legal policies is hardly "tyranny". Unless you mean the tyranny of the conscience. If advertizing your various and sundry bigotries would embarass and shame you, maybe it would be best not to attempt to enforce those bigotries on members of the public with whom you would, if their prejudicial status were unknown to you, engage in commerce quite profittably.
Why does the government need to enforce trendy behavior through embarrassment and shaming? And why don't you think that doing so isn't a form of tyranny?
If you want businesses to list their policies, only do business with those who post them. Organize a group to promote your agenda. Get a bullhorn and stand outside all the businesses that don't post them. Or just get uncle sammy to shame them for you.
If we let the free market run it's course, these businesses that discriminate will not survive in the 21st century. Money talks.
Well gays may make up about 3%. Evangelicals are 70 million people, somewhere between a quarter and a third of the population. Want the evangelicals to flex their economic muscle?
They would probably think chocolate cake was inferiorShould a black baker be forced to make a cake for the Grand Dragon of the KKK with KKK and swasticas on it
So, gay owned businesses should also be forced to work with say, the Westboro Baptist Church..
Yeah, their economic muscle is so powerful, they were able to get a bill to stop the nonsense. Oh...wait.