Petition on Arizona SB 1062

[Salty]

...How would you feel if you went into a bakery, ordered catering from the owner for a special Sunday evening church service. You're given the order to sign, and after doing so, you remark that your church is grateful for the reasonable price, as you will be showing "Passion of the Christ" at the Sunday evening service he has just agreed to cater and hope to have several unchurched attend so they will hear the gospel. He surprises you by yanking back the paperwork and stating,, "I'm sorry, I didn't know this was a church service. I'm atheist, I don't associate with Christians, and I won't be able to cater the event for you." Unfair? Discriminatory? Of course it is. ...

Doesnt make any difference how I feel. I believe he has the right to refuse service for any reason.

But I might be going off OP - (and it wouldnt be the first time)

But if you had your choice of have a cater who is a Athiest or a fellow believer to cater your church dinner - who would you rather have - the athiest, so you can be a witness, or the Believer so you can finanically support a Chrisitan brother.

 

[Zaac]

Being a good witness goes both ways, as in you being the one who says, "I'm sorry, you're gay, I can't do this event for you." You seem to think it is all right for us to treat the world the way the world treats usf. This response indicates your desire to be a witness. Then witness with love, and do the right, legal thing. They don't know Christ. Why would you expect them to act like Him?

You do know Christ. Why would you not act like Him? Do you honestly believe He would refuse to heal a gay person? Deliver him/her from addiction? Heal his/her cancer? Heal his/her AIDS??

If you do, then you are obligated to be as Him.

If not, you need to get to know Him better.

EXCELLENT!:thumbs:

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Being a good witness goes both ways, as in you being the one who says, "I'm sorry, you're gay, I can't do this event for you." You seem to think it is all right for us to treat the world the way the world treats usf. This response indicates your desire to be a witness. Then witness with love, and do the right, legal thing. They don't know Christ. Why would you expect them to act like Him?

You do know Christ. Why would you not act like Him? Do you honestly believe He would refuse to heal a gay person? Deliver him/her from addiction? Heal his/her cancer? Heal his/her AIDS??

If you do, then you are obligated to be as Him.

If not, you need to get to know Him better.

The key difference I don't think you see TND, or at least we don't see the same, is the difference between serving the individual and participating in the act. We say "hate the sin, love the sinner" so much that it may become meaningless, but that is the issue here.

As a minister I have refused to conduct marriage ceremonies for people over the years. One of them was my own brother. I love him and his wife, but they were living together before they were married and I refused to conduct the ceremony. I came to the wedding. I am glad they got married, but I will not conduct a ceremony for a couple living in sin who refuses to repent.

The same principle would apply to any other sinner. Yes Jesus would have healed a gay person, but he also would have told them to quit sinning. Our responsibility as Christians is to help the lost, but we don’t help them when we ignore or participate in their sin. Their only real salvation comes from the Lord and will involve repenting and turning from their sin. To try and minister to them while ignoring the root of their problems is treating the symptoms while we allow the disease to run free.

John 8:11

And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

And Salty, how about I use whoever is the best cook?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

As a minister I have refused to conduct marriage ceremonies for people over the years. One of them was my own brother. I love him and his wife, but they were living together before they were married and I refused to conduct the ceremony. I came to the wedding. I am glad they got married, but I will not conduct a ceremony for a couple living in sin who refuses to repent.

There is a huge difference between you as a pastor not wanting to perform a gay "marriage" ceremony vs. a baker on Main Street, who is in the business of providing baking services, refusing to bake a cake on the same grounds. Baking isn't a religious activity. If the baker doesn't want to provide services for a gay couple, he/she should avail him/herself of the "right to refuse service" statutes, and not trumpet his/her religious beliefs as the reasoning behind them.

Religious freedom is about protection of your right to practice your religion and not being forced to violate it. However, the right to religious freedom does not mean the right to write-off and marginalize into non-existence a whole class of citizens whom you don't like or with whom you don't agree. That is self-defeating of your proclaimed desire to be a witness to them. They aren't going to listen if you aren't going to treat them as people, the same as you would one of your other customers. Again, I'm not talking about your duties as a pastor. I'm talking about someone who opens a shop purporting to do business with the public, only it turns out it is only "most of the public."

The same principle would apply to any other sinner. Yes Jesus would have healed a gay person, but he also would have told them to quit sinning. Our responsibility as Christians is to help the lost, but we don’t help them when we ignore or participate in their sin.

Baking a cake isn't "participating in their sin." Performing the ceremony, that would be "participating in their sin." And you're perfectly free to tell them to "quit sinning" as you hand them the cake and collect their money. Gently, of course, while preaching the love of Christ. Just like He did.

Their only real salvation comes from the Lord and will involve repenting and turning from their sin. To try and minister to them while ignoring the root of their problems is treating the symptoms while we allow the disease to run free.

I'm not advocating ignoring anything. But your sought-after opportunity to witness to them, gently conveying the nature of their lifestyle as being sinful while preaching the gospel of Christ, will never, ever arise if you refuse to bake them a cake for the specific reason of that lifestyle. Refusing retail or commercial services to blacks because they were black -- not minorities, but black -- is illegal. Same for Hispanics, Asians, Catholics, Baptists, Buddhists, Muslims. You can't do it. How is doing the same thing to gays any more legal, or justified?

The war on the Christian culture by gays, liberals, Muslims, etc., is largely because of Christians themselves, and their attitude toward the rest of the world. We're never going to reach them for Christ if we refuse to deal with them in real life. Pastors and churches shouldn't have to acquiesce to their requests, but people who are in the business of serving the public have only a limited way to refuse service, and that law is already on the books.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

There is a huge difference between you as a pastor not wanting to perform a gay "marriage" ceremony vs. a baker on Main Street, who is in the business of providing baking services, refusing to bake a cake on the same grounds.

Ok, well here is one of our differences, I disagree with that completely. Just because what I "do" is religious in nature does not, IMHO, make it any different than the engineering work I do or any other profession. If you are a Christian, your buisness is just as much a part of that as your worship.

Religious freedom is about protection of your right to practice your religion and not being forced to violate it. However, the right to religious freedom does not mean the right to write-off and marginalize into non-existence a whole class of citizens whom you don't like or with whom you don't agree.

I agree completely, and as with the example you used of the baker he had provided this couple with baked goods for years, he had no problem with their sexual orientation as customers. He publiclly stated he would love to continue to provide them with birthday cakes and any other baked goods, what he could not do was participate in thier wedding.

"Baking a cake isn't "participating in their sin." Performing the ceremony, that would be "participating in their sin."

Here is the root of our disconnect (pun possible). Even if I agreed with you, the baker in question did not. And it was his relgious freedom we are talking about here. Not the offense or perceived offense of the gay couple, but the religious liberty of the baker. He felt that making a wedding cake was participating in an activity he could not ordain.

Some of my friends and family made the same argument over my brother's wedding. After all it was my brother, couldn't I make an exception. You know it is God that joins them together, not you, your just saying the words. The fact that comments like that came from my own parents and family made my choice quite difficult.

Refusing retail or commercial services to blacks because they were black -- not minorities, but black -- is illegal. Same for Hispanics, Asians, Catholics, Baptists, Buddhists, Muslims. You can't do it. How is doing the same thing to gays any more legal, or justified?

Here again I think we are saying the same words, but meaning different things. I am not advocating the denial of services to anyone. What I am advocating, and what I read this bill to protect, was the right of the individual to refuse to participate in an action that violated their religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with the customer and everything to do with the vendor.

 

[InTheLight]

Ok I will answer it. I would find another caterer. I would respect his beliefs. Just as I would want him to respect mine. And to be completely honest. I would probably continue to use his business for other issues on hope of being a good witness.


All I want is the same tolerance from them they expect from us. Respect that our differences don't make us any less human.

Thanks for taking a crack at answering the question. You have said what you would do....but how would you feel? That was the question.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Ok, well here is one of our differences, I disagree with that completely. Just because what I "do" is religious in nature does not, IMHO, make it any different than the engineering work I do or any other profession. If you are a Christian, your buisness is just as much a part of that as your worship.



I agree completely, and as with the example you used of the baker he had provided this couple with baked goods for years, he had no problem with their sexual orientation as customers. He publiclly stated he would love to continue to provide them with birthday cakes and any other baked goods, what he could not do was participate in thier wedding.[/FONT][/SIZE]



Here is the root of our disconnect (pun possible). Even if I agreed with you, the baker in question did not. And it was his relgious freedom we are talking about here. Not the offense or perceived offense of the gay couple, but the religious liberty of the baker. He felt that making a wedding cake was participating in an activity he could not ordain.

Some of my friends and family made the same argument over my brother's wedding. After all it was my brother, couldn't I make an exception. You know it is God that joins them together, not you, your just saying the words. The fact that comments like that came from my own parents and family made my choice quite difficult.



Here again I think we are saying the same words, but meaning different things. I am not advocating the denial of services to anyone. What I am advocating, and what I read this bill to protect, was the right of the individual to refuse to participate in an action that violated their religious beliefs. It has nothing to do with the customer and everything to do with the vendor.

I believe you look at the entire issue from a very selfish perspective, as do most Christians.

I'll reply by referring you here. No offense, and God bless.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

ITL:
How would I feel? Well that depends a lot on the way I was told. I would like to say I would take it well. I have been refused service several times here in the US before for being white; once when overseas and in the military I was refused service for being an American serviceman. I will admit it was frustrating but I can’t say it really made me mad either.

TND:

Of course, not offense taken or hopefully given, we have had a good discussion here.

Yes, I am probably taking a view from my own perspective. I have always opposed Gay Marriage on the grounds that it would be used as a tool to target Christians. While I believe that a same sex couple should have all the rights under the law a married couple is once you call it marriage you have left the political field and entered the field of religion. To the state marriage is a civil contract and I have no problem with same sex couples being given every aspect of that from filing joint returns to being on each other’s insurance. But marriage is also part of our religion and to force someone to accept that I believe violates the 1st amendment.

I will go read the new thread.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

How would I feel? Well that depends a lot on the way I was told. I would like to say I would take it well. I have been refused service several times here in the US before for being white; once when overseas and in the military I was refused service for being an American serviceman. I will admit it was frustrating but I can’t say it really made me mad either.

I'd have to say, the key word to that sentence is "once." Imagine if you faced it daily, several times a day. Your attitude would, I suspect, be different.

TND:Of course, not offense taken or hopefully given, we have had a good discussion here.

No doubt. :thumbsup:

Yes, I am probably taking a view from my own perspective. I have always opposed Gay Marriage on the grounds that it would be used as a tool to target Christians.

The problem is, we allow them to use it as such a tool by so vigorously insisting on our "rights" without giving them any opportunity to see the love of Christ within us.

While I believe that a same sex couple should have all the rights under the law a married couple is once you call it marriage you have left the political field and entered the field of religion. To the state marriage is a civil contract and I have no problem with same sex couples being given every aspect of that from filing joint returns to being on each other’s insurance. But marriage is also part of our religion and to force someone to accept that I believe violates the 1st amendment.

I agree with that completely. That is their agenda, as I spoke of in the "Discussions" thread. And we play right into their hands by letting them push our buttons and taking a vigorous stance that conveys animosity, not love.

 

[Revmitchell]

As Americans and business owners we should not be forced to do anything for a gay wedding. Period. You don't like that to bad. I am sure Europe would love you. Discriminating against someone because of their perverted and deviant sexual behavior is not the same thing as discrimination based on skin color. No one should have to accommodate that.

 

[InTheLight]

As Americans and business owners we should not be forced to do anything for a gay wedding. Period. You don't like that to bad. I am sure Europe would love you. Discriminating against someone because of their perverted and deviant sexual behavior is not the same thing as discrimination based on skin color. No one should have to accommodate that.

You don't have to be forced to do anything for a gay wedding. The problem is how you approach the issue.

Customer: "Would you bake a cake for my gay wedding?"
Me: "No, I won't.
Customer: "Why not? Is it because I'm gay?"
Me: "I don't have to say why, I just won't do it."

(cake doesn't get baked, gay person goes to another bakery.)


Customer: "Would you bake a cake for my gay wedding?"
Revmitchell: "No, I won't. I will not accommodate your perverted and deviant sexual behavior."
Customer: "That's kind of intolerant of you, isn't it?"
Revmitchell: "I don't care what you think. You're an abomination in the sight of God."

(cake doesn't get baked, gay person's stereotype of Christians gets reinforced with hate, goes to another bakery. Revmitchell gets sued, loses his business, goes bankrupt.)

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes taking a stand for the word of God often has consequences. Of course it is unAmerican to force those consequences on people based on protecting deviant sexual behavior.

 

[Salty]

How would I feel

Actually, I would prefer to patronize someone who would provide the best service.

Will that baker and florist really go out of the way to provide the absoulte best service or just satisfactory ( acceptable) service?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

As Americans and business owners we should not be forced to do anything for a gay wedding. Period. You don't like that to bad. I am sure Europe would love you. Discriminating against someone because of their perverted and deviant sexual behavior is not the same thing as discrimination based on skin color. No one should have to accommodate that.

And yet we as Christians are offended and run to the ACLJ when our rights to worship, wear a cross, pray in school, use a Bible as a study guide in off-school hours but in the school facility, etc. If we don't want to be discriminated again, we have to extend the same expectations to others. The fact the our faith tells us that their behavior is perverted and deviant is irrelevant to any situation in which we single our their perverted and deviant behavior as the sole reason for refusing to service them or sell them something. There is a method, as I've repeated cited time and time again this last week, but which we can refuse service and be immune to civil lawsuits. But instead, we want to go the same route as the people we complain about, demanding our "rights" be codified in law. We get what we ask for.