Featured Petition on Arizona SB 1062

EXCELLENT!:thumbs:

 

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."

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

No doubt. :thumbsup:

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.

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.

 

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.)

 

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.

 

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.