Petition on Arizona SB 1062

[InTheLight]

If you own a print shop do you want to have to make posters supporting abortion?

No, I don't. Business owners in AZ already have the right to refuse making posters that support abortion.

Do we need a new law to codify discrimination based not on any old reason, but SPECIFICALLY on religion? Meaning someone could discriminate against born again Christians for no other reason except that they were Christians.

 

[Revmitchell]

No, I don't. Business owners in AZ already have the right to refuse making posters that support abortion.

Then I suppose they could just as easily refuse to serve Christians.

And by the way the state of NM does not allow that. AZ is only looking to the future.

 

[InTheLight]

Then I suppose they could just as easily refuse to serve Christians.

Right now, business owners in AZ cannot refuse to do business with Christians using the excuse, "I'm not doing business with you because you are one of those born-again Christians". They can simply decline to do business without citing a reason. However, if this law had gotten passed they could refuse service and the reason given could be "because you are a Christian."

And by the way the state of NM does not allow that.

Not sure what you mean. Cannot bouncers at night clubs refuse anyone entrance?

 

[Revmitchell]

Not sure what you mean. Cannot bouncers at night clubs refuse anyone entrance?

A photographer was told by the courts that they cannot refuse to do photos for a homosexual wedding.

 

[InTheLight]

A photographer was told by the courts that they cannot refuse to do photos for a homosexual wedding.

Yes, I KNOW that. The ruling was based on discrimination grounds. But supposing instead of saying, "as a Christian I believe marriage is between one man and one woman and that homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God" the photographer would have said, "I can't do your wedding, I think I'm busy that day" and given them the name of another photographer?

Now, can't a business owner in New Mexico refuse to do business with someone without having to give a reason?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Should you be dishonest about the reason, if it is required ?

 

[InTheLight]

Should you be dishonest about the reason, if it is required ?

Not unless you can't help it. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I can't do it." If pressed with questions about "Why can't you do it?", all you need to say is "I can't do it."

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

A photographer was told by the courts that they cannot refuse to do photos for a homosexual wedding.

But they can simply decline the business, giving no reason. That's been perfectly legal since 1965.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Not unless you can't help it. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I can't do it." If pressed with questions about "Why can't you do it?", all you need to say is "I can't do it."

I just don't agree with the dishonesty. I agree with the last part. You gotta admit there's a lot of folks who will flip out and accuse you of something as soon as you say "no".

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

NCT, read the law!! It already restrained the govenrment. If that's what you wanted, the law was already on the books and didn't need to be changed.Absolutely untrue. The law as it was written restrained government. If you'd click on the link I provided, that would be obvious to you. This was an extension to virtually everyone else, and as I said, provided for more hatred and animosity toward Christians.

I did read the bill, did you? Here are the changes that were proposed, from the link you provided (I only included the lines with the proposed changes which are in blue):

From section 1, definitions:

2. "Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief. . .

5. "Person" includes a religious assembly or institution ANY NDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.
And from section 2, the protecton of free exercise of religion:

B. Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION, STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

C. Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it THE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that application of the burden to the person PERSON'S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:
1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.

E. In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.

F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.

That is it, that is the entire bill, word for word. How can you see any discrimination in there?

As I stated already several times, All this law would have done would be to extend the same freedom of religion that we have under the law as individuals to companies. It would not have allowed discrimination against others (homosexuals or anyone else) but would have prevented people from being forced to either hide (as you suggest in your dont ask dont tell senario) or act against their religious beliefs.

It would not have allowed restaurants to refuse service to someone based on sexual orientation or faith. It would have allowed service companies to refuse to participate in actions they found offensive.

I know you dont see that, but reading the bill, posted above it seems clear as crystal to me, there was no discrimination, only protection of religious freedom. The law would not have allowed discrimination against homosexuals, but it woudl have prevented homosexuals from demanding those who disagree with their lifestyle participate and support it anyway. Which is exactly what happened to the photographer and the baker who have allready come under lawsuits.

As a minister I have conducted many marriages, but I don't believe that God allows marriage between same sex couples. I do not want to be forced to conduct thier "marriages." Yet without bills like this one protecting our religous freedom I can see that I could be sued for refusing them service, just like the photographer and baker already have been. And no I will not lie and say, "I think I am busy that weekend." I am going to tell them that I don't agree with their choice and don't want to participate or condone it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I don't know where that came from, NCT, but that's not the whole language of the bill. This is (the numbers on the left are line numbers, as required in formatting legislation in Arizona).

SB 1062
- 1 -
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
1 Section 1. Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
2 read:
3 41-1493.
Definitions
4 In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
5 1. "Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the
6 evidence and of persuasion.
7 2. "Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF
8 RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner
9 substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is
10 compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
11 3. "Government" includes this state and any agency or political
12 subdivision of this state.
13 4. "Nonreligious assembly or institution" includes all membership
14 organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders,
15 amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a
16 government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by
17 code or ordinance or by practice.
18 5. "Person" includes [stricken language omitted] ANY
19 INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY
20 OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.
21 6. "Political subdivision" includes any county, city, including a
22 charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special
23 district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a
24 charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special
25 district or any other local public agency.
26 7. "Religion-neutral zoning standards":
27 (a) Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy
28 codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements,
29 sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.
30 (b) Does not include:
31 (i) Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.
32 (ii) The ability to raise tax revenues.
33 8. "Suitable alternate property" means a financially feasible property
34 considering the person's revenue sources a nd other financial obligations with
35 respect to the person's exercise of religion and with relation to spending
36 that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person
37 finds acceptable for conducting the person's religious mission and that is
38 large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity
39 requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the
40 person's religious mission.
41 9. "Unreasonable burden" means that a person is prevented from using
42 the person's property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to
43 fulfill the person's religious mission.
44 SB 1062
- 2 -
Sec. 2. Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
1 read:
2 41-1493.01.
Free exercise of religion protected; definition
3 A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in
4 this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially
5 neutral.
6 B. Except as provided in subsection C, [stricken language omitted] OF THIS SECTION,
7 STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion
8 even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
9 C. [stricken language omitted] STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person's
10 exercise of religion only if [stricken language omitted] THE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that
11 application of the burden to the [stricken language omitted] PERSON'S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS
12 PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:
13 1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
14 2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
15 governmental interest.
16 D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this
17 section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial
18 proceeding, [stricken language omitted] REGARDLESS OF
19 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING
20 SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails
21 in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover
22 attorney fees and costs.
23 E. [Stricken language omitted] FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden
24 is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial,
25 technical or de minimis infractions.
26 F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION
27 BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING
28 STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER
29 STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE
30 OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.

I linked this earlier, in post # 9. You're right, seems innocuous. No mention of gays, lesbians, Martians or any other "minority" group.

But let me ask you a couple straightforward questions and you give me honest answers, OK?

1. What types of individuals have sued recently for being denied services?
2. What types of individuals have those first types sued?
3. For what purpose was this law, therefore, intended to be revised?
4. Are you aware, as I have stated numerous times over the last few days, that the "right to refuse service" clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covered this situation already?
5. Given that to be the case, why was it deemed necessary to revise the law?

Your answers should lead you, if you're honest in giving them, to see that this was nothing more than a law being rewritten to allow discrimination, by legalizing the phrase, "Because you're gay ..." followed by any statement that refuses services, products or perhaps even education to a person because of the sexual preference. That's wrong. That's illegal. That's not something Christians want to be a party to, if we are going to be serious about fulfilling the Great Commission.

I do not favor recognizing "gay rights." As a group of black clergymen said on FNC the other day, recognizing the current clamor as a "gay rights movement" is an insult to the civil rights activists and workers of the 1960s. However, everyone has a reasonable expectation to be treated fairly. If you open a shop on Main Street, you'd best be prepared to serve all comers. If you are not, then you have no excuse when they cry "Foul!"

You opened your doors to the public. That means all the public, and if you don't want to serve them, you can't single out their sexual proclivity, color, religion, or nationality as an excuse to do so. If you do, you're guilty of discrimination, and deserve the consequences. Simply saying "I can't do it," is a legal out that has been available to us for nearly 50 years. We don't need another law that does the same thing while at the same time legalizing discrimination. The law would never have stood up to a court test. It needed to be vetoed. Thank God it was.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

TND, My quote included all of the changes to the bill (they were in blue). Yes your quote includes the entire bill, which has already been passed and is law. The current bill would have not created a new law, simply ammended an existing one, as shown in blue. Most of your post is already law.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your answers should lead you, if you're honest in giving them, to see that this was nothing more than a law being rewritten to allow discrimination, by legalizing the phrase, "Because you're gay ..." followed by any statement that refuses services, products or perhaps even education to a person because of the sexual preference. That's wrong.

That is your personal opinion and nothing more. You are entitled to it but that is not how others see it or understand it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

TND, My quote included all of the changes to the bill (they were in blue). Yes your quote includes the entire bill, which has already been passed and is law. The current bill would have not created a new law, simply ammended an existing one, as shown in blue. Most of your post is already law.

***SIGH***

You need to look at that link. Great googly-moogly!! Any bill introduced for the purpose of amending a law carries the language of the existing law, and the proposed changes. That's what I quoted. You obviously didn't read the entire quote, or look at the supplied link.

Besides which, that has absolutely nothing to do with the questions I asked you to answer as honestly as you can.

That is your personal opinion and nothing more. You are entitled to it but that is not how others see it or understand it.

Thanks for your input and civility, Rev, but can you tell me how you'd answer those questions?

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

1. What types of individuals have sued recently for being denied services?
2. What types of individuals have those first types sued?
3. For what purpose was this law, therefore, intended to be revised?
4. Are you aware, as I have stated numerous times over the last few days, that the "right to refuse service" clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covered this situation already?
5. Given that to be the case, why was it deemed necessary to revise the law?

OK, here goes TND:

1. Homosexuals are the ones filing suit. Here is a quote from the Matt Walsh blog that sums it up well:

This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is, because some gays in some states have specifically and maliciously targeted religious florists, bakers, and photographers, so that they can put these innocent people in a compromising position, and then run to the media and the courts when — GASP! — Christians decide to follow the dictates of Christianity.

2. Christians of course. As stated above Christians have been deliberately targeted.

3. The attempt to revise the law was to remove the question of whether a Christian owned business should enjoy the same freedom of religion that the owner has in his private life.

4. Yes the Civil rights act should cover this, but it does not as has been shown at least twice already in court. It should, the cases should have judged for the buisnesses, but they did not, so the law needs to be strengthened.

5. It is necessary to revise the law to protect Chrsitians that have been unfairly targeted by the extreem homosexual agenda.

Another quote from Matt Walsh sums it up well:

It’s not that business owners want to “refuse service” to gays simply because they’re gay; it’s that some business owners — particularly people who work in the wedding industry — don’t want to be forced to employ their talents in service of something that defies their deeply held religious convictions.

Would you like some examples TND? Again from Matt's blog:

Hands On Originals. The Christian owner of a local t-shirt company declined to produce shirts advertising Lexington’s annual Gay Pride Festival. Hands On Originals had likely made shirts for many gay people in the past. As far as I know, they never asked anyone to fill out a questionnaire about their sexual proclivities before ordering their apparel. In this case, however, the company was being asked to advertise for a gay pride festival. He politely turned down the business and even pointed the organizers to other manufacturers that would make the shirts at the same or better rates. Nobody’s rights were infringed upon. Nobody was victimized. Nobody was even inconvenienced.

But the bullies at Kentucky’s Gay and Lesbian Services Organization smelled an opportunity. They dragged Hands On before the “Human Rights Commission” and accused them of “human rights violations.” The HRC sided with the gay bullies. So did Lexington’s mayor. Lexington’s mayor is openly gay, by the way. But I’m sure that had nothing to do with his opinion on the matter.

Masterpiece Cake Shop. The Christian owner of a Colorado bakery has been forced by a judge to bake cakes for gay weddings, after declining the business 0f two gay men who wanted him to make a cake for their same sex nuptials. The baker didn’t refuse them “because they’re gay.” In fact, he specifically said: “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”

He had a problem with the activity itself, not the people participating in it. But the gay couple, instead of respecting the man’s beliefs, decided to whine to the ACLU. Eventually a lawsuit was filed, and the couple complained in court of being “dehumanized.”

Elane Photography. A New Mexico judge ruled that a small photography company in the state is not allowed to decide which weddings they will photograph and which weddings they won’t photograph. He compelled the Christian photographers who own the business to work gay weddings, despite their religious convictions.

This ruling came after Elane Huguenin politely declined to photograph a lesbian wedding back in 2006. As Huguenin explained: they will “gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

But this wasn’t good enough. Even though the lesbian customers promptly found a different photographer who charged better rates, they still took the matter to the courts.

Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts. A florist in Washington state was sued after she decided not to provide flowers for a gay wedding. In this case, even the customers admit that the business owner had served them many times over ten years. If she wanted to “refuse service to gays,” she would have already. But it wasn’t the gay men she had a problem with — it was the gay wedding. Of course this explanation, reasonable as it might be, wasn’t sufficient.

She was dragged to court. The lawsuit, I believe, is still ongoing.

In none of these cases did the business owner forgo service to a gay person out of some kind of disgust or animosity towards gays. They simply wished to take no part in a gay wedding. To call this discrimination against gays is to make no distinction between the person of a homosexual and the activity of a homosexual.

I will also add that in none of these cases was the 1964 civil rights act enough to protect the religious freedom of the business owners. Some are still pending judgement, but none so far have found for the business owner. The law needs to be strengthened.

Does that answer your questions?

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

***SIGH***

You need to look at that link. Great googly-moogly!! Any bill introduced for the purpose of amending a law carries the language of the existing law, and the proposed changes. That's what I quoted. You obviously didn't read the entire quote, or look at the supplied link.

I am not sure how to respond to this TND, I tried to answer your questions above although I am not sure you will like my answers.

As far as the bill. Yes I read it. I read it again from your link. I copied it from your link and posted it, although I deleted the unchanged portions of the bill and only posted the sections where there were proposed changes. Then you posted it again with the entire bill (including what I had already posted, the changes). How can you believe I did not read the entire quote, I not only read it, I copied it and pasted it to this thread. Are you reading my posts, or just replying blindly?

I understand that we will disagree on this issue and while I believe you are wrong I think you explained your position well and I can respect that. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and although I think you have a poor understanding of the situation and the bill I have read your posts and your links.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I am not sure how to respond to this TND, I tried to answer your questions above although I am not sure you will like my answers.

As far as the bill. Yes I read it. I read it again from your link. I copied it from your link and posted it, although I deleted the unchanged portions of the bill and only posted the sections where there were proposed changes. Then you posted it again with the entire bill (including what I had already posted, the changes). How can you believe I did not read the entire quote, I not only read it, I copied it and pasted it to this thread. Are you reading my posts, or just replying blindly?

I understand that we will disagree on this issue and while I believe you are wrong I think you explained your position well and I can respect that. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and although I think you have a poor understanding of the situation and the bill I have read your posts and your links.

Yes, I read all of your posts, and everyone else's, before I reply. I know what you did in pasting the bill's copy in one of your posts, but that doesn't give an adequate representation of what the bill previously said, and how it is being changed. That is why I cut-and-pasted the entire language into my post.

No offense, but I have an excellent understanding of the bill, and the situation in Arizona, and in Kansas, where a very similar bill was passed by our state House but voted down in the Senate. I have to wonder why you would first say that I "explained [my] position well" but then claim I have "a poor understanding of the situation." My opinion of those seemingly opposed comments is that you see this issue from a very narrow perspective, and that is preventing you from considering the overall aspect of not only the proposed laws in the two states, but the existing "right to refuse service" laws that are on the books of most states and at the federal level. You don't seem to grasp, as most others on here don't, that the issue is not about protecting Christian rights. It is about the perception of Christians and our faith as a result of both or either of these bills being passed.

Your answer to my question #4 indicates you don't understand what I've been saying. No, the federal "right to refuse service" law didn't cover the circumstances for the two most prominently reported cases, but that isn't the fault of the law, as though it provided a lack of coverage. It is the fault of the business owners for 1) not posting signage stating they reserved the right to refuse service to anyone, and 2) specifically stating the refusal of service was due to the customer being gay.

We may think that's reasonable, but it is not. It is blatant discrimination, and whether or not we believe it is warranted under our First Amendment right or not, court rulings of the past regarding minorities -- again, not a status I believe gays have, but nonetheless ... -- have made it clear specific statements of that type will not be acceptable defenses before the court. Why? Because they represent the blatant discrimination that no one should have to put up with, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or other "boundary" that separates them (usually in their own minds) from others.

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. And while you don't have an agenda to place atheists in difficult situations, as gays do with Christians, he has violated your rights as a customer with reasonable expectations of being treated fairly. He opened a store on Main Street. By doing so, he has an unspoken contract to serve the public, regardless of personal prejudices or closely held personal beliefs.

Most gays in the situation with the photographer and the baker in the news recently would have shrugged and moved on, not wishing to have someone serve them who didn't want to, so it is obvious the lawsuits were premeditated. Nonetheless, had the photographer and the baker had the proper signage up and made a general, non-specific excuse to not accept the business, there would have been no lawsuit.

Your answers to my questions #1 and #2 are proof that a change to the law would have exacerbated, not mollified, the situation. I don't care how much we dislike gays or their agenda, we don't ever help matters telling them to their face we won't associate with them because they're gay. Bernard Goldberg, a conservative commentator, and a man of faith, said it better than I can in his blog The On-Going Battle Between Social Conservatives and the Rest of America. Though Bernie makes a couple of errors by believing being gay is not a choice or that the photographer and the baker were not targeted, his overall point is still valid: When so-called Christian values begin to look more like hate and discrimination, it is time to review how exactly they are being expressed.

 

[InTheLight]

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."

So far nobody has answered this question. Not when you've asked it and not the two of three times I've asked it.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

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.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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.

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.

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

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.