Refusing service

[ShagNappy]

I think we as Christians should serve sinners...

... Yes it may be bad for their testimony as Christians, hurt the cause of Christ and on and on, but I still think it should be their right.

This strikes me a bit odd. If you think it is wrong to not serve them, hurts the cause of Christ, causes harm to their testimony, one would most likely call that sin. You are calling for the passing of a law to allow people to sin. Is that not what homosexuals are seeking? A law that allows them to sin? You know it's sin, and are promoting it. They do not believe it is sin and are promoting it. Who is more wrong?

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

This strikes me a bit odd. If you think it is wrong to not serve them, hurts the cause of Christ, causes harm to their testimony, one would most likely call that sin. You are calling for the passing of a law to allow people to sin. Is that not what homosexuals are seeking? A law that allows them to sin? You know it's sin, and are promoting it. They do not believe it is sin and are promoting it. Who is more wrong?

I am not promoting it, I am allowing it and there is a key difference. Our laws allow all kinds of things that I believe to be sin, yet people still have a right to do them under the law.

The solution to sin is not to pass another law, the solution is Christ.

I believe in the freedom of religion and the freedom to exercise that religion, even if I believe that religion to be false. We cannot ensure our own religious liberty without also ensuring the liberty of all religions.

If we seek to force our faith under penalty of law then we are no better than the Muslims seeking to advance theirs through terrorism and war.

 

[Zaac]

I notice that everyone keeps going back to "events" or the issue of Christian vs. gay. In fact, it is the reality of hate expressed by some Christians -- not just the Westboro loonies -- that sets in the mind of the gay person that there is animosity between Christians and gays, even those gays who profess faith in Christ. I'm going to make a statement here many of you aren't going to like, but frankly I don't care whether you do or don't.

Those who are actively engaging in homosexual acts can still profess a valid faith in Christ, just as the adulterer, the addict, the thief, or anyone else in habitual sin can also do. The problem isn't their "false confession." It may not be false at all. The problem is their clinging to sin despite their faith.

There's been a great deal of discussion about the Arizona and Kansas laws that would have established a legal right for the Christian or other person of faith to decline services to someone they do not want to serve due to those closely held matters of faith. Despite my disagreement with the laws, I've never said a person doesn't have that right. My issue with the laws, and with many attitudes found on this board, is the message sent when denying services because of those beliefs.

The fact is, we bring the gay person's expectation of rejection by us upon ourselves. How? By rejecting them! Despite our constant statements that we "love the sinner, but hate the sin," that is not how our attitude is expressed. Just look at the discussion on this thread. We judge them as "being sinners." We accuse them of "having an agenda." We appeal to "conscience." Well, guess what? They are sinners, they do have an agenda,and our conscience is being challenged: Is it centering on selfish resolution of "black and white, wrong vs. right," issues? Is it taking a "my-way-or-the-highway" stance on those issues? Or is it tossing all that self-righteousness aside in favor of reaching outward to a lost world?

Christians encounter a gay person and immediately judge them and their lifestyle without even realizing it, abandoning them to their sin, leaving them hanging because they are in sin, while we mouth platitudes about loving them but hating their sin. Our focus has got to be on a desire to show them that God is love, and that He doesn’t hate them, but rather the sin. The kind of rejection we regularly subject most sinners of all stripes, but particularly gays, does not send a message of love and fellowship. It sends a message of marginalization, discrimination, and denunciation.

Don't you dare go throwing around "it's an abomination" Scripture, because God says that about all sin, not just homosexual sin. Gays are no more separated from heaven than any other sinner, the mere true and sincere confession of Christ being sufficient to overcome even that sin. And gay Christians -- those who have made that confession and fall back into the sin just as addicts, adulterers, etc., do -- are no more an abomination or in danger of "losing their salvation" than you or I are so in danger. We all know, or should, that "losing salvation" is an impossibility, and God doesn't make "special exceptions" for those who fall into homosexual sin.

We can't hide in fear, and we can't hide behind the law, expecting special laws to be written for us. As has been said, the laws in Arizona and Kansas were poorly written, and would have resulted in unintended consequences. We as Christians have an ugly tendency to demand our rights, to expect the world to act like Christ, without ever taking the initiative to show the world Christ in us.

Best post I've read on this board in years. It needs to be pinned to the top and emailed out to SB churches all over America! :applause: :applause: :applause:

 

[Aaron]

This is a loaded question, Brother, that if I say "yes", I'm liberal, and if I say "no", I'm a knuckle-dragging neanderthal...

I don't want us to revert back to the south of the 1950's-1960's with segregated bathrooms, blacks in the back of the bus, "we don't serve 'n*****s' here", &c....and we won't.

I just don't truly know how to answer this other than no one should be treated any less than the next human based on skin color, orientation, religion, &c...

Laws that forcibly segregate are one thing. Laws that force me to sign a contract with another are something else. That is tyranny. So, yes, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 that does more than take racist laws off the book, but forces private groups and individuals to contract with someone with whom they don't want to for any reason is tyranny.

There is another fallacy in this thread, and that is the identity of one based upon his erotic desires. Are the men (or women) going to kiss romantically? Is that good or is that sodomy?

You're saying one should be forced to photograph sodomy?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Best post I've read on this board in years. It needs to be pinned to the top and emailed out to SB churches all over America! :applause: :applause: :applause:

I agree. TND had the proper, God honouring perspective here.

 

[Aaron]

Don't you dare go throwing around "it's an abomination" Scripture, because God says that about all sin, not just homosexual sin.

That is not true. You are either ignorant or lying. Either way, it doesn't speak well of your qualification to judge the matter.

 

[Aaron]

I agree. TND had the proper, God honouring perspective here.

This, is disturbing.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have a question. I am assuming that most are aware of the cases around the US where homosexual couples want a service from a business that is owned by a Christian and the owner refuses to serve them. One was a woman who had a photography service and did weddings and the homosexual couple wanted her to do the photos of their wedding. She refused and they sued and won. She was fined and I think went out of business. Another was a baker and a homosexual couple wanted a cake for their wedding and they refused and sued. There are also others.


My question is should we accommodate these people or are we within our rights and responsibilities as Christians to refuse? Does God expect us to refuse them service in such cases? Scripture reference please.

Would say that we CANNOT service gay persons in the shop/resturant if they came in to get a cake, have dinner, get photoes,but should be able to refie to have my business used for wedding dinner, or to cater their wedding, or do flowers there...

TAHt is real core of Az decion, do we have right to refuse to do business outside the shop for religious reasons/convictions?

 

[ShagNappy]

I am not promoting it,

That's exactly what you are doing... or were doing, until the Arizona law got vetoed...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=92232

You called for people to sign a petition to support the Arizona law being signed by the Governor. If that's not promoting then promoting does not exist. You are promoting legalizing sin if you continuing stating it allows for people to do things against Christ.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

As Reformed (I think) noted, though Jesus met, talked, ate with sinners, healed sinners, He never facilitated their sin.

While selling cookies or cookware (Reformed's retail/transactional) doesn't seem to aid and abet, I could easily understand how a photographerer asked to work a gay wedding could view that participation as facilitating a sinful relationship and a ceremony that could be considered to mock Godly marriage. On the other hand, one might conclude that the sinful physical intimacy was probably active already, and that one's providing that photo service would neither increase nor decrease the immorality.

To add to HAMel's provocative hypotheticals, should an African-American signmaker be forced to create advertising for a Klan rally?

 

[Yeshua1]

As Reformed (I think) noted, though Jesus met, talked, ate with sinners, healed sinners, He never facilitated their sin.

While selling cookies or cookware (Reformed's retail/transactional) doesn't seem to aid and abet, I could easily understand how a photographerer asked to work a gay wedding could view that participation as facilitating a sinful relationship and a ceremony that could be considered to mock Godly marriage. On the other hand, one might conclude that the sinful physical intimacy was probably active already, and that one's providing that photo service would neither increase nor decrease the immorality.

To add to HAMel's provocative hypotheticals, should an African-American signmaker be forced to create advertising for a Klan rally?

can a jewish couple be forced to take pictures at the annual Nazi pride march?

 

[Yeshua1]

Best post I've read on this board in years. It needs to be pinned to the top and emailed out to SB churches all over America! :applause: :applause: :applause:

So God was WRONG to Judge Sodom, and should have showered down on them flowers and manna from heaven?

God is wrong based upon your reasoning on this area, right?

Would you attend a church that accepted and had pastor perform a gay wedding, or if he refused to do that on 'religious grounds", are you saying he should be forced into doing that, as to "show the love of Christ?"

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

That is not true. You are either ignorant or lying. Either way, it doesn't speak well of your qualification to judge the matter.

Actually, it speaks of your misunderstanding of God's love and forgiveness. If you believe God has a special hatred for homosexual acts and practitioners over and above all other sin, they you really don't have an understanding of God's word. We are to love the homosexual sinner just as we love all other sinners and bring them the gospel for the purpose of their salvation. The hero of so many on this board, John MacArthur, says so himself:

Compassionately but firmly speaking the truth to unsaved sinners, whatever their predominant sin might be, is a primary part of what it means to love the lost with a true love. Unless the sinner recognizes his sin, understanding the fact that he is under God’s wrath, he will not see his need for a Savior. And until he sees his need for a Savior, crying out for mercy and trusting in Christ, he can not be saved. Thus, the loving evangelist is called to confront sin—showing sinners what Scripture says about both their current guilt before a holy God and their future condemnation if they do not repent.

The Master's Seminary Journal,
"God's Word on Homsexuality:
The Truth About Sin and The Reality of Forgiveness," p. 156​

Because God calls the sin of homosexuality "an abomination" does not mean He will not forgive that sin. As I said, He calls all sin an abomination. Christians err greatly in applying the word only to homosexual sin.

Best post I've read on this board in years. It needs to be pinned to the top and emailed out to SB churches all over America! :applause: :applause: :applause:

Virtually ever Southern Baptist church I know of holds to a similar view. The ones that need to reconsider where they stand are the IFBs and some other minor denominations of Baptists.

 

[Judith]

But let's get something straight here which I think we're missing:

We are not talking about refusing to serve gay customers. In each of the cases that have been brought to court, the business has served gay customers in the past. In one case, (I can't remember which - I'd have to look it up) the gay couple were regular customers of the business. The issue was the gay wedding that they would not service. It was the event - not the customer.

I looked it up and it was the case with Arlene's Flowers. Matt Walsh has info on each of the cases and you will see that in most of the cases, it was not the customer but the event.

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02...ve-the-right-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/

No disrespect but that is the same kind of political rhetoric we get from our politicians. Baking a cake for a wedding of homosexuals is no different than baking a cake for a straight wedding. You are not part of the wedding or are you supporting the wedding. The same with the photos. How about refusing to work on their vehicle becauase they will use it to drive to the wedding?

I agree it is distasteful, but it has no bearing on the person doing the
service. What we are seeing is a direct disrespect for scripture and sin. We are told not to fight against flesh and blood and to refuse service is doing exactly that. It is the law to serve them and not discriminate. If these business want to discriminate against a homosexual marriage then they need to discriminate against all lost people who marry, not just pick out certain types of sinners they want to refuse service to.

In fact that may be the answer for these people. Only offer your service to professing Christians.

 

[Judith]

So God was WRONG to Judge Sodom, and should have showered down on them flowers and manna from heaven?

God is wrong based upon your reasoning on this area, right?

Would you attend a church that accepted and had pastor perform a gay wedding, or if he refused to do that on 'religious grounds", are you saying he should be forced into doing that, as to "show the love of Christ?"

God pours the rain on the just and the unjust.

 

[Judith]

Would say that we CANNOT service gay persons in the shop/resturant if they came in to get a cake, have dinner, get photoes,but should be able to refie to have my business used for wedding dinner, or to cater their wedding, or do flowers there...

TAHt is real core of Az decion, do we have right to refuse to do business outside the shop for religious reasons/convictions?

So you have no religious conviction inside the shop only outside? :laugh: No wonder the world mocks us.

 

[nodak]

Some of the Christians in these jobs or businesses are solving things one of two ways. Some are clearly advertising they will do the job BUT that they consider gay marriage a sin and no real marriage. If you put that on your card, truck, whatever, it might hurt your business monetarily. Those folks feel admitting they are doing the job only to comply with the law clears their conscience.

Others are choosing simply not to do any weddings, period. It is a huge financial hit, but not discrimination. I'm told in NM even the JP's in two counties have quit doing all weddings on this basis.

My hats are off to the latter group. I wouldn't do a gay wedding--would not shake my fist at Almighty God that way--even if it meant closing up shop.

Let's face it: having photographers and cakes and florists are not necessary to weddings.

But let's face this also: if pastors in a given area, and judges in a given area, simply opt out of doing all weddings so as not to be forced to do a gay wedding, the hetero community which is still the vast majority will step up to the plate to change things.

That may mean allowing folks to opt out of doing what they do not believe in. It may mean losing your job if you won't do the thing. It may mean finding some way to do things without pastors and judges, such as just signing and submitting a piece of paper. Or it could mean the end of government marriage. Who knows?

All I know is that there is actually no way to force a person to do that which they believe is a sin. You can jail them for not doing it, or even kill them for refusing, but folks that don't want to do a given deed CAN absolutely refuse.

That is, if they are willing to stand the price.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you have no religious conviction inside the shop only outside? :laugh: No wonder the world mocks us.

So based upon you logic, a pastor MUST marry a gay couple if they profess jesus as Lord then?

Afterall, he cannot refuse on "religious grounds", as that would make him a homophob right?

 

[Yeshua1]

God pours the rain on the just and the unjust.

He already had judged certain behavious, sins, as being against the natural order of creation, as even worthy of death forthose who attitude is to not only enjoy doing them, but get even more into doing them, but why don't you agrre with Him on this?

 

[Yeshua1]

No disrespect but that is the same kind of political rhetoric we get from our politicians. Baking a cake for a wedding of homosexuals is no different than baking a cake for a straight wedding. You are not part of the wedding or are you supporting the wedding. The same with the photos. How about refusing to work on their vehicle becauase they will use it to drive to the wedding?

I agree it is distasteful, but it has no bearing on the person doing the
service. What we are seeing is a direct disrespect for scripture and sin. We are told not to fight against flesh and blood and to refuse service is doing exactly that. It is the law to serve them and not discriminate. If these business want to discriminate against a homosexual marriage then they need to discriminate against all lost people who marry, not just pick out certain types of sinners they want to refuse service to.

In fact that may be the answer for these people. Only offer your service to professing Christians.

Jesus would have met the gay people anywhere, he would have told them that God loved them, but he also would have told them 'go, and sin no more in this area", and NO WAY would he have done a gay wedding in the temple!