I opened today’s Lansing State Journal to an article about how Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has until midnight Saturday to veto an “anti-gay” bill that allows businesses to deny services to gay and lesbian couples because of the business’s religious views. Big Republican names such as John McCain and Mitt Romney are on Twitter telling her she should veto the bill. As I read the article, my mind pictured a restaurant owned by Christian business owners with signs reading “No Gays Allowed”, or something horrific and ugly like that. I wondered how a law that horrible got passed in the first place. I’ve been pretty clear in previous blog posts that just because a Christian believes, according to the Bible, that homosexual actions are sinful, it doesn’t mean they should treat gays and lesbians any differently (e.g. on Boy Scouts policy, on gay marriage / civil unions). We Christians should treat them the same as we would heterosexuals who are having sex outside of marriage (which is almost every non-Christian we know), something Christians also consider a sin. We aren’t to hold people who aren’t Christians and don’t believe the Bible to the same standard that we hold Bible-believing Christians, Paul himself tells us this in 1 Corinthians 5:12. Logically it doesn’t even make sense to hold someone to the standards of a holy book they don’t first personally and on their own free will sign on to. It is illogical to attempt to hold me to the standards of the Quran, as I haven’t signed on in agreement to that as God’s Word for my life. But it makes perfect sense to hold a Muslim to the standards of the Quran. So don’t attempt to hold a non-Christian to the standards of the Bible, whether they be Muslim, atheist, gay or lesbian. And don’t judge or stigmatize them when they don’t.
To be consistent (which is the key concept missing in all of these debates), if a law is passed saying I can withhold my business services to gay and lesbians, I also need a law passed saying I can withhold my services from those having sex outside of marriage, those who’ve been divorced, and those who get drunk. These are three sins that Christians who get up in arms about GLBT issues in the public square need to honestly compare their reactions to, because these are extremely similar to the homosexual commands in the Bible. All four of these are premeditated things that you are willingly and consciously doing, without making effort to refrain from, and all four of them are widely accepted by our culture. We treat those who get drunk, divorcees and fornicators (how ’bout that for a KJV word ‘atcha!) without stigma, yet those in the GLBT community with extreme stigma–which is inconsistent and wrong.
As I was reading up on Bill SB1062 today, I discovered this interesting bit of information; information that hasn’t been in most of the articles I had read up to this point: (quoted from thenewcivilrightsmovement.com )
The Elaine Photography case involved a lesbian couple who sued the photographer for refusing to take photos of their commitment ceremony. The New Mexico Supreme Court unanimously decided in the couple’s favor, based on a violation of the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Remember, New Mexico didn’t even have same-sex marriage at the time.
This is where this whole ordeal began. What I find ironic is that same-sex marriages weren’t even legal in New Mexico at the time of this case! Consider the implications of that. If you are a photographer, you are now legally forced to go to any and all social gatherings against your will.
Yikes.
I have plenty of friends who run small photography businesses, most of them who are Christians. It’s one thing to deny a gay or lesbian service at a restaurant, as I described above. But isn’t legally forcing a photographer to photograph a lesbian marriage the same as forcing them into a political viewpoint, let alone the argument that can be made that their religious freedom is being taken away by being forced into this? Let alone forcing someone to participate and witness something they hold to be immoral?
If I own a photography business and I have a personal or religious view that polygamous marriages are wrong, should I be legally forced to go to a polygamous wedding and shoot photos of the groom and brides?
It’s actually kind of scary to think about the amount of power our legal system will have over us and the amount of freedoms we as individuals won’t have as this line of thought continues.
If a lesbian couple, or a polygamous family, were to come into my Christian-owned restaurant, I had better serve them good food and treat them extra friendly. I had better show them the love and grace of Jesus, just as I would a non-married couple who is living together, or a couple who has been divorced and remarried.
But this is different than having to bless and agree with their actions as a Christian. Having to attend the act itself and put my name behind it. If a frat party wanted to hire me as a photographer for their drunken, make-out (and more) filled party, would I be forced by law to oblige? Would I be forced by law to photograph a porn shoot? It seems I would! If we are being consistent that is…
Or if that example seems too far-fetched, a swimsuit modeling shoot would also make an appropriate comparison. If I were a public photography business, there’s no way I would accept a job doing a swimsuit modeling shoot. It would in no way discriminate against the person in the swimsuit photo. That person could walk into my restaurant, my church, or my house with no problem whatsoever. What I’d be discriminating against as a photographer is the practice, which is something businesses do every day based on religious, political, moral, financial, and networking values.
The practice, not the person.
The verb, not the noun.
This is the differentiation that separates the GLBT community from Christians (at least from Christians like myself who take an accurate biblical view that homosexual attraction is not a sin, but only the behavior is–there are certainly other Christians out there who take an unbiblical view on this subject, calling the attraction itself a sin.). I don’t expect this blog article to bridge the gap between Christians like myself and the GLBT community, though it’s an essential cog to this conversation. And the growing group of 100% homosexual, 100% celibate, 100% Bible-believing Christians is going to be a very influential voice going forward because they break the old-school-Christian’s and the GLBT’s paradigm of this being a black and white debate with no complexity, no middle ground and no grey area.
Our culture has equated GLBT rights with African-American rights of the Civil Rights Movement, something many blacks are offended by, but something that has gone over very successfully. You are screwed if you do or say anything that tries to get people to see this is a complex issue. We don’t like to pause and look at all angles. We don’t like to pause at all. We just like to yell. We load up our verbal and textual AK-47’s and as soon as we hear any of the hot button trigger words we are hyper-sensitized to, we blast away. The noise of our own gun deafening out any opportunity for constructive, loving, helpful conversation. And this gun certainly fires both ways. Something scary and unconstitutional happens to a Christian photographer in New Mexico and now Arizona reacts by putting in a scary and unconstitutional bill as a response.
Pause.
Breathe.
Think.
Love.
Be gentle.
Be consistent.
See both sides.
Yes, I’m talking to you Christians.
And I’m talking to you in the GLBT community.
Let’s get rid of the pendulum of act and react.
Let’s get rid of all too easy marketing strategies of putting this conversation on the shoulders of the African American Civil Rights Movement, when they are apples and oranges.
Let’s just have a conversation about the oranges, which is important enough to stand on its own and important enough to need as much clarity toward its uniqueness and complexity as possible.
Let’s learn from how we already treat people who aren’t Christians. (With love and non-judgmentalism, not a stigma)
And let’s hopefully (though I know it’s highly unlikely) move forward with gentleness, respect, dignity, and love.
Ok it’s AK-47 time: (brace yourself for light-hearted sarcastic humor here…) Christians you can all go ahead and call me an unbiblical liberal now, maybe threaten hell if you really want to make some noise. And GLBT’s you can all call me a hateful bigot now. But since this article talks a lot about being consistent, all non-Christians who get drunk, are having sex outside of marriage and all those who’ve been divorced, please call me a hateful bigot as well.
Grace and peace.
Related posts:
He is:
Author of Beyond the Battle: A man's guide to his identity in Christ in an oversexualized world
Host of the The Flip Side Podcast
Join an online men's small group led by Noah and team at BeyondTheBattle.net
So…is the suggested course to modify the bill to accomplish the intended purpose without resorting to a scatter gun approach?
Way to not take a position either way. They are not apples and oranges. They are the same thing; being discriminated against for how you are born. If it is your decision to provide a service for sale to the public, then it is your decision to not discriminate. If your morals prevent you from doing that, then you have to find another way to earn a living. You can choose what line of work to be in. The LGBT community cannot choose who to be.
Hi Xenrae, thank you for your contribution. I do wish we could talk more civilly. I feel like if I we were having a conversation in a coffee shop or a bar you likely wouldn’t start the conversation off with, “Way to not take a position either way.” Unfortunately that is often the way of the Internet, especially on hot button issues as this one. I hope that can change.
I’ll try to be helpful in replying to the different points you made. I did take a very clear position: “Something scary and unconstitutional happens to a Christian photographer
in New Mexico and now Arizona reacts by putting in a scary and
unconstitutional bill as a response.”
Both of these things are scary.
It’s one of the main points I’m trying to make. We all need to pause and realize this doesn’t need to be act and react; there is grey area, a lot of it actually. My stance is that both of those laws are wrong. You seem to think only the Arizona one is wrong, and I’m sure there are many Christians who think only the New Mexico lawsuit is wrong. They are both wrong! They are both wrong as to the power and control the government can have over a supposedly “free” nation.
The point I was trying to make about the apples and oranges is that factually the LGBT story and the African American story are two different conversations with two different histories. Both involve injustice, both involve mistreatment, but they are very different histories, and to say they are 100% exactly the same (apples to apples) disrespects and diminishes what both sides have had to uniquely endure. I reflect on these differences more here: http://www.atacrossroads.net/5-reasons-gay-is-not-the-new-black/
Outside of the historical and factual differences, there are many very unique and very key facets to the LGBT story that are only unique to it, that get lost in the conversation when it’s said it’s exactly like the African American story. One of those factors is that yes, many homosexuals are born that way. I agree with you (many Christians wouldn’t). Though it’s also key to point out that not everyone who engages in homosexual acts was born that way. Some aren’t that way at all, they are just messing around, whereas many are somewhere along the spectrum from having no control over what gender they are attracted to having full control (And I think the majority don’t have control, just as an fyi).
A 2nd major unique factor is the question of how much of the act of sex makes up a person’s identity? The main objection the GLBT community has to Christians distinguishing between the noun and the verb of homosexuality is that to the GLBT community, they are one in the same. If I say the verb is wrong or bad, you automatically hear me saying the noun is wrong or bad. But a big point of conversation should be homosexuals who are born homosexual, who aren’t having sex and who are choosing to remain single. This is a major unique factor to this conversation. Does a homosexual lose all identity if they are single? Does a heterosexual lose all identity if they are single? I think we’d both agree the answer is no.
Another really big ingredient in this conversation is the Bible, and the Bible’s place in American history. I’m not saying you need to agree with me on the Bible, I’m really not arguing that point here, I’m simply pointing out that it’s a very entrenched, very significant influence that shapes this conversation. I believe that Christians can have their Bible and homosexuals can have full human rights at the same time, but I don’t think the two sides will stop shouting long enough for that point to come across.
I entitled the article “The two sides…” because I think it’s very very healthy to see the side of the opponent in an argument. It creates a more loving and gentle conversation, rather than simple grenade launching. We’ve been conditioned by our political system to interact via grenades, but I’m attempting to elevate the conversation here. I think it would be helpful for you Xenrae to try to see the side of a Christian who believes the Bible as the source of where they find out who God is where grace and salvation come from, and in the Bible it says homosexual acts are wrong (along with a slew of other things), and so they receive this teaching so as to be able to receive the entire book with consistency. This Christian isn’t trying to get you to believe this, and they aren’t judging you for your lifestyle (because you don’t agree upfront to holding to the Bible the way they do), and they aren’t trying to deprive you of rights.
And in the same way, Christians need to see the viewpoint of someone who was born as a homosexual and what that would be like and the difficulties you’d have to go through.
You’ve got a lot of troublesome content in this post too, but this seems to be the core of it:
The problem you have here is the implication that the two sides in this argument are equivalent to one another. That Gay vs. Anti-gay is simply a matter of reasoned opinion and that one could come down on either side based on…whatever.
That’s emphatically not true. There are two sides to the anti-gay argument: the first is that being gay is somehow wrong, and thus gay people should be legally prevented from accessing some subset of societal services based on their sexual orientation. The second is the much softer “being gay is a sin, but we shouldn’t stop them from doing anything” argument. Both of these arguments are wrong: the first because it’s discrimination, and on its face discrimination is wrong, the second because it’s irrelevant. Nobody cares what you or I or anyone else thinks is a sin so long as we don’t try to impose those definitions of sin on other people.
There’s no equivalent on the gay side of the argument: the whole of the pro-gay argument is “stop taking away our legal access to public services and start treating us like normal people”. This should be the Christian response to public sentiment toward gay people as well: Christ spent all his time ministering to sinners, speaking to the oppressed minority (and no, Christians are not an oppressed minority in the United States); providing comfort to the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.
But that’s not the Christian response. And your post here only perpetuates that problem. Instead of standing up and saying “Do what Christ would do”, you instead say “See both sides of the argument” while one side of the argument, the side that actually takes their name from Jesus himself, does the literal exact opposite of what he did and taught.
There are not two sides to this argument, there is one side: Do justice and love kindness. That’s the core of the pro-gay argument, and it should be the core of the Christian argument too, but isn’t. The problem here isn’t not seeing two sides of the argument, it’s Christians not reading the words of the Bible they claim to cling to so strongly. You can’t have a distinction between the “Bible and full human rights for gay people” — the Bible supports full human rights for gay people in the same way that it supports non-discrimination for black people and the abolition of slavery and equal treatment of women. These are not controversial positions now, but decades or generations ago were and the same arguments were used by “Bible believing Christians” then as are being used now to bully gay people. That’s the current problem. It’s not lobbing grenades. It’s the belief that there’s a war on in the first place.
Eric, I agree with a lot of what you have posted but I think more people would pay attention to what you are saying if you weren’t so condescending. Maybe you do not care about educating others and are only posting for self gratification but hopefully not, because you have provided valuable insight on the subject at hand.
Hi Eric, I agree with Steve, your tone is difficult to have a conversation with and learn from and I think your points would be better heard by me and many others if you could couch them in more gentle and less accusation tones. I’d like to clarify a few things you said:
“The second is the much softer “being gay is a sin, but we shouldn’t stop
them from doing anything” argument. Both of these arguments are wrong”
I never said being gay is a sin. Here’s what I wrote:
“The practice, not the person.
The verb, not the noun.
This is the differentiation that separates the GLBT
community from sensible-thinking and biblically-accurate Christians
(different from Christians who say the noun and verb of homosexuality
are the same thing). I don’t expect this blog article to bridge that
gap, though it’s an essential cog to this conversation. And the growing
group of 100% homosexual, 100% celibate, 100% Bible-believing
Christians is going to be a very influential voice going forward because
they break the old-school-Christian’s and the GLBT’s paradigm of this
being a black and white debate with no complexity, no middle ground and
no grey area.”
Being gay is not a sin. The Bible never says this. I have several gay friends who are intentionally not living in the sin of same-gender sex. I’m not expecting you to agree with me on this point, but please quote me accurately as there is a major distinction between saying being gay is a sin and the actual act of gay sex being a sin, which is what the Bible talks about, not being gay itself.
Another point I’d like to clarify: you get upset that I mention gay marriage wasn’t a law in New Mexico at the time of the Elaine Photography lawsuit. I was quoting this information directly from thenewcivilrightsmovement.com, a very pro-gay movement website, so please take that point up with them, not with me.
You said: ” the whole of the pro-gay argument is “stop taking away our legal access
to public services and start treating us like normal people”. This should be the Christian response to public sentiment toward gay people as well”
Sadly, this is exactly what I’m trying to communicate, but you weren’t able to hear that due to this being such a hot button issue for you and so many others. The guns come out, accusations start, and we can’t move forward, realizing we have a lot more in common than we think.
I didn’t get upset that you mentioned that, I simply pointed out that it was irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not gay marriage was legal in NM at the time, discrimination based on sexual orientation was.
Respectfully, the reason I didn’t hear that part of your post is because I was too caught up in the litany of factual inaccuracies that you’d included in your post. Gay rights isn’t all that hot button a topic for me (mistreating other humans is, but that’s not a gay rights thing it’s a mistreating other humans thing), but grossly misunderstanding the world and legal system we live in and then misrepresenting it in text is something that I’m a lot more emphatic about.
As for my tone: I’m genuinely open to feedback. Can you show me specific instances where you felt like my tone was inappropriate? Can you provide suggestions as to how I could have said the same thing in a way that you would have accepted?
It seems we may be reacting to reactions instead of going back to the source…: http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/372024/religious-liberty-scholars-counter-egregious-distortions-arizona-bill-ed-whelan
Good point on the distinction between verb and nown. Race is a noun. Genetic predisposition toward same sex attraction may be at least partially genetic, and therefore a noun. Acting out on those attractions is a verb.
Noah, As always your ideas are well thought out. Thank you for honestly tackling difficult issues.
Noah, it seems that you’ve failed to do a significant amount of research. This isn’t surprising, but it’s a bit ironic, considering the text of your post encouraging people to breathe, think and make sure they know what they’re doing before they fly off the handle.
That’s irrelevant. New Mexico had a statute which made it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their sexuality. Telling someone “I will photograph your marriage, but not if it’s a gay marriage” falls afoul of that statute because you are discriminating against the person based on their sexuality. For obvious reasons.
This is hyperbolic poppycock. You would be more accurate to say “If you run a public business, you may not refuse service to any person based on protected classes as defined by your state laws”.
No. When you hire a photographer, you are hiring them within a business context. When one opens a business, one agrees to abide by all of the binding rules of the state in which that business resides. There are many states (Arizona among them) where it is still legal to refuse service based on sexuality. If you’re a photographer in Arizona, there’s nothing stopping you from saying “No” to photographing a gay marriage.
Of course not. Religious exemptions to non-discrimination statutes are exceptionally troublesome as you point out at the beginning of your post.
You are not being forced to do anything. If a photographer doesn’t wish to photograph certain protected classes zie may choose to close their business, just as if they didn’t feel they could comply with tax laws or public safety laws or any other laws regulating commerce within their state. No person has an inalienable right to run a business.
Only if you operate a public business and polygamous marriage is a protected class in your state.
You know why people equate the gay rights movement with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s? Because this argument was the same argument used against the non-discrimination statutes being passed to stop discrimination against black people by public businesses. When you’re making the same arguments against the same laws based on the same principles (religious freedom and the Bible), people are naturally going to draw comparisons to the people you sound exactly like (Southern segregationists).
You’d be free to deny them service assuming that sexuality was not a protected class in your state. You’d be stupid to do so, considering that they are a customer and the purpose of public businesses, but you would be fully within the law to deny them service. I also fail to see the moral distinction between serving food to a same sex family at some arbitrary point after their wedding and taking pictures of that same sex family during their wedding. This is an idea that you seem to take for granted but do an incredibly poor job actually supporting.
No one is forcing the photographer to bless or agree with the actions of the couple in question. Simply to provide the services that zie has agreed to provide to the public (photography) for the agreed-upon fee. Taking pictures of someone is a morally neutral act.
Not unless “frat boy”, “drunken college student”, or “making out college student” were protected classes within your state laws.
That’s not a problem. Now, gender is a protected class in basically every state that I know of, so it would be a problem if you were to agree to do male swimsuit photo shoots and refuse to do female swimsuit photo shoots, and a case could be brought against you for gender discrimination. If “people wearing swimsuits” were a protected class in your state, you would not be allowed to refuse the swimsuit photo shoot business if you were operating a public business.
You’ve done some serious mental gymnastics here, and the short answer is: you’re being ridiculous. You’re discriminating against someone (by denying them a public service) based off of something they do. You may not be discriminating against that person in every facet of their life, but you are discriminating against them nonetheless. Regardless of whether it’s one of their actions you disagree with or something about them (Race and Religion are both protected classes in nearly every state), it’s still discrimination.
There is no differentiation between LGBT people and sensible-thinking and biblically-accurate Christians. Some of the most wonderful Christian people I know are gay and lesbian, and they are filled to the brim with love for the Bible and Christ.
There’s no gap here except for the one you’re creating. We don’t need to bridge the gap. We need to stop insisting there’s a gap.
There’s a lot of other stuff that you’ve got serious issues with in your post here, but I’ve already written enough. I would encourage you to take a look at this post after doing some digging on what the case law surrounding non-discrimination actually looks like instead of what you just imagine it to look like, and reevaluate whether your responses here are logical, intelligent or useful. I suspect that a bit of self-reflection will show you that you’re a long way from the truth you imagine yourself to be standing up for.
Eric, I love debates, the problem with them is they tend to get personal and it clouds the ability to think clearly.
I don’t have time to hash out the whole thing right now, maybe later tonight. But basically what the author is arguing is that denial of service is OK in certain instances. You seem to argue it is ok, except when a “class” is protected under law. For example your statement
“That’s not a problem. Now, gender is a protected class in basically every state that I know of, so it would be a problem if you were to agree to do male swimsuit photo shoots and refuse to do female swimsuit photo shoots, and a case could be brought against you for gender discrimination. If “people wearing swimsuits” were a protected class in your state, you would not be allowed to refuse the swimsuit photo shoot business if you were operating a public business.”
So what you are saying is that because swimsuit modeling is not a “protected class”, you can choose not to do those events. Let’s assume a homosexual is a protected class in every state. (Let’s also be clear, I am NOT saying individuals who are homosexual should be discriminated against). However the ceremony itself may be something you do not want to be involved in, and to say a photographer is not involved in the wedding is like saying the photographer would not be involved in the swimsuit modeling shoot, they are involved.
So you are saying that one may choose not to do a swimsuit shoot, but one must do a homosexual wedding because of the people involved are a protected class. The people involved in the swimsuit shoot are also a protected class per your statements.
Now I am going to speculate based on your arguments that since one might already do heterosexual marriages, one must do homosexual marriages. However, it’s not because of the people involved in the homosexual marriage, it’s the act, the ceremony that one opposes and one does not want to be part of. There is a distinction to be made there and I believe you are missing it.
A photographer can refuse to do weddings. That’s not a case of discrimination at all, it doesn’t matter what your reasoning is — lots of photographers don’t do weddings.
However, if you provide wedding services and sexual orientation is a protected class in your state, you must provide wedding services to both straight and gay couples. It doesn’t matter that it’s not the people you object to, it’s the action, it’s the people you’re refusing to provide service to. If you do heterosexual wedding services but not homosexual wedding services, you’re refusing to offer a service from your business based on the sexual orientations of the people involved. The “I’m objecting to the verb, not the noun” is a not-particularly-clever attempt to repackage “Hate the sin, not the sinner!” in a way that provides cover for discriminatory business practices. It’s a sophomoric attempt at logic that would fly for about a tenth of a second in a real-world courtroom. In fact, I’m fairly sure it was one of the defenses tried in the actual New Mexico case that was referenced, and it was obviously wholly unsuccessful there.
So, I mean, you can tell yourself that you’re hating the verb not the noun as much as helps you sleep at night, but at the end of the day, it’s the noun you’re saying isn’t welcome at your business, and it’s the noun who’s going to go home devastated that someone showed them hate and anger in the name of God.
I think we may have to agree to disagree here. And to quote a courtroom case and not act like judges do not include their own bias into the decisions is “sophomoric” logic, read any high profile supreme court ruling. It seems you like law and using current laws to justify your arguments. Laws are changed daily.
Here’s a quote from an article New Mexico case:
Begin Quote*******
The court rejected each of photographer’s Elaine Huguenin’s arguments, particularly one in which Huguenin had argued that her refusal did not discriminate against same-sex customers. Huguenin had argued that she would happily photograph gay customers, but not in a context that seemed to endorse same-sex marriage. Likewise, she said, she wouldn’t shoot heterosexuals in a context that endorsed same-sex marriage.
The court rejected any legal differentiation between homosexuality and homosexual conduct.
“The difficulty in distinguishing between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation discrimination is that people may base their judgment about an individual’s sexual orientation on the individual’s conduct,” wrote Justice Edward Chávez. “To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA.”
******END QUOTE
And in case you were wondering, Justice Edward Chavez was appointed by Governor Bill Richardson who was a liberal and associated himself with the Democratic party. Had a conservative appointed judge been ruling, it could have gone another way.
I think anyone who reads those statements, with any sense of reason anyway, would realize there is a gray area here. Let’s say two straight men wanted to have a wedding and get married for tax and legal purposes, and don’t say it would never happen, because I guarantee it would, why not if you never plan to get married, or never plan to get married again depending on the situation. And they want to have a ceremony just to have a party, am I obligated to be a part of that if they want me to be their photographer? I would suppose you would say it’s black and white, but it’s also black an white to others that there is a difference between the action and the people involved.
If a Muslim photographer refused to photograph my wedding for whatever reason, I would find a new one just because I would know he does not want to be part of it and I could still be friends with him too. I suppose other people may not understand or respect that it’s not me he doesn’t like, it’s the Christian wedding, but I would understand.
In the end my point is this, you seem to think your way of thinking is the only way, and tend to attempt to degrade others by calling their logic “sophomoric” or calling their logic “hyperbolic poppycock”. I don’t, and never will hate a homosexual, everyone is a sinner, and I don’t hate everyone.
But go beyond the law and touching on your last paragraph, your just being ridiculous. I love liars, including my 5 year old, but I don’t like it when they lie nor would I support any lie told. I love Muslims, but I do not want to be a part of their practices. Jesus loved and took in any sinner, just as we all should, however he never partook in any of their sin, he never stole or had sex outside of marriage. He loved the sinner, but hated the sin, just the same as we all should. To act like there should be no differentiation is crazy to say the least. Again, I don’t hate anyone who is homosexual, never will, never have. I will not be a part of their ceremonies, not because I hate them, but because I don’t agree with what they are doing.
The court document that you literally quoted in the post you made discredits your point. You’re saying “This is what the court said, but I believe they’re wrong, because I don’t want to agree with them.” That’s not a convincing argument.
If a Muslim photographer were running a public business and photographed Muslim weddings but not your Christian wedding, that Muslim photographer would be in violation of non-discrimination laws in every state in the US. Your feelings on the topic are irrelevant to the legal requirement to serve people regardless of their religious beliefs.
I’m explaining the legal realities that you seem to be so eager to ignore. That’s not a way of thinking, it’s relevant case law. If you object to the argument that relevant case law is in fact relevant, then I suppose you could argue that’s a “Way of thinking” but I’m not sure you’re going to get very far.
I’m not degrading anyone by calling their logic sophomoric or hyperbolic poppycock. I’m denouncing their logic, which is both sophomoric and hyperbolic poppycock. It is especially ironic that you’re failing to understand this as you continue to advocate for a mentality which separates people from their actions. It’s not you I have a problem with, it’s your terrible logic that you’re using to justify discrimination against gay folks.
Sure. Except you’re arguing that we shouldn’t have to do any of that icky taking in the sinner part.
Jesus did several things which were considered sins within ancient mosaic law including healing the sick on the Sabbath and eating with people who hadn’t committed the appropriate cleansing rituals. Jesus directly and significantly challenged the concept of sin within the context of His culture at the time. If you want to segregate yourselves from gay people (or just gay marriages, whatever), feel free, have fun. But don’t pretend that the Jesus I know and love and read about in the Bible is going to be cheering you on. Jesus wouldn’t just be at that gay marriage ceremony, he’d be bringing the wine.
Your an interesting person Eric. I am not sure how case law discredits my post. It was merely showing how the opinion of a judge can be different from judge to judge. The case could have gone either way. Yes I disagree and I stated why and gave examples.
I may be missing how you think, but are you arguing for the judge because the case went in the way you support, or would you argue the validity of the law no matter how the case was decided? Sometimes with your posts you seems to say, “it’s the law, so start thinking that way”.
You see, I am arguing the invalidity of the law, saying it was not ruled correctly. The reason for the quote was to show that even the judge make the distinction between action and people, but says they are too close to separate in this case…in his opinion.
Oh boy. I feel like I’m talking to a wall. Let’s take this step by step again.
No, it couldn’t. Not by any reasonable reading of the law. You’re extremely confused about the legal opinion you’re reading.
And I’m arguing that your arguments are unconvincing because you fundamentally don’t understand the law you’re arguing against.
This is what I’m talking about. The judge didn’t say that. The defendant argued that there was a distinction between the action and the person, and the judge said that argument was utterly invalid. Said judge rendered that ruling because the same exact arguments were used to deny services to mixed-race couples attempting to get married half a century ago and the argument was equally invalid then. That you don’t understand even the most basic legal precedent here is why your arguments that the law isn’t valid are so unconvincing.
In the litany of terrible Christian moral arguments, this is by far the most terrible. “I guess we can never know what right and wrong truly is until the end of time?” Seriously?
Wat.
Sigh. Repeat it with me: consenting adults getting married does not harm anyone. Stealing someone’s wallet causes harm. This is not hard. But hey, I guess we can be thankful that you didn’t bring up bestiality, incest or child abuse. We’re making progress, I guess. Now gay marriage is just stealing someone else’s wallet (except of course, it’s nothing like that).
Remember Micah 6:8 — Do justice, love kindness. Gay people getting married is neither unjust nor unkind, so I can reasonably conclude that God doesn’t care.
“That which you have done to the least of these, so too have you done to me.” That’s Jesus. Here’s the thing: every situation — every one — has a “least of these”. In the situation where the photographer won’t work the gay wedding, the “least of these” in that situation is the gay couple, because they don’t have any power. In your stealing a wallet example, it’s the person having their wallet stolen. Our task, what Jesus called us to do as Christians, is to seek out “the least of these” and treat them with kindness and bring them justice. That’s the whole Gospel. It’s the whole Bible.
In Jesus’s time, there was an actual unjust law that non-Romans had to abide by. Any Roman soldier, at any time, could come up to a non-Roman citizen and demand that said person carry his pack and gear for one mile, but only one mile. This was incredibly oppressive, but Jesus took one look at that law, and told his followers not to go just that one mile, but to go a whole extra mile. There isn’t an equivalence here; the Roman soldiers weren’t paying the people carrying their packs and none of them had a “pack carrying” business, but those words are still applicable to the people feeling like they’re being stepped on by taking pictures of a same sex marriage. Jesus would tell those people, specifically, to go the extra mile. To do a great job. Which is why I can be confident that even if Jesus thinks gay weddings are the worst thing in the world, He would still be bringing the wine. Because he knows that love doesn’t show when you’re not there.
Eric said, “Remember Micah 6:8 — Do justice, love kindness. Gay people getting married is neither unjust nor unkind, so I can reasonably conclude that God doesn’t care.” and “consenting [homosexual] adults getting married does not harm anyone.”
Respectfully, I must sharply disagree that homosexual marriage is neither unjust or unkind. It is an injustice to society as it is part of a sexual practice which the Bible plainly says is wrong (I trust I don’t need to enumerate the verses against the homosexual act here). It is unkind because it helps perpetuate the tragically mistaken notion that the homosexual act is okay and not a soul-damning sin. And that is just the spiritual side of the harm. Then there is the hard-nails reality that practicing homosexuals (at least the male side) tend to be promiscuous. The homosexual community, along with every fornicating and adulterous heterosexual, are recklessly perpetrating the global AIDS epidemic, killing millions annually.
Sexual immorality is not harmless. It is a grievous injustice against innocent lives. How many children have grown up under broken homes and with AIDS because of sexual immorality? Is that kind?
Perhaps someone reading this would take exception with my lumping in monogamous practicing homosexuals and lesbians with the rest of those who practice sexual immorality. Well certainly those two groups cause less immediate damage. They are advocating sexual immorality none-the-less and are therefore part of the problem.
So what is the solution to the problem? What are we to do with sexually immoral people?
Before I attempt to answer that, I took note of Eric’s comment, “Jesus would tell those people [wedding photographers], specifically, to go the extra mile.” An interesting thought which I almost agreed with. Except that I’m not sure the analogy holds true. The conscripted Jew could not quit his business to avoid bearing the Roman Soldier’s burden. In the US, for now, we can quit jobs or close businesses if the law requires us to do business in a way that violates our consciences. Perhaps if the Romans had been picking on pack carriers, Jesus would have said, “Better to quit your business than be a part of their injustice.” Of course, I am only guessing.
What did Jesus do with the sexually immoral? And what did the Apostles say about sexually immoral?
Sigh. The more and more I think about it, the more I realize that I’ve been doing something which I am beginning to suspect Jesus may not have wanted: for me to treat the unbelieving sinner any differently than the next unbelieving sinner. I’m still not sure one way or the other. His most harsh criticism was for the teachers of the law and the money-changers at the temple: those who should have known better.
Perhaps I am missing something here, but I am not sure how this statement from Eric could be correct: “Jesus did several things which were considered sins within ancient mosaic law”. Considered sins by whom or what? Certainly he did nothing wrong under the mosaic law or else he was not the perfect sacrifice to fulfill it. If he did anything contrary to the letter of the law, it was in justified fulfillment of another regulation which had to take precedence.
Well said, Jeff. Good examples of grey area as well. I think if both sides realized this entire conversation has a lot of grey area to it, that there is a lot of room for discussion outside of the extreme Christian view and the extreme LGBT side of things, that this conversation would be much more civil and much more productive. There are more than 2 sides to have, but those who are on those two “traditional” sides don’t seem to be able to see that.
I’m sorry you feel this way Eric. You would be hard pressed to find any homosexual I have ever interacted with that has felt anger or hatred from me. It hurts me that you’d accuse me of this, but I understand you are upset and so are saying very emotionally-laden things like this.
Based on the post you made and then the comments you’ve followed it up with, I honestly have no idea what your personal stance on the topic is any more, but insofar as your “Verb not noun” invective serves as cover for further discrimination against gay people, you continue to be complicit in that evil, in my mind.