This is an obvious fallacious argument. If a right to discriminate against particular classes in the market place, based on religious belief were guaranteed by the first amendment, there would be no need for the various state legislatures to propose such repugnant legislation.
There is a need for legislation because religious liberty under the First Amendment is diminished more and more in our society, even to the point where the government tries to compel people to go against their religious beliefs under the threat of suit.
I didn't say he condoned the sin. Please reread my post. Christ did not turn his back on sinners. One can not possibly draw an inference from the New Testament that Christ would not deal publicly, commercially or personally with sinners.
When he said that the greatest commandment was to love thy neighbor as thy self, there was no qualification. There is no way around it that the proposed Arizona bill emphatically rejects this teaching. apparently, somewhere down the road the greatest commandment became "Persecute the gays!"
Nobody is "persecuting" gays. This legislation came about because of cases in other states where gays (instead of simply going to another business) sued business owners who didn't want to provide services for gay weddings.
Like many other posters here, you're of the spiritually immature type who pits love against obedience. Christ would have us love all people, including gays, for we're all sinners and beggars at the mercy seat. But there's a difference between loving gays having anything to do with an abomination such as gay marriage. Much like 123JoeSchmoe, you're about letting anything fly in the name of "love." And you misinterpret the scriptures in order to do so.
You say I'm spiritually immature, but YOU are the one, who feels the point of the gospel account of Jesus warning, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" is to chastise the suspected adultress not to sin again.
The first amendment is not an absolute right and never was designed to justify discrimination in public commerce.
One has to be a fool to believe that the legislation seeks to protect religious beliefs. It is aimed at trying to appease any bigot who has a personal problem with gays. It was refreshing, but expected, that so many businesses saw through this facade to condemn it.
And if there are photographers, florists, etc., who have such a problem dealing commercially with gays that they refuse service, they better pick another line of work. Those businesses need public mercantile licenses, and if you are to conduct business in public and seek pecuniary awards, you don't make up your own rules.
