^I said it was a tough issue, not that it was right. It depends on the intent. Are these Klan members using a Jewish business without malice? Are they publicly outing themselves as Klan members to these people? There are a lot of variables. Fact is you and I both know KKK and Neo-Nazi's are despicable. Would they even use a business owned by blacks or Jews? That's what I want to know before I answer that question.
Of course those groups would only seek the services of Jewish or black businesses because of some malicious intent. But that's the very reason the gays in these cases brought about the lawsuits in the first place! Instead of respecting the religious beliefs of the Christian business owners and simply going somewhere else, they were determined to
force those owners to bend to their will and stick it to them in the process. There's really no difference here. You simply have sympathy for one scenario but not the other. And that undercuts the objectivity of your entire argument.
There is also nothing in the constitution that suggests you can deny someone service based on religious beliefs. Where is that guaranteed? Show me that.
Any honest person, who actually respects freedom of religion found in the first amendment, is going to recognize that people shouldn't be forced by the government to do something against their religion. That right is
far more fundamental, and deserving of protection, than any gay person's so called "civil rights."
What I don't think you understand Ivy is that gays have been at the bottom of the pool for a long time, ever since Christianity became mainstream throughout the Western world. Put yourself in their shoes, you have two gay brothers for crying out loud. Up until recently people didn't understand them or considered them disgusting and sub-human. All because of a different preference in sexuality. Who can blame them for wanting the same status as heterosexual couples?
Yes, I do have two gay brothers. But they're not pulling the stunts the gays in question are. You'll also notice that the church I belong to "does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."
We and most other Christians don't hate gays and are not out to get them fired from their jobs, kicked out of their homes, or keep them from visiting loved ones in the hospital. But it crosses the line when they try to force religious people, via the courts, to recognize their so called "marriages," much less actually
take part in them somehow. How can you not see that the push for gay rights has gone completely overboard in this?
I respect people's right to worship however they want. But I don't respect it when it discriminates or hurts other people, hence arrogant Jews, radical Islamists, or Christians who use the name of the Lord to denounce or treat other people as second class citizens. That's what the bill in Arizona propagated. Whether they could have gone to another business is irrelevant, it was a walking disaster that could have extended beyond that of denying service to gays. I mean even John McCain and Mitt Romney were against it
I'm not arguing so much for that specific Arizona law as the right of refusal in general. It's not that Christians or other religious people wake up and go looking for people they can "treat as second class citizens." They are living their lives and running their businesses as they always have. It's the gays and their misguided supporters who are intent on
forcing others to change the definition of marriage to suit them and
forcing them to take part in things they consider sinful; all in the name of their "rights."
