There is absolutely no reason to treat these law abiding citizens as second class citizens in places of business.
I think you're perhaps missing part of my point.
I agree entirely that there are downsides to allowing business owners to make such distinctions. The point about black Americans is very valid.
But my point was that your dismissing a certain notion of harm, as perceived by religious persons. They consider themselves to be held accountable to God for their choices.
You're correctly arguing that gay people suffer a certain kind of harm by a business refusing to do a certain kind of business on their behalf. I'm saying that you're dismissing the harm done to religious persons by demanding them to violate their consciences and/or their obedience to God (on their view).
Hmmm. Which part of the bible would serving a gay person violate? The part that says love your neighbor as yourself, love the sinner but hate the sin, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or the judge not lest you be judged part?
Damn your response was much better than mine.
Tolerance goes both ways.
In no way should a Christian business owner be forced to do something that violates his conscience. Ditto the homosexual business owner. Civil rights in no way trump religious rights an vice versa. If someone is a homosexual and they are refused a cake for their "wedding", they should just find a homosexual baker or someone willing to bake for them. Same goes for any business.
I'm personally intolerant of homosexuality. I don't dislike the individual homosexuals, but I will NEVER affirm their way of life -- and such will never be required of me. I'm actually a middle of the road guy politically, but I am a Christian -- and God's Word on the issue is firm. Love the sinner, hate the sin. And yes, I, too, am a sinner, but I'm not making the life choice for something that God has called an abomination in His eyes. I would welcome a homosexual into my church congregation with the understanding that he is there not for judgment, but healing. The church, properly run, is a hospital for sinners's souls, not a courtroom, but God will not be mocked. Just like homosexuals, I need to daily repent of my sins and ask God for His forgiveness -- and to exercise faith and obedience. God wants two things: faith and obedience. Obey God's Word == eternal life. Disobey, homosexual or heterosexual == eternal damnation.
I hate to break it to you, but you are not middle of the road, you are rather far to the right there. Middle of the road people are fine with sexual equality, gay marriage and the right of the public not to be discriminated at by a business. You're post gave me chills, creepiest thing I've read so far. "God will not be mocked." Hebdo much?
Jesus may have said nothing, but the old testament has a pretty clear lesson on it:
I personally have very little issue with homosexuals. I have a serious problem with gay marriage, as marriage is a religious ceremony, so the state should stay out of it. Civil union is the state sponsored joining, and should be the proper avenue for the state to allow something that religion indicates is wrong. If someone feels that a homosexual couple should share in the benefits a heterosexual relationship enjoys, they should move for equal benefits for the two, not move to change the definition of marriage. However, it has to be understood that most of the benefits of marriage have to do with holding a family together for the benefit of the children, which a homosexual marriage may have some issues in creating.
Marriage is not a religious ceremony, it is cultural manifestation of a concept that predates all modern and known archaic religions. Religion did not invent marriage, but it capitalized on it and possibly institutionalized it, and even then marriage existed as a concept thousands of years prior to Judeo-Christian thought, shocking as that may be to you. If your argument were in the least bit sensible then we should have no government endorsement of marriages, and I as an atheist should not have been allowed to get married (and we used a local judge, not a minister, fyi). Also: and to use my own native state as an example (New Mexico) they determined that discrimination based on gender in marriage is not actually supported by the state's laws as written....so guess what, same sex marriage is legally fine and always was in this state.
The argument that marriage is a religious ceremony is just painful when I hear it, because it really marks the person presenting the argument as very limited in their scope of knowledge and understanding. It's just....hard....to imagine that someone would be so limited in their own understanding of this world they live in.
I disagree that this is about hatred; in fact, I think you have to be calling many people blatant liars to make it about hatred. Granted, on either side there are likely some who are driven by hatred, but that's always going to be the case. It seems that many (and probably the vast majority) of people on both sides are pretty normal people who genuinely feel the way they say they do. Trying to vilify people on one side or the other doesn't help and is disingenuous.
Personally I can see merit in both sides and I bet if you give each argument and fair chance you would too. And that's why the issue is such a difficult one. It's only through setting up absurd strawman arguments that you can really dismiss the whole debate.
On the one side, it looks like we're dealing with discrimination all over again. As with racial discrimination, it seems wrong to avoid doing business with people just because of their sexual orientation. Separate but equal never worked and simply wasn't right.
On the other side, it seems like you have the government forcing people not just to tolerate - but to actively celebrate - something that is deeply abhorrent to them. They would otherwise be inclined to let people live their own lives how they want but when forced to be involved they honestly feel wrong, deeply wrong, about being forced to tacitly condone things like same sex marriage.
Both sides sincerely feel like the other side is taking away their rights and feel the others' suggested way to deal with it is unfair. Hatred isn't necessarily a part of the equation at all.
Your last sentence seems to be contradicted by the prior paragraph. Also, I think you have not sufficiently demonstrated just how engaging in a neutral business transaction will adequately provide those who find someone different from them "deeply abhorrent" the requisite detection equipment to identify who they are (unless they are preparing a cake, apparently).
That said, I really wanted to comment on your first sentence: I absolutely am one who says that the supporters for this bill are doing so out of hatred, and are lying. Through their teeth, and possibly to themselves about what their motives are. Painfully obvious when you're not trapped on the inside of this den of lies and hate. PAINFULLY.