The whole country has been talking about Arizona SB 1062. For the most part, ridicule has been heaped on the lawmakers and on the conservative Christians the lawmakers were seeking to protect.
Sadly, much of that ridicule has come from professing Christians.
First off, let me say that I’m against discrimination in general. I’m against discrimination against homosexuals. Against atheists. Against muslims. Discrimination based on race.
And from what I can tell, the language of this law was much too broad.
That being said, most of the attacks on the law have shown extreme prejudice. Rather than deal with the actual issues at stake, they’ve opposed the law with hyperbolic arguments.
The intent is not to keep anyone from sitting at a lunch counter. You should be ashamed of yourself for even making the comparison. Saying such either shows ignorance of what is going on or a willful distortion of the facts. The intent of the law is not to keep anyone from exercising any rights they have. The intent of the law is to allow people the right to not participate in things that they find violate their ideals.
Does anyone argue that African Americans print shop owners should be forced to produce signs for a white supremacist group? Does anyone argue that a Jewish theater owner is obligated to rent his property to a neo-Nazi group?
The concept behind the law, hidden behind overly ambiguous language, was the idea that a Christian who feels that gay marriage is wrong should not be forced to perform services as part of a gay wedding. That’s the thought. The baker shouldn’t have to put a same sex couple on the cake he creates; the photographer shouldn’t be forced to shoot a wedding that violates his conscience; the minister shouldn’t feel obligated to perform a wedding for a couple when he doesn’t believe that wedding will result in an actual marriage.
Someone commented on Twitter that God sides with the marginalized. In this case, in 2014 U.S. culture, the marginalized is the conservative Christian who dares stand up for his beliefs. If you don’t believe me, look at whom everyone is ridiculing. There are rational voices out there, but they are few and far between.
Christian business owners should feel compelled to offer good, courteous service to everyone. But they should not be compelled to participate in a ceremony that violates their conscience.
Those situations have not been used to test the current law, but by the standards established by the Civil Rights Acts, yes — anyone who sells services to the public is required not to discriminate — via race, gender, physical ableness, or creed — amongst their clientele.
No one is requiring the Christian to violate their conscience. They’re arguing that neither the Christian nor any other group may eat their cake and have it — if you choose to be in a particular business, you’re required to obey the law or face the penalty. Peter and John faced the penalty rather than obey the government ruling against an aspect of their Christian calling.
Thank you for this, Tim. It is getting rare to find fair-minded people anymore. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act never mentioned homosexuals or homosexuality and it does not say that businesses can discriminate unfairly for religious reasons. It simply says that business people (of any faith) can assert a defense or a claim in a case (discrimination cases included) in which the government or the person suing them has the burden of proof on compelling government interest, and that the courts in Arizona make the final decision. All reasonable people know this is 100% fair. Also, the pressure brought to bear by the NFL was vicious and reprehensible. If a Christian group had made punishing threats like the NFL did to sway a political decision, they would be tarred and feathered by now.
Horsefeathers, Joel.
I get emails just about every day from Christian organizations calling for boycotts of such-and-such organization for this or that offense.
The whole Moral Majority idea came about to coalesce a “Christian” political force that could (and DID) sway elections if their policy demands were not met. What’s good for the goose…
Tim,
I’m a bit late to the party here, but wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your assessment of the situation. You are spot on! There is a HUGE difference between refusing to serve someone and refusing to participate in the celebration of something one finds offensive. While no one is being “forced” to do anything since Christian proprietors do have the option of breaking the law and suffering the consequences, they are nevertheless being given an ultimatum by the state. Either participate in what you feel is sinful or suffer fine, imprisonment, or loss of your business. That is persecution, whatever anyone says. And yes, the early Christians were persecuted, but they didn’t live in the United States of America under supposed First Amendment protection. The big issue here is not that anyone is trying to force the state to be a Christian nation. The point is that giving any religious groups such ultimatums is staunchly un-American. Our Founders promised us protection from such violations of conscience.
What’s next? If a Christian photographer refuses to photograph pornography, or a nudist wedding, for religious reasons, is he likewise going to be fined, boycotted, and harassed? If I were a photographer, I would find it every bit as repugnant to photograph a homosexual ceremony as I would to photograph pornography. As my convictions go, I find two men kissing on the lips as they are pronounced husband and husband to itself be pornographic. No one in America should be given the ultimatum to participate in such deviation under threat penalty.
And finally, it is indeed sad that so many “Christians” have sided with the so-called LBGT community as the persecuted minority when a vocal minority among them are the real persecutors. This is equivalent to aiding and abetting sin. The warning of judgment is not only for those who practice depravity but toward those who approve of those who practice it (Rom. 1:32).
Every generation wants a cause to defend and many have sadly chosen to defend the cause of homosexual depravity. If this generation wants a cause how about defending their persecuted brothers and sisters who are on the receiving end of the state’s ultimatums.
And whether the owner of a private business should be forced to serve anyone at all is a matter of one’s philosophy of government. In this case the state has overreached.
I’ve sided with the LGBTQI community because I am tired of how they are being treated by Christians. I hurt when a friend’s son is suicidal because he is taught at his Christian school that to be gay is to be sinful, and gay is what he is. I hurt when my daughter’s transgender friend suffers horribly because her Christian mother believes she is playing a role. I ache when the gay children of my Christian friends choose to leave the church rather than deny what they are, inherently because far too few congregations accept LGBTQI people. I am ashamed when LGBTQI family tell me they will never consider the claims of Christ because of how Christians have and are persecuting LGBTQI people.
Tim, it is important to point out that no minister would be forced to officiate at a gay wedding. Throwing that into the mix is really confusing the situation. It wasn’t that many years ago that Bob Jones University finally stopped forbidding interracial dating. Many fundamentalist Christians long opposed interracial marriage on religious grounds. Yet Christian wedding photographers with that conviction would have been liable to lawsuits for refusing to photograph an interracial marriage. What’s the difference with gay weddings other than that you would agree with one and disagree with the other? That makes no difference legally. Christians who oppose gay marriage will have to choose some other occupation than ones related to weddings. That’s a price well worth paying to live in a society that forbids discrimination.