Again - it is not a religious right to discriminate against Gay people.
It's not. it is however, a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have freedom of religion, which includes practice and observance.
I think in the majority of instances, you and I would be in agreeance, that there would be no justification for denying service to someone who is a homosexual, save to discriminate.
However, I appreciate that Americans from all walks of life, have the ability to challenge others when they feel their rights have been impinged upon.
Though I imagine that you would have a hard time wrapping your mind around the concept of a religious person being discriminated AGAINST, I assure you, that happens too. Their freedoms and rights are important to me as well.
I do not feel that the KS and AZ bills are necessary to preserve freedoms. And local, state and federal governments have the responsibility to ensure that our constitutional freedoms remain in tact, anyway.
It would bother me as an American if a religious organization, one with a specific mission, were being forced by the government to provide service that stretched outside the scope of it's mission of intent and scope. I find this to be in confliction with the rights of that organization as per the constitution.
I don't care to argue that piece with you. If you disagree with me, that's fine.
Since it is obviously not a sin according to JESUS to interact with sinners, - HE DID SO, - then interacting with sinners - CANNOT - be used as an excuse for this bill's Gay discrimination - using Christian religious Laws.
Yes, Jesus did interact with sinners. In some examples, he had a very specific reason for doing so for the betterment of that particular person or group.
Don't kid yourself that Christ condones sin. Christ taught us to approach people with love and acceptance, but, not to embrace sin.
The individual has to interpret this as they will. For a lot of "us" (Christians), we acknowledge that all people are with fault and that it's hypocritical to elevate any one "sin" above the other as it's all a blemish in God's eyes and that we can best reflect Christ's love through kindness and compassion.
Others of course, take from other instruction in the bible, perhaps in or out of context, and apply it to their daily lives. I found the link below, which I thought would be helpful in perhaps explaining the common viewpoint of those who "rebuke" homosexuality.
I encourage you to research and draw your own conclusions.
Judge Not: Should we Oppose and Rebuke Sin and Religious Error?
How far do those "opinions and rights of other people"/discrimination against others, - that you respect - go???
I suppose it's contingent upon the individual, their personal convictions and their own percpetions of what constitutes "discrimination".
Can they turn away ALL other religions - refusing to serve them - since they are supposedly being misled from the true God and going to Hell??
Considering that the bill was vetoed in AZ, I don't think that this is legally possible, if it were possible before the bill was conjured, given current discrimination law, in the state.
I can't answer as to the other pieces, since this isn't what I believe.
Can they turn away black people claiming - as some Christian religions do - that - Cain's punishment mark - was to be turned black, hence black people are under punishment?
I'm not a racist person and disagree with segregation, so, I can't answer as to the thought processes and justification behind such behavior. Considering anti-segregration laws that are place in the state of AZ (perhaps you should brush up on those, if you're worried), I would say...no.
Are they going to stop being HYPOCRITES and turn away ALL sinners from their doors - thus going broke - as ALL are sinners - according to the BIBLE??
As the bill was vetoed, I'm inclined to say no. It would be asinine for you to assume that a). All Christians were in support of the bill in the state of AZ and b.) All business owners in support of the bill would deny service to homosexuals.
I am saying you should not be supporting this so-called "religious right" - because it isn't one!
You're misrepresenting my statement. Go back and read again.
I stated that we the religious have contitutional freedoms. FACT. I have not proported that the religious have the consitutional "right" to discriminate.
