AZ, Gay bigotry, and Christian rights

I thought I had another day to get ahead of the news cycle here, but Governor Brewer made her decision yesterday and vetoed the legislation. You know the one. The one written so subtly about rights that it got translated into the ‘Anti-Gay Bill’
Aha – so she was for the bill, you think. You think wrong.

I was against the bill for a number of reasons. 1) it’s caricature is just mean to a minority 2) while I consider “sleeping around” a sin, I don’t consider homosexuality a sin and believe that people are born that way or formed that way along the way. It isn’t chosen as a “lifestyle” (though I also understand 3000 years of history)

So let’s look at this….I’ve seen a number of examples out there. Should a black man who owns a laundry be required to serve the KKK when it’s time to wash the sheets? 2 problems – the KKK is never mentioned in the bible and it’s purpose is meanness. It cannot be compared to homosexuality. Same with the Jews serving Nazi examples. So let’s try another one

Adultery is definitely a sin and Jesus says even looking on another lustfully would be sinful.
Should a restaurant with attractive young waitresses be allowed to only serve hetero women and eunuchs because they don’t want the sinful there?
Could a cake making business refuse to serve those in a 2nd wedding?

Those examples are better because being homosexual is not evil like Naziism or the KKK. It just happens to be mentioned by the bible in places other than where Jesus actually speaks (like he does on adultery).

My opinion – every business should reserve the right to serve who they want to and only who they want to at this point in history. A cake maker being law suited to bake a cake is not going to make a very good cake, “accidentally”. A restaurant who doesn’t serve black people will be out of business pretty quickly if word gets around at all. And doctors who refuse medicare patients should be able to practice how they want to. Jesus would serve all sinners, but would he conduct the ceremonies (in effect condoning) that my own parents went through when they married a 2nd time?

If the first question is “how does this answer the bell of freedom?”. And the second question is “where can this lead?”. I would tend to remove all laws on the books regulating who a business has to serve and then watch for problems. If things re-skew against certain classes of minorities it can be re-visited at that time. But if attitudes/beliefs about homosexuality and adultery can change in my lifetime, then isn’t it about time we accepted that for the most part attitudes about minority races have also progressed.

You can’t make anyone like you, but yes, the laws existed to make certain that people are treated relatively equally. They made sense. Now can we try it the other way? If you’re a Muslim cabbie, go ahead and don’t pick up drunks. If you’re a sensible Christian sign maker (sorry, I read this example yesterday but can’t remember where), then go ahead and refuse to make a sign for the Westboro Baptists. If you’re a golf course, refuse to allow women to play, etc, etc. Then let all of these things either shine or burn in the light of day.

I realize I hold a rather naive world view and that the power factories occur on golf courses and in exclusively white country clubs, but if these exclusions could find their spot on a list on the internets wouldn’t we all then be able to nudge the exclusions out of existence?

The Anchoress has a couple of posts on the subject
GayPatriot also has an opinion that reminds me of why this particular subject has been so touchy. Gay people have found acceptance and love rather quickly as more and more of our friends and family are out. So it’s particularly galling for them to be seen as “unacceptable”. To get over that, they can wait, or they can annoyingly force their way onto everyone. Frankly, I’d be more inclined to insist on my rights too. A civil union is NOT marriage.

(apologies for not proofing, but I need to get to getting)

Leave a Reply