Homosexuals vs. Religious Business Owners

I have hesitated before writing about the homosexual vs. religious business owners debate again, but it is getting far too much attention for me to not weigh in one more time.  I’m referring to the debate over the Arizona bill that would expand the rights of businesses to refuse to provide services when doing so would be a violation of religious beliefs.  Senate Bill 1062, or the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” was prompted by homosexuals in New Mexico filing a complaint against a photographer who refused to take photos of their same-sex wedding because of her religious beliefs.  Naturally, Democrats, civil rights groups, homosexuals and Hollywood celebrities who think their opinions matter are all up in arms about the bill and making ridiculous claims that it would legalize denying gay people service at restaurants, refusing them medical treatment or even allow people to break nearly any law and claim religious freedom as a defense.  As LD Jackson said over at Political Realities, the usual rhetoric applies.  Governor Jan Brewer has until this Friday to either sign or veto the bill and she has given no indication which way she leans.  The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and other business groups are urging her to veto the bill, saying the bill could damage tourism, make it harder to recruit new businesses and open the door to lawsuits against businesses.

In the past few days I have read numerous comments about this bill, the Republican legislators and the State of Arizona that demonstrate a lack of comprehension about the reasons for the bill, its purpose and its limits.  It is clear if you read the changes made in the bill that the claims made by those opposing it are baseless.  But, the left has become very adept at creating fury that is based on distortion and deceit, because so often the truth does not support their position.  Such is the case here.

It seems a bit surreal that two homosexuals and a photographer in New Mexico could have an interaction leading to legislation in Arizona, but that is the reality of it.  The homosexuals decide to have a wedding and ask the photographer to take pictures of it.  The photographer declines, citing religious beliefs against same-sex marriage.  The homosexuals get offended and file a discrimination complaint against the business.  It seems such a simple thing that has evolved into a national argument about discrimination.  What it all boils down to, however, is that this incident along with many others and the Arizona bill are essentially the homosexuals versus the people who want to preserve religious liberty.  I have read of a few exceptions, but for the most part the homosexuals believe their right to not be offended trumps a business owner’s right to not affirm a sinful act by providing services in support of it.  There can be no happy medium here.  Either the homosexuals have to live with their feeling of personal invalidation or business owners have to give up their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.  Can someone please show me in the Constitution where it says people have the right to not be offended?  Let me help you – it’s not there.

Too many people in this country seem to have formed the belief that they have the right to not be offended.  And, oddly enough, most of the people who complain the loudest about being offended do so after exposure to some form of religious expression.  A prayer, a public display that mentions God, a Bible, a cross… All must be hidden away from public view so as to not offend the people who do not share the same religious beliefs.  And now business owners will be forced to hide their beliefs from public view, provide services that violate their religious ideals and keep their mouths shut or face lawsuits and discrimination complaints.  The whole homosexuals vs. business owners debate is just one more step in the left’s attempt to remove religion from our society and mainstream homosexuality.  As I have said in a previous post, the left will not stop until homosexuals are completely mainstreamed and the religious people are the ones in the closet.

Part of the left’s argument about what business owners should do stems from their misinterpretation of Christianity and their lack of knowledge about the Biblical command given to us by God to love one another.  A protestor at a rally in Phoenix had a sign that read, “What about love they neighbor?” They seize that passage (John 13:34) and other similar commands to Christians and try to make the case that Jesus would have no problem baking a cake or taking pictures at a gay wedding.  It is laughable to me that the anti-religious left and homosexuals who have chosen an abominable lifestyle would have the temerity to preach to Christians about what is proper Christian behavior.  They pick and choose different commands while completely ignoring others that dictate discernment.  First Thessalonians 5:21-22 says it is the responsibility of every Christian to be discerning:  “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.”  For Christians, living a life uncompromised by sin, including tacit endorsements of homosexuality, is grounded in the ability to exercise discernment in every area of our lives.  That discernment is not boxed up and thrown in the attic when opening a business.  The Bible commands Christians to “flee from idolatry,” and to “not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness.”  But when even some Christians demonstrate a lack of discernment, I would not expect homosexuals or their supporters to understand any of this.  Lack of understanding, though, has never stopped those on the left from arguing from an indefensible position and it certainly won’t stop them here.

Arizona State Senate President, Andy Biggs (R-Gilbert), said Democrats were making too much of the bill’s effect.  “Sometimes people’s rhetoric tends to inflame instead of explain,” he said.  “And I would suggest if there is going to be a backlash because of 1062 … it will be because of the intemperate and inaccurate rhetoric.”  So far, he is right on the money.