Featured Refusing Service II

But your not emotional, right?

Kindly show me where I've said that. Not once. All I've said is that everyone in the United States -- including five-year-olds, by the way -- are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Let me explain to you how the Fourteenth has been interpreted, how its usage has evolved since its passage. The amendment is deliberately vague and open-ended, it precludes no classifications (except "non-taxed Native Americans" who no longer exist) including racial or religious ones, making it open to interpretation by the "courts of the future" from the date of its passage.

Whether we like it or not -- and again, I don't, but there's nothing I nor anyone else can do about it -- sexual orientation has found its way into the limelight of the Fourteenth, because of how those who self-identify as gay, lesbian, transgendered or bisexual are treated in the workforce, the business arena, and in general. The issue therefore is not whether gays are covered by the amendment. As a sociopolitical group, they must be, just as Christians, Muslims, etc., who have legitimate concerns regarding discrimination. Again, the Amendment makes no classification, and was very carefully written so as to avoid being viewed as a “special” protection for anyone group. That is why your claim yesterday that it covered men over 21 years of age was totally off base. The Amendment makes no such distinction.

The issue becomes, particularly in regards to the laws considered in Arizona and Kansas, whether or not the classifications in a given law are arbitrary. Laws designed to suppress the interests of blacks or Native Americans would be arbitrary, and therefore violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. Laws designed to suppress the interests of Christians, Jews or Muslims would also be arbitrary, and therefore violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. Laws designed to suppress the interests of either men or women would be arbitrary, and therefore violations of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Arizona and Kansas laws would come under what the courts have defined as “suspect” classifications. What that means is that certain laws passed by local and state governments have a stated purpose that may not be the real purpose behind the law. Certain forms of classification, such as race, gender, religion, and national origin have been interpreted as “suspect;” that is, any law mentioning these classifications either for special protection or for special limitation, becomes suspect before the court in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.

So how did the two state-proposed laws become “suspect” in their classifications? They did so by mentioning specifically the religious sensibilities of certain individuals. While the laws were both purposed in their language to protect the religious beliefs and practices of individuals, the purpose that would be viewed by the courts was the exclusion of those who live what are laughably called “alternate lifestyles” relative to sexual practice. Again, it is ridiculous from our perspective as Christians that such “lifestyles” would be set apart for protection, but the bottom line is, the Fourteenth is written so as to single out no one classification of persons, but to protect all persons.

If Christians businessmen and businesswomen were going to ask about adultery, fornication, theft, gossip, etc., maybe the laws would have flown, but even that is doubtful. The only issue these laws would have been used to address is homosexual behavior. Like it or not, that's discrimination. A business on Main Street or Wall Street has an undeclared but implied policy of nondiscrimination in conducting business. These laws would have made it possible to get around that policy, and in so doing, would have violated the Fourteenth Amendment. And yet again, the laws weren't needed. Protection for refusing service is already in place.

The simple fact of the matter is, the Arizona and Kansas laws were written for the express purpose of affording Christians the right to refuse service to gays. Under the law, Christians, Jews, Muslims, whoever, could also refuse service to adulterers, liars, murderers, or other sinners, given that those “lifestyles” also violate our sensibilities as people of faith.

The laws were unnecessary, the laws were discriminatory, the laws were a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Period. I’m done here.

 

Wrong. The question was indirectly asked in ascertaining what kind of event was taking place. Upon finding out that it was a gay wedding, service was refused. Whether we like it or not, that's singling out a group for discrimination. When we open a business, we have an undeclared but implied contract with the public to serve all the public. There is already a method by which we may refuse service without implying discrimination.

Be Christian: Witness, love. Don't discriminate.

 

Normally I would agree with you. If you are a baker selling cookies and bread and such, I would agree with you.
But this is a wedding cake. Normally in a wedding cake the bride asks for a figurine of a bride and groom kissing each other or in some other pose to be placed on the top of the cake. I can't condone that. I would not bake such a cake with some kind of figurine of two men kissing each other placed on the top of the cake. This might be the issue when I think of a wedding cake.
Other products I would have no problems selling. Selling products that condone the lifestyle is wrong. Selling products simply to discriminate is wrong.

 

This is a sample of your arrogance and unwillingness to be taught. It shows that you do not even know the meaning of the word that you want to use. Sodomy has more than one meaning. You are the one misusing the English language and not being accurate with words. Our language is fluid, changing over time. If the proper terminology is not used misconceptions are held. Don't live in the Dark Ages Aaron. The Bible is not a science book.