Skip to main content

USA flag in the form of a gay rainbow flag
The fight for marriage equality has been making great strides, but that doesn't mean the people who don't like it are going to just sit back and not like it. No, they must protect their freedoms, specifically their freedom to continue to discriminate against people they don't like for reasons no more nebulous than "my version of God doesn't like you."

Which is how you get new bills in the state legislatures proposing to make discrimination legal, so long as it's for reasons. The painstakingly generic South Dakota version, SB67:

No person or any personal business may be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of any marriage, or treat any marriage as valid for any purpose if such action would cause any such person or personal business to violate the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
In South Dakota, then, whether or not your marriage was "valid" would be entirely up to whoever you were talking to at the time. Do they still believe that mixed-race marriages are improper? Then they get to discriminate against you. Are you a childless couple? Sorry, we don't serve non-breeders here. Are you Muslim or Jewish? Get the hell out.

All of this is to prevent the possibility of some florist somewhere having to sell flowers for a same-sex wedding, which as we know is the nightmare scenario of all good American florists everywhere. Or something.

The Kansas version makes the type of allowable discrimination more specific, declaring it to be based on your personal religious beliefs with regards to "sex or gender," and lists some of the various ways Kansas citizens would be allowed to express their discrimination:

Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement;
Both of these are similar to the effort underway (again) in Arizona. The people who still want to discriminate against gay Americans clearly see the writing on the wall, at least on the federal level, and are scrambling for alternate theories as to why they should still be allowed to do it.

Originally posted to Hunter on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 09:59 AM PST.

Also republished by South Dakota Kos, Kansas & Missouri Kossacks, and Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Cool (7+ / 0-)

    If a hater is married to a hater , I can tell them I don't like their marriage and they have to get lost ?
    Or does it only work one way ?

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

    by indycam on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 10:04:41 AM PST

    •  If anybody is married to a hater you can (0+ / 0-)

      discriminate against them is how I read it.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 11:31:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Would they complain (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If I charged double for services for someone who would not say they were at least a little gay?  Most people I know would have no problem with this.  Or maybe not allow anyone into my homeless shelter who would not renounce jebus as the savior.  These laws are part of the economic discrimination.

      Many studies have show that firms can be more profitable if they are allowed to discriminate against an identifiable minority.  For instance, if a bus company were allowed to kick anyone off the bus who had blue eyes if a non blue eyed passenger needed the space.  They would still get the fare of the blue eyed people, but would not have to deliver a service.

      Likewise, in a market where gay couples are denied services, one can imagine that market forces would increase the cost to those couples, as they may have to move to alternative markets or pay more to convince service provider to deliver equal products.

      When xtians are denied their entitlements,they tend to cry, but they are all for discriminating against others.  This is why I have little sympathy when other countries discriminate against xtians,

  •  Something to Add (9+ / 0-)

    Here's something to add to your "sincerely held religious beliefs":

    1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    ~ Matthew 7:1-2

    •  I generally find telling others what to include (0+ / 0-)

      in their personal sincerely held religious beliefs is kind of horseshit. Who ordered you to include that bit in yours? How would you react to somebody telling you that you should include homage to Shiva in yours?

      Also, invopcation of Da Book, even to those who purport to follow it, is ineffectual, since any true believer in something contradicted by the passage quoted to oppose it will simply go find some differing passage that can be interpreted to support it.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 11:42:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Are these states economies booming? (5+ / 0-)

    I ask because it seems like they don't have anything better to do than pick on gay people. Everyday it looks like we get another story about another state trying to pass a piece of anti-gay legislation. Since republicans took over all we seem to get are abortion and gay marriage bills. So I guess the economy must be booming now.

  •  At some point these laws will become so vague... (17+ / 0-)

    I'll be able to claim a religious exemption from speed limit laws by declaring Sammy Hagar my messiah.

  •  let the rwnjs spend their (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    time and treasure passing these obviously unconstitutional laws and defending them in court to see them bounced out on their asses.  it keeps them from having the money to spend on other perhaps not so futile repression projects.  they are not going to spend any money helping anyone who isn't rich so i don't see any other way for them to use the taxpayer's dimes.

  •  Next it'll religious objections to birth control.. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eztempo, Odysseus, jayden, ColoTim

    oh, wait. It already is.

    How about religious objections to vaccinations?

    How about religious objections to marriage between people of (visibly) different racial groups?

    It's a slippery slope here, guys....

  •  most of us in SD (5+ / 0-)

    are not in favor of this...and they are getting some pushback. We have a lot of RW nut jobs in our legislature...thankfully, our session only lasts 40 days a year or there would be tons more stupid bills.

    I don't think even our Republican governor would sign this, but he seems to only comment on bills if they are for sure going to pass.

    Unfortunately, all it takes to get elected to our legislature is an R behind your name. The amount of crazy does not matter.

    We do, however, have a couple of great Dems challenging for Gov. and Senate. (Joe Lowe and Rick Weiland). With enough support, I think they could actually gain tractions against the crazies.

  •  It does seem to me that they cannot win (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bythesea, jayden, belinda ridgewood

    If they word these laws too specifically they fall afoul of Romer vs Evans. If they word the laws too broadly they fall afoul of existing federal equal protection statutes. I really don't see how any state is going to get away with crafting laws that will permit ANY sort of discrimination based on "sincerely held religious beliefs." In fact I think it should become obvious to any court that any law that is crafted so as to permit a form of discrimination is clearly based on some form of animus regardless of who is targeted.

    The proposed Kansas law is particularly odious because it extends to government officials. On the surface it seems to include a "no problem" clause. But let's examine it a bit further:

    The measure allows government employees to invoke the rule’s protections in providing a lawful service, though it says the agency must “promptly” provide another worker to do so “if it can be done without undue hardship on the employer.”
    Got that? Without undue hardship to the employer not to the person who's attempting to be served. So "we were too busy" would be the go-to excuse.
  •  If a "personal business" is violated (5+ / 0-)

    by the owner's religious beliefs, it damned well better be taxed as a sole proprietorship, and not allowed to hide behind a corporate firewall.

    I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business.

    by CFAmick on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 11:33:33 AM PST

  •  So, would I be able to legally discriminate ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, ColoTim

    against someone who marries another person of a different religion if I felt it violated my religious beliefs? The ten commandments are pretty clear on believing in others gods.

    If my life was really that important someone would have made it into a musical by now.

    by glb3 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:10:27 PM PST

    •  You would be able to refuse service (0+ / 0-)

      to parents with unruly children, anyone who dare step foot on your premises wearing a cotton-polyester blend shirt, or anyone who casually mentioned they just had a delicious grilled shrimp salad for lunch at Red Lobster.

    •  If some ones religion says it is religiously (0+ / 0-)

      acceptable for two people of the same sex to be married, how can another religion discriminate against them? That would seem unconstitutional.

      If my life was really that important someone would have made it into a musical by now.

      by glb3 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:13:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  or to extend (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Any divorced person, any couple who comes in not married, any unmarried male who won't publicly declare himself a virgin, anyone who has driven to the store on the sabbath.  The problem with these laws if that they will be enforced selectively, which will result in a lawsuit that is based on equal protection under the law.  If I am not protected in my right to discriminate against fornicators, they why should you be protected in your right to discriminate against gays.

      There is a reason why there is a whole slew of questions that cannot be asked in a job interview.

  •  I would prefer the state stay out of religion. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If it needs to become involved at all it should be to protect us from it, not subject us to the contradictions and cultural whims of whatever sincerely held belief is floating around in someone's head on any given day.

    •  So then you're in favor of the state protecting (0+ / 0-)

      the right for polygamy?

      I honestly can see more of a valid reason for that than for a valid reason for the state to refuse to acknowledge gay marriage.  I do support various marriage restrictions like ones for age and for having one against one's will (e.g. the shotgun wedding), but I am wondering if the falling of gay marriage restrictions will also lead to a falling of the polygamy bans.

      •  Same sex marriage is not equivalent to polygamy. (0+ / 0-)

        And the difference here is the state is the party discriminating via very specific laws governing marriage. The proposed legislation being discussed allows individual citizens engaging in commerce to discriminate at will based on only god knows what.

        If we don't support current laws we change them hence the wave of marriage equality sweeping the country. If people want to change polygamy law then by all means they're welcome to try. But we must always provide equal protection to all citizens whenever they interact with business interests or the government.

        •  The way I see it, the state (or the US govt) (0+ / 0-)

          has outlawed a religious practice - marrying multiple spouses at the same time, for no reason other than it conflicts with the predominate practice of marriage being between two people - originally only allowed as one man and one woman, but now allowed to be same sex in a growing number of states.  That duopoly version of marriage has no reason for being acceptable over polygamy for any reason other than traditional religion, that I can see anyway.  Sure there are hundreds of years of accepted precedence, but if you wanted to go all biblical, there were plenty of examples of polygamy in the Bible that were accepted.

          No, I'm not looking to add a third to my marriage.

          •  The state outlaws religious practice (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            that is deems harmful. If someone's religion requires human sacrifices then they're going to have to move somewhere else to practice their particular brand of worship. It's an extreme example but it makes the point. Some people claim that polygamy is harmful to the women involved.

            One of the reasons polygamy has remained illegal is because it causes problems when it comes to taxes, custody, property issues, divorce, inheritance, etc. It would get very complicated setting up a system for the legal components of group marriages. I'm not suggesting that it can't be done but legalizing polygamy would need to come first and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

          •  Marriage contract insufficient for polygamy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The legal problem, and the reason, IMHO, that the state can create 2-person marriage without being required to create 3-person marriage, is that the marriage contract breaks down when you hit the third person.

            Who is married to whom - all are married to each other, women married to the man? How does that work?

            If one person dies, do the remaining spouses divide their property evenly? Does it only go to those people to whom that individual was married?

            Child custody- what a mess that would be.

            When one gets married, one's spouse becomes the most important relative in your family - superseding all others.  That system cannot work in a polygamous situation.

            You can also argue that polygamy is inherently unstable, because it reduces the available marriage partners for those not rich enough to take on multiple spouses.

            Saying all that, I would prefer some legal framework for polygamy, because as it's currently practiced (and legally, I might add, as long as the subsequent spouses are only "spiritual" ones), the women who are not legal wives have no rights whatsoever, and the legal restrictions on the practice keep it in the dark. Expose it to the light, give women trapped in Warren Jeffs'-like cults a way out, and the practice will die on the vine.

            A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a fascist state - Margaret Cho

            by CPT Doom on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:35:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  And a new form of Jim Crow arises. (8+ / 0-)

    How soon before we have "Straight" and "Gay" water fountains?

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:06:12 AM PST

  •  Can we get sponsors for Christian Castration Bill? (0+ / 0-)

    I think the only way to save the Union is to castrate evangelicals. As a Godless person, gee, don't I have the freedom to castrate others? Why, you say? Well because of Bengazi, of course you silly librul.

    I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony

    by pajoly on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:08:26 AM PST

  •  What about Catholics? (4+ / 0-)

    I married my Catholic wife outside of the church, and her church informed us that our (now 24 year) marriage isn't valid in God's eyes. So I suppose Catholics will stop catering to people not married in the catholic church?

    •  My mother had a similar experience. Both she and (5+ / 0-)

      my father were Catholics, but divorced prior to their marriage, so they couldn't be married in the Catholic church.

      After nearly 30 years of marriage, my father died.  Shortly afterwards, a priest told her he'd just heard the "happy news" that my father was dead, and he was eager hear her confession so she could return to the church.

      My hope is that this priest somehow became aware of how big a jerk he was.

    •  They'd love to (0+ / 0-)

      However, the good news is that if, like Newt Gingrich, some hot young thing takes a shining to you, you can get a divorce and marry in the church without a problem.

      A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a fascist state - Margaret Cho

      by CPT Doom on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:36:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  arizona is so backwards (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    some days it seems like it is moving forward

    the amount of bs in az is incredible

  •  Well (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, anon004, apimomfan2

    I don't want to recognize marriages where one or more of the parties is a Republican.  To me, all Republican children are bastards.  And that's my sincerely held religious belief.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:12:34 AM PST

  •  Were I on the other side of the legislative aisle (6+ / 0-)

    I'd be introducing a bill requiring any and all businesses that would be able to discriminate in such a way to post signage on the entrance to their establishments and on all forms of advertising and marketing stating precisely that...

    "We Discriminate!"

    If they want the privilege so badly, I see no reason they'd want to hide the fact.

    Fox News: Redistribution Of Ignorance.

    by here4tehbeer on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:16:38 AM PST

    •  Considering the states we're talking about... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark, Ahianne, here4tehbeer

      the "We Discriminate!" sign might backfire and actually increase their business instead of decrease it. And I don't want to give those discriminating bastards anything that could even remotely help them.

      But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, ... there are few die well that die in a battle; ... Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; — Shakespeare, ‘Henry V’

      by dewtx on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:33:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Changing the tone of the discussion (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, anon004, apimomfan2

    They know they won't be able to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples much longer, so they are changing the conversation to how THEY are discriminated against

  •  And why should we care? Do they spite us or (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    themselves?  South Dakota?  Kansas?  Arizona?  Do any real human beings live there?
    (Apologies to any LGBT brothers and sisters who live in those Godforesaken places...but why don't you get out?)

    Armed! I feel like a savage! Barbarella

    by richardvjohnson on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:21:13 AM PST

  •  While teach a course on "Issues in Evolution" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, Ahianne

    two students reported that their grandfathers had beaten them as children for eating with their left hands. Those grandfathers believe it was a sign of the devil. They learned to eat right handed when their grandfathers were around and their parents did not protect them.

    That said, it is clear that serving left handed people could "violate the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs."

    I don't know what consciousness is or how it works, but I like it.

    by SocioSam on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:22:18 AM PST

  •  Having had the experience of living, and teaching, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark

    in Kansas, I can only say that, this is just another example of how that collection of little "islands" of different cultures tries to imitate the reality of the political entity known as a State.  "Pass a Law"; some kind of "Law"; that will - sort of, maybe - make it look as if . . . well . . . uh . . . we're really protecting . . . uh . . . something like . . . Civil Rights for those who don't want to get involved with things like . . . uh . . . "Gay Marriage".  Yeah!  That's it!

    Now, folks, never mind the simple fact that NO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION can be "legislated" - or otherwise forced - to provide its "Services" in any way whatsoever in the first place.  And, never mind the simple fact that ANY RELIGIOUS "WORKER", AS SUCH. can refuse to participate in any form of "Service" not allowed in, or approved by, his/her religion.  That's already in the U.S. Constitution.  Just write the "Law" to include the words, "religious beliefs"; and . . . WOW!  That's it!

    The State of Kansas is "protecting the Civil Rights of those who don't want to get involved with 'Gay Marriage', because of their religious beliefs!"  That'll get through the Legislature with no trouble at all!

    Pitiful - and pitiable - as that may seem, it REALLY IS the way Kansas functions!  

  •  Does this mean I can deny services and privleges (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CPT Doom, blue aardvark

    to anyone who is legally and solemnly 'married'?  Will these states protect my freedom to discriminate if I sincerely believe that marriage is  tyranny and  freedom can only be found in free love?

  •  Can I just say (0+ / 0-)

    that South Dakota and Kansas GOP assholes can go f' themselves?  

    Is that sodomy?

    Ted Cruz (R-Tx) America's Prick

    by jackandjill on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:30:35 AM PST

    •  Masturbation, I would think (0+ / 0-)

      Autocopulation is a solitary business.

      I'm on a mission! Testing the new site rules.

      by blue aardvark on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:46:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're trying... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark apply the architecture of human anatomy to the kind of political party that promotes this crap.

        Since the SD Republican party is one big dick, and they're all assholes, it's actually very easy for them to fuck themselves.  But you can't describe it as "sodomy" or "masturbation", both of which are IIRC confined to mammals and reptiles who have all the right appendages for this purpose.   I've never seen a worm masturbate.

  •  My sincerely held religious beliefs are that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    only marriages where BOTH persons being married can quote the entirety of "The Knights That Say "Ni"" scene from Holy Grail should be valid.

    I expect to go out of business soon, but what the hell.

    I'm on a mission! Testing the new site rules.

    by blue aardvark on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 11:32:24 AM PST

  •  It appears South Dakota SD 67 has been withdrawn (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, Ahianne

    At least I received an email to that effect that last night from the South Dakota Democratic Party.

    Doesn't mean we should stop paying attention but at least it's good news for now.

  •  Stupidity (0+ / 0-)

    Go ahead and waste milions on legal fees before you get slapped down by the constitution that you liars say you support. THERE IS NO RELIGION IN POLITICS. FOR ALL YOU IDIOTS THAT BELIEVE OTHERWISE, DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE ASS ON YOUR WAY OUT!!!!

  •  South Dakota SB 67 replaced by 128 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, Ahianne

    ... which bars lawsuits for orientation-based discrimination. This will be crushed by higher courts if it gets that far.

    Winning elections is great, but building movements is better.

    by Alvin K on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 12:28:07 PM PST

  •  I wonder if I'm a Catholic business owner, can I (0+ / 0-)

    refuse to sell wedding-related goods or services to any couple that admits they are using or will use "artificial" birth control when they get married? Do I get to check to see if the woman has had an abortion or to ask if she would consider getting one and under what circumstances?  Can I refuse them based upon the fact that the clergy marrying them is not celibate?  These are all firmly held beliefs by Catholics, and this South Dakota law sounds like it would allow this.  

    As far as the Kansas law, it basically permits an adoption agency run by someone with a particular religious belief to deny anyone who does not follow his/her belief the ability to adopt a child through that agency (anyone could make the claim that unless the child in question was raised in their particular religion, it violated their religious beliefs).  

    Also, what if a I am Catholic business owner and I refuse to deal with a gay couple, but I don't refuse to deal with a couple remarrying after divorce?  Can I be sued for discrimination for selectively practicing my religious beliefs?  (I think it would make a strong case, IMO.)

    Isn't it just easier not to allow discrimination for anyone in public accommodations?

  •  I'm all for state freedom to discriminate bills (0+ / 0-)

    Seems to me that since they are so clearly unconstitutional and will be challenged from the get go, that they will speed up their demise nationwide.

  •  Good. Then I can vote on your gun rights (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, Old Sailor

    You wanna have a choice in my civil rights.  Fine.  Then I wanna have a choice in yours.  And ban your firearms.

  •  Kansas allows discrimination based on sex? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    apimomfan2, Ahianne, Old Sailor

    Not sure if the placement of the semi-colon is true, in the blockquoted para, but it appears I can refuse to provide women (or men) with accommodations or services or goods, based on my "personal" religious beliefs.  

    What governmental body has the ability to test  or weigh the validity of my "personal" religious beliefs?  What if my personal as opposed to my church's (if I had a church) belief changes week by week or day by day or minute by minute?  Who is anyone to say it does or doesn't?  The law as described is weirdly vague and invites a challenge based on current settled protected class law.

    Jim Crow.

    Claimed its validity in Christian Bible and in traditional practices.  No different from this.

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:27:26 PM PST

  •  I'm not really aware of any religions (0+ / 0-)

    that contain beliefs which makes providing:

    services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of any marriage, or treat any marriage as valid

    a violation of their religious beliefs as stated in the second part:

    if such action would cause any such person or personal business to violate the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
    I am aware that some practitioners of the Christian religion (among others) consider homosexual sexual activity a sin.

    But I'm not aware of any laws, or beliefs in Christianity that prohibit believers from providing services to them.

    So I don't see how serving sinners is a violation of those beliefs. Aren't they supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin?

    Am I missing something?

    So if I want to refuse services to people who violate other 'laws' of Christianity I can do that too? Right?
    I mean I'd have to, it'd violate my beliefs to serve those sinners!

    I think I'd have to go out of business if I was a devout Christian.

    no man is completely worthless, he can always be used as a bad example.

    by srfRantz on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:47:07 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site