If you can get a liberal to talk to you, you should be able to free them from some liberal myths about religious freedom and homosexuals.
The “question and answer” section of this article (“How to Talk About the Indiana Law With Your Liberal Relatives at Easter.”) at the Daily Signal is a must-read—very helpful for discussions and fair to the issues involved. If you’re really after tolerance, you should be in support of the Religious Freedom acts, as originally passed.
So let’s be honest here, I mean, are you basically saying that it’s OK to discriminate?
Not at all, what I’m suggesting is that everyone should have their rights protected, and that a court of law should adjudicate when those rights come into tension.
But if you think that if you do have a gay couple coming into, let’s say the pizza parlor, that they shouldn’t be able to be served? Are you saying that gay people shouldn’t be served?
Of course they should be served, and I don’t know of any religion that teaches that you can’t serve a slice of pizza to someone because they’re gay or lesbian.
And I don’t know of any business owner that has claimed that they won’t serve gays or lesbians at their restaurant.
The only religious liberty concerns that we’ve seen in this general area involve weddings. Wedding photographers, florists who provide flowers for weddings, bakers who bake wedding cakes—they’re happy serving gays and lesbians for get-well-soon flowers and happy-birthday cakes.
Their only objection is to the same-sex wedding. And I don’t know why we need to have the government to coerce a 70-year-old grandmother into violating her beliefs about marriage.
This is about the civil rights issue of our time. Don’t gays and lesbians have civil rights?
Of course this is about civil rights, and the very first civil right that our Constitution protects, in the very first amendment to our Constitution, is the civil right of religious liberty.
And so we don’t want to set up a situation in which sexual liberty trumps religious liberty. We want to have these things coexist, so that gay couples should be free to get flowers or get a cake for their wedding, but the government shouldn’t coerce any particular person into providing those flowers or that cake for that same-sex wedding.
Let’s look at this other side, and that is when we take a look at what’s before the Supreme Court. They’re going to make a decision at the end of June. If they make same-sex marriage the law of the land, won’t you then be breaking the law?
Not at all. The Court might rule, inappropriately, to say that all 50 states have to recognize the union of two men or two women as a marriage, but the government need not say that every organization in America has to help celebrate that marriage.
We can live and let live. The same-sex couple is free to live and to love how they want to; the Evangelical grandmother should be free to run her business how she wants to. That’s coexistence, that’s tolerance, that’s what America’s all about.
Can we live and let live? We should. But if you’re all about seeing your views enforced against well-meaning, community-supporting, sincerely devout folks, and want to see them subjected to fines, jail, and expulsion from being able to do business… well… you have a lot of company.