What special rights?
Religious people have to provide services to gay people and gay people have to provide services to religious people.
And, as was asked before, what is religion if not a choice?
As I stated before, personal beliefs on race are irrelevant. Racial discrimination is a universal moral offense against all mankind, and no religious beliefs should trump it. There is no act of sin involved unlike the act of homosexuality.
If I’m gay, I can apparently receive service anywhere if you define the business as public which is a pretty loose definition. I can also cry discrimination if I see another customer receiving a higher standard of service. Then I can take the person to court and receive a nice payday.
OTOH, gays don’t have to provide services to Christians because we are not a protected class of citizens.
There’s as much evidence in the Bible for prohibition of interracial marriage as their is for same-sex marriages. That’s beside the point, though. What distinguishes a sincerely held religious belief that same-sex marriages are immoral from a belief that interracial marriages are immoral?
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. As I’ve explained to you before, there is no such thing as a “protected class”. There are such things as “suspect classifications”. A straight person is entitled to the same protections as a gay person. A Christian is entitled to the same protections as a member of any other religion.
In any event, sexual orientation isn’t even a suspect classification from a federal standpoint.
I could perhaps see your point if Christians never sinned…if they didn’t, then of course they shouldn’t be exposed to sin.
But Christians sin all the time. They sin like crazy. So, what’s the big deal about being complicit in just one more sin? You’re going to ask for forgiveness, anyway.
And the part that we coming back to, is why should Christian theology trump civil law in a country that is not a theocracy?
There are many people who believe that racial discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation are equally bad. That anti-miscegenation laws are just as immoral as anti-SSM laws. No one is asking you to believe that. We are saying that as a society we do not want people discriminating in the public/professional arena based on personal beliefs.
Oh, look…when you can come back and actually argue with FACTS (unlike the complete falsity of claiming that religion is not a protected category), we can have this discussion, but if you’re going to claim things that are directly opposed to FACT (like the idea that Christians are not a protected class) then we have nothing to discuss.
Nonsense. If a gay photographer accepted your business then refused to serve you based on your Christianity, of course that would be illegal.
All our rights get protected together or we lose them together.
Again, a lot of religious people felt differently about this just a couple of decades ago. Scripture is interpreted differently than it was 50 years ago because most people have decided racial discrimination is abhorrent. The same has been happening with anti-gay prejudice in the last decade or so. So the justifications have changed a bit (“it’s not about Biblical curses, it’s about sinful behavioral”) but the issue remains the same, and your explanation doesn’t satisfy because both prejudices were justified by apparently sincere religious beliefs.
I have made no comment regarding your beliefs. I have made no comment, negative or positive, regarding atheists or Christians or believers or unbelievers. I made one rye observation about your failure to debate effectively in this forum.
Not pleasant and I will refrain in the future, but your claim that you debate effectively elsewhwere was low hanging fruit, since you never do it here.
Whether the business owner should have the right to deny service isn’t relevant; it’s clear that they don’t have that right. The state of New Mexico forbids business owners from denying service to protected classes. It’s the law, not a matter of opinion.
If it’s worth it to Elane Photography to break the law and suffer the legally dictated consequences in order to make a point, they are perfectly free to do so. They aren’t being “forced” to do anything except operate their business within the confines of the law.
Actually, I am pretty sure that a Christian who was refused service in most places, based on the fact that they are Christian, could successfully sue for discrimination. Religious beliefs tend to be fairly well protected as it is, in that nobody is forbidden to practice their faith, as long as it isn’t being construed as forcing it upon others. (which seems to be your pet issue). Just being Christian and wanting a ham sammich, and getting refused because you are Christian, would be pretty clear discrimination against someone based on their faith, which is illegal.
However, being in my private home, if I decide to not have lunch with you because you are Christian, I am free and clear. Private vs. Public, as has been told to you.
In addition, there is a growing mountain of evidence that homosexuality is at least partially biological in nature, and NOT a matter of choice. Do you have anything to say to that?
Your view of homosexuality is a personal belief.
A true born again believer will want to please God and fight the natural fleshly desires to sin. That is what separates us from the unsaved. Also, there are degrees of sin each with various degrees of consequence and damage. Sexual sin is particularly called out many times in the Bible because it can cause great damage to both the spirit and the physical body.
1 John 5:16-17 certainly shows degrees of sin.
Perfectly understandable…I find myself reaching for the bottle when I read a GEEPERS thread, too…
Uh, let me fix this for you…
Why should you get to choose what is or isn’t “a universal moral offense against all mankind”? 
(italics in GEEPERS’ quote mine)
patiently waiting for a reply to my post from GEEPERS
It’s a bit unfair to call him out for posting too slowly. Remember, there’s only one of him and thirty-odd of us arguing with him.
But, that is just the point, Geepers. There ARE no ‘special rights’ being granted to these people.
Just the normal inalienable rights granted to all citizens.
ETA: Dang! I really need to hit that Save button before answering the phone. Bad client!
The Supreme Court apparently disagrees with you on the matter of job discrimination:
YOu got any supporting evidence for that, or must I take your words on faith?
Evidence can easily be manipulated, and studies rarely result in non-disputal facts. Studies have shown that there is a low rate of gay siblings involving indentical twins. I would expect it to be very high since they share the same genetics. Do you have anything to say to that?