The "Religious Freedom" act has me baffled by the lack of human logic in this matter, and here's why:
THE BAD LOGIC OF THOSE WHO ARE FOR THIS BILL
1) it is bad logic to say that providing services to a gay person goes against your beliefs because it is a sin.
To ever claim that providing services (food, flowers, photographs, etc) to someone whose religious beliefs or lifestyles or ways of eating their dinner differs from yours has never been forbidden by the Bible. If you subscribe to the notion, for example, that it is a sin to be gay, then one should not have sex with persons of the same gender. Taking the photos of a gay couple at the wedding of a gay couple is not mentioned in the Bible, nor does it ever say that we should not do things for people who are gay. We do not sin by selling them flowers. It is NOT against anyone's Christian beliefs to provide services to gay people. It might rub them the wrong way, but it is NOT a sin. As a matter of fact, Jesus went out of his way to do things for "sinners" all the time. He obviously did not commit sin himself by doing so.
2) It is bad logic to say that providing services to a gay person goes against your beliefs because you do not want to support or condone their "sinful" lifestyle.
If the logic of Point #1 doesn't sway you, then think of this: to claim that you don't want to provide services to gay persons because their lifestyle is against your religious beliefs means that you MUST also be compelled to screen every person you sell a cake to, feed, or provide services to in order to ensure that their lifestyle does not disagree with your religious beliefs. If you TRULY BELIEVE this claim, that you should not have to serve those who are such sinners, then you also should not provide services to those who are heterosexual and live together, to those who have children outside of wedlock, to those who take the name of the Lord in vain, to those who drink to excess, to those who lie, to those who covet...shall I go on? To pick ONE SIN that you don't like and ignore the others is both hypocritical and bigoted. And illogical to boot. So if this bill does pass and you choose not to serve gays, you also must not serve anyone who falls under these other categories as well--and should be forced by law to stay true to this.
3) It is bad logic to pass this bill because it opens up the law for people to use it against Christians.
If you really think this is a good idea, you may very quickly find yourself discriminated against for your own beliefs. It works both ways. The law does not single out one sin, the one claim of homosexuality, and say if you don't like gays you don't have to serve them. It says you don't have to provide services if it goes against your beliefs. You do realize, of course, that there are people who have religious beliefs that differ from yours, that are not Christian, and they can discriminate against you if they choose. For some, the Christian lifestyle is an abomination--and they have just as much right under this law to refuse services to you. These Christians are relying on the notion that what they practice is "good" and no one would condemn it, but they are incorrect.
THE BAD LOGIC OF THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THIS BILL
1) I say let the bill pass--then we will know whose businesses NOT to support. It is poor logic to support these people who claim religious beliefs for not serving gays by using their services.
If people are so determined not to serve gay people and don't want to provide them services, then why on earth do we want to support their business? I say let the bill pass, but add that they must publicize their hate by putting up a sign, then everyone who sees this will refuse to use their services and they will go bankrupt and lose their business. I have no desire to force these people to serve gays or whomever it is they don't like. Instead, I would hope that everyone who has these "beliefs" is open about it; in turn, I hope that everyone who is gay or supports gay rights would then refuse to support the businesses who refuse to serve gays. Hit them where it counts: in their pocketbooks. If we can't change their minds, at least we can change their income.
