....that doesn't really absolve you of assuming that those who oppose you are doing so from evil motives. The "you" and "me" in there can be general as well.
Originally Posted by Gina
1. Christians who reject LGBT persons are not doing so because the LGBT persons are sinners, but rather because the Christians are sinners. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners and came to seek the lost, not the found. The only time that Christians would be justified in "rejecting" a homosexual is the narrow case wherein A) he or she was a member of the church B) they were actively practicing and C) they refused on multiple occasions, after multiple counseling sessions and attempts to reach them, to repent. And even then, it's not rejecting the person, but rather their membership in an organization that is based around beliefs which that individual apparently does not share.
There is plenty of evidence on this board alone, that Christians who reject LGBT persons are doing so because they are sinners and then they add the part about hellfire. It's the kind of thing that LGBT individuals are likely to have heard. The Phelps are pretty widely distributing that sentiment as well. So when someone who is LGBT hears, even in the most polite language (if they are lucky) "We cannot in good faith provide you with service", that is what is behind it and what is communicated.
1.a. However, in today's intellectual climate where we are more likely to instinctively reject the doctrine of sin, there is widespread inability on the part of the non-Christian community to mistake the belief that homosexual activities are sinful with the rejection of homosexuals themselves.
2. The Phelps are a perfect example of the people in #1, and no, did not "spread that sentiment widely", they acted wickedly and thus were widely rejected. Accusing the broader Christian community of being represented by the Phelps because you may have heard their language is akin to accusing the Pro-Life community of being represented by the people who argued that we should kill more black babies to cut down on crime and get rid of the "socially undesirable portions of our society".
3. It is still quite possible that the individual, no matter how soft the let down, will still feel hurt and rejected. That's human. Assigning the intent to make someone feel hurt and rejected in retrospect, however, due to that effect, is a logical fallacy.
3.a. As a strict rights issue, you do not have the right to have society order itself so that you do not feel rejected. Otherwise there would be quite a few women from High School (and College, come to think) who owe me restitution.
have First Amendment Rights. Homosexuals can't use government to deny you the right to speak out or vote against SSM, and Christians can't use government to deny them the ability to advocate for SSM or petition for redress of grievances. The same level of protection extends to Religion - I cant' use the government to force you to participate in my belief system, and you shouldn't be able to use the government to force me to participate in yours.
The response is that we have already recognized that we can override First Amendment objections in order to create public accommodation laws - but look at the reasoning behind that move. We didn't create public accommodation laws during the Civil Rights era because blacks felt hurt and rejected (though they were), we did it because State Enforced Systemic Bans were denying blacks the ability to access goods and services. The Impact was enough to justify overriding the individual First Amendment Rights of those who would disagree. There are no such comparable bans today regarding homosexuals - the Impact on blacks in the 50s was that you couldn't travel because you couldn't stay in hotels. The Impact on homosexuals today is that you have to go to the baker down the street or call the next wedding planner on the google search page instead. That does not meet the threshold that we have established for justifying overriding people's right to First Amendment protections.
and you can refuse to take part in a ceremony in a kind way that is neither rude nor cruel.
Nobody enjoys being rejected, for any reason, but being rejected because of who you are, is hurtful and unkind. Nothing stops me from being kind to people patronizing my services, short of someone being a jerk to me and I have trouble being unkind then.
If you were asked in your profession to do something that you found violated your deepest belief system, what would you do?