Really? Here's how I read you argument. You seem to want dismiss the validity of any notion that believers should be able to disassociate from non-believers.
The Bible is many things to many people. To some it is a fictional account of history. To others it is the "Good Book" which guides ones behavior.
I suggest that those who fall into the "Good Book' category take the Bible into it's totality. Therefore, it seems
tells them to withdraw from sinners.
And
specifies a very specific sin.
Therein lies the quandary.
Abrignac wrote:
You're really picking and choosing here. Leviticus is old testament. Thessalonians is new testament. If you're going to say Thessalonians means she has to withdraw from sinners, as defined in the old testament, then why just the gays? Why doesn't she withdraw from all adulterers? Did she supply flowers to any wedding where the couple had sex before the wedding? You're picking and choosing your sins here (and for that matter, you're choosing one with a single oblique reference in thousands of pages, over ones that are primary commandments).
I'm asking for logic, Anthony. I'm not saying people can't go on with their religious selves, but when a person cites "religious" reasons for something that is a minor footnote of their tract, while not applying even close to the same criteria for other commands... then their excuse seems "flimsy" and it sounds like they're hiding behind religion to make a political statement.
We all know religion has been used in the past to justify horrible treatment of blacks. There were plenty of people, Senators, religious officials, who believed that intermarriage was a violation of the purity god gave the whites... would you allow a florist to deny service to an interracial couple based on those beliefs any more than you'd allow a diner to hang a "no blacks" sign?
There can be no argument that the freedom to practice one's religion is absolute and free from state intervention. The SCOTUS has made that abundantly clear. What is not so clear is what defines a religious practice.
It is most definitely not absolute and free from state intervention. I could come up with all sorts of religious practices I've decided I want to follow that the state won't allow. If I decided some obscure tract of the bible actually meant I should snort coke every morning, I'm sure someone would disagree. Hell, I don't even need to look in the christian bible... I can write my own. But that doesn't change the fact that illegal practices are not automatically "ok" just because someone says it's part of their religion.
On the other hand, other than to provoke an argument, why do you care?
I don't really care. Mainly I just find it interesting, the intersection of people's rights. I've said elsewhere that I'd be OK with businesses actually discriminating against groups, as long as they post it clearly on their front door. If the florist had a big sign saying "No Gays allowed", I'd think the whole thing would have shaken out a bit fairer.
