Kansas’ new law, which was overwhelming approved by their state legislators, has been termed “anti-gay”. And I suppose, depending on your point of view, that is one way of interpretation. “Pro-life” people would never want to be identified as “anti-choice”, it’s just that they believe the baby has a choice as well. In the same way it is a bit political to call the supporters of this new law as anti-gay. I suggest people who support this new law are pro-free market place. The bottom line of truth (if that matters to you) relating to this law is to prevent overzealous or militant groups from forcing private citizens who own a business, participate in a particular religious group or have a club from being forced to do business with people with whom they have a religious conflict of conscience. If as a Christian I own a cake store and have a moral conviction against selling a wedding cake to a gay couple I should have the right to refuse that service. As that same baker, I also would not agree to bake a cake for a person celebrating a divorce. As a Christian I believe it would be giving tacit approval to bake a cake for such events. Please, I repeat please simply let the free market (there is a reason they call it the free market) take care of itself. If my cake store is “so insensitive” as to not be willing to serve a particular couple then I will lose their business and presumably lots more by word of mouth and my demise is in the hands of the free public.
I want to be clear, I do not believe in discrimination based on race as race does not come into play when it comes to moral values (or at least it shouldn’t). But I should not be forced to associate with a customer or any other person for purposes of fellowship or commerce if I have a moral or religious conviction which is violated in doing so. Scripture gives room for disassociation for moral reasons (in some cases requires it). Scripture is also clear that it is to be done without hate or malice (sadly many Christians omit this part). The gay community in particular wants to try and control or force very specific association on others while at the same time demanding the freedom to associate and marry as they please. In other words, they want to have their wedding cake and force you to eat it too.
We kicked our own son out of our house when we learned he was selling drugs. We own a rent house and we could not, with a clear conscience before God, rent it to a gay couple or an unmarried couple. We would sell our rent house before forced to do that. Sadly, people have been sued in exactly those circumstances and this new law would prevent those lawsuits and others like it. For me personally, it’s not about associating with gays or anybody for that matter. I was the lone straight guy in a local gay choir for 3 years. It’s about enabling, giving tacit approval or supporting moral activity which violates traditional moral values or diminishes the multi-millennium old institution of marriage which I believe was instituted by God Himself.
Unfortunately, this new law is a feeble attempt to hold at bay an agenda by certain groups to bring activities long held as on the fringe of society to the mainstream. I say feeble because this battle is most likely already lost and trying to legislate morality rarely has significant success. And if you think it will stop with “legitimizing” homosexuality, you are sadly mistaken. History will inevitably repeat and this is only the tip of the iceberg of morally challenging activities which will find their way out of the closet and into the headlines as the next practice that must be embraced if you are to be considered someone who embodies sensitivity and equality. Ironically the much used term for this progressive process is called “being on the right side of history”.