The Display of Same Sex Activity Should not be Forced Upon any Business Owner

I have written previously [e.g. read my article Muslim Cabbies and Catholic Hospitals] that religious people who cater to the general public should not engage in any business if certain necessary practices of that business conflict with their religious beliefs. For example, Jehovah Witnesses should not be allowed to operate hospitals since their religion precludes the use of blood transfusions even if medically necessary.

If you are offering a service to the general public, then you should not allow your religious beliefs to deny service to any particular group because of who they are. However, I believe you do have the right to deny service if someone asks for a service that exposes you to things that offend you. Let me give you some examples.

If you are a bakery and a Nazi walks in to buy a cake that you sell to the public, you must serve him. However if anyone, not necessarily a Nazi, wants a cake with "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler," you may refuse to do business with that person. His creed, religion, gender, race has nothing to do with your refusal, it's the action, not the person.

If a Muslim walks into a bank to make a deposit, that bank must take his deposit. However if anyone, not necessarily a Muslim, walks into a bank with their face obscured, that bank may refuse him or her (who can tell?) to enter. Their creed, religion, gender, or race has nothing to do with the bank's refusal, it's the action, not the person.

If a gay person goes into a pizza parlor and orders a slice of pizza, the establishment must serve him. However if anyone, not necessarily a gay person, wants a pizza pie with the cheese topping arranged in the shape of some same-sex activity (see photo above), the establishment has every right to refuse the service. His creed, religion, gender, race or sexual preference has nothing to do with the refusal, it's the action, not the person.

If two men neither of whom are gay lost a bet that required them to marry each other and went to a restaurant and asked that business to cater a same-sex wedding, that business has the right to refuse the service. You will note that since neither of the men are actually gay, the business is refusing the action, not the sexual preference of the people involved. Since the business does not know what is in the heart of any person, it is obvious that they are refusing the action, not the person.

The recent passage of Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act showed the intolerance of a specific group of people: namely supporters of the L.G.B.T. movement against people with Christian religious beliefs. Take for example this inflammatory headline from the New York Times: Indiana Law Denounced as Invitation to Discriminate Against Gays.(1)

It is one thing for the gay community to demand tolerance of their lifestyle, it's another to demand participation in that lifestyle.

Before any reader tries to slap me with an accusation of intolerance toward gays, please read the Disclaimer at the bottom of my article Telling the Truth about Islam will soon be a Felony.