Homosexual Rights & Constitutional Law - The Golden Rule Of Gays & Christians

With the increasing legal and popular acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in the United States, there has been an accompanying increase in confusion.

With all the cries for acceptance of their sexual preferences have come accusations of discrimination and intolerance toward those who supposedly will not readily accept their immoral stance.

So, in order to eliminate as much confusion as possible, let's clarify a few things.

First, it should be understood that the long standing meaning of the clear statements of the Bible against homosexual activity that have been held by Professing Christians of many denominations will be continued to be held by those same conservative Believers.

Second, what has been labeled as discrimination against homosexuals tends to be nothing more than a First Amendment exercise of sincere religious belief on the part of professing religious Believers.

If a homosexual couple enters my restaurant to eat, am I to deny them a meal? They would say "No!"

If, however, they ask me to cater an event that showcases their lifestyle, that is a different matter. My religious belief would not allow me to promote, benefit or further actions or conditions that I would consider morally wrong.

On the other hand, if I entered a restaurant owned by a homosexual, would I expect him do deny me a meal simply because I was a professing Christian? No. By serving a meal to me, this person would in no way be promoting, benefitting or furthering my religious life and/or beliefs.

Nor, on the other hand, would I expect this person to cater my event where my lifestyle, religious beliefs, which may be diametrically opposed to his or hers, will be the center of attention. Can I or should I be able to force this person to promote, benefit or further my religious beliefs, simply because I ask him to? Should I expect this person to violate his own beliefs? Should I be able to sue for discrimination? The obvious answer is no.

This is just one aspect of a multi-faceted and emotional issue. Addressing one aspect at a time can help alleviate confusing arguments as well as promote rational thought. 

Does this mean that everyone involved gets their way in every instance and circumstance? No, but ranting solves nothing and promotes misunderstanding as well as maintaining highly emotional exchanges.

That's why tolerance is an issue that really has two sides in the legal realm. It has a practical side that needs to be evident in the exercise of rights, as well as duties, according to the law.