4 ms·
Sure, but that's still a choice that evangelical christians are making; they choose to run a public business, which means they have to interact with the public.
by CocaKoala 11y ago
Sure, but that's still a choice that evangelical christians are making; they choose to run a public business, which means they have to interact with the public. If they're not comfortable doing that, then they don't have to run a public business.
- humanrebar 11y ago> If they're not comfortable doing that, then they don't have to run a public business. On the other hand, you're implicitly banning a certain class of people from owning a certain kind of business. I'm not sure why that's the most tolerant option.
- CocaKoala 11y agoA ban you choose to participate in (since it by definition only affects people who choose to be devout Christians to the extent that even interacting with homosexuals is forbidden, a philosophy which I'm not at all confident is in the bible, who also choose to own a business devoted to serving the public) seems more tolerant than a ban which is forced upon you (since nobody chooses their sexual orientation). Do you disagree? I'm not arguing that it's completely tolerant, but unfortunately we have a case where one person completely refuses to tolerate the mere existence of another so I think it's clear that one hundred percent toleration is off the table. Since one person is choosing to be intolerant and the other isn't, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to place restrictions on the person making the choice; if they feel that the inconveniences are too much, they're obviously welcome to rethink their choice. You can't really ask that of a gay person.