Here's a better example than your nonsensical dog analogy which you wrongly believe translates to both sides being right even though only the moral side really is.
Your daughter becomes a Christian and begins to design cakes for special events. Two homosexuals come in and say they want her to prepare a cake for their immoral abomination. She tells them she can't because to do so would violate her moral conscience and she simply cannot facilitate or participate in an immoral act.
Instead of going to another cake designer, they appeal to the government to imprison and fine her. The government obliges and places your daughter in a prison full of violent female felons who rape her repeatedly infecting her with the HIV virus in the process.
When she finishes out her sentence and comes home she is faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars in government fines and court costs that do not wash in bankruptcy court and will ensure she lives in poverty for what remains of her life.
Homosexuals have imprisoned your daughter, murdered your daughter, and ensured she remains poor for the rest of what remains of her life for no other reason than she is a moral person who would not violate her conscience and design a cake for their immoral event.
You, her mother, tell her that you can see both sides of the issue and that Christians are supposed to rejoice in persecution.
I never said both sides were right. I said the whole dog is not only the bark, or the whimper.
If all people are equal regardless of their labels or social groupings or whatever else, and God is not preferring of persons, thus each are judged by God on their hearts and the decisions of those hearts, rather than their labels, then to say that one person is inherently and absolutely morally lacking for one bad decision (or for their label) or one facet of their life choices, is to say that every person is inherently morally wrong because every person makes unhealthy decisions at one point or another.
I'm simply saying that the whole dog should be seen rather than one aspect of it.
The owner of the shop, as a human, misunderstands things and makes bad decisions at times. The homosexual person, as a human, misunderstands things and makes bad decisions. Misunderstanding only lies in ignorance of the entire picture. That was one point of the dog analogy, but not the meaning of the entire analogy.
The homosexual person in question here may be looked upon as a case of 'coulda, shoulda, woulda', but so might the shop owner. It is a game of 'ifs', to speak about it like this.
There's two people in this scenario. Two people who have had different lives, different conditioning, and undertaken different choices and come to recognize different things.
I don't see one person as being utterly morally deficient, nor the other. I do however see each person as having the capacity to make decisions that are not beneficial from time to time.
I can't pretend to know the extent to which either person understands the other side, nor the outcomes of their actions, I can only paint a picture of how I, in the shoes of either, might understand. Perhaps each person misunderstands even the deep motives for their decisions in the scenario painted above, and perhaps not. What I do know is that with mutual understandings this scenario may have gone a more peaceful way, had either party had the empathy to make a different decision.
I never promoted the idea that the baker should end up in jail. I asked the question of whether it is consistent to speak of rejoicing in persecution yet not to rejoice in persecution. Jail is a unpleasant experience, full of human suffering. I wouldn't wish a person to suffer. I never said that I think that the baker should be punished, only that the law, it would seem, allows it, and the outcome of whether it IS allowed depends on a judge. I never said the homosexual person was 'right' or 'wrong', in their decisions, only stated what the secular law says on the matter and that by such law they may be entitled (and feel entitled) to pursue the case further. I never said that being pursuant and adherant to secular law is the same as being righteous, only that the law makes a distinction. I never said that the homosexual should be regarded above the baker, only that the law treats people on equal footing and should the homosexual have refused the baker any service of food because the christian was taking the food to a religious gathering, that would also, in the eyes of current law, be a discriminatory reason for non-sale.
I never said that it is sufficient, nor 'good', nor 'right', for the baker to be criminalized, possibly jailed, bankrupted and condemned, only that the law may allow it. I never said the homosexual was 'right', nor 'good', to have made the decision they made, only that I can understand the reasons why they might have made such a decision, as I can also the baker.
The law is a social construct, that presents the premise of 'right' and 'wrong' as something being defined by whether or not an action sits within the allowances of the law. The law defines these premises for many people. It may be 'wrong' in many peoples' eyes to smoke marijauna, for instance. Yet in the eyes of the rastafarian, it may be surreal that the law even defines a 'right' and a 'wrong' at all for such an action. They may see the smoking as neither right nor wrong, simply a choice of 'to do', or 'not to do'.
That is a large part of my point.
If you want my moral outlook on the entire matter, for me to distinguish for you a 'right' and a 'wrong', I can't. Those are terms of law only. I can only give you my perspective in terms of 'beneficial for the other party' and 'non beneficial for the other party'. I don't know the deep heart of either person, nor the motives, emotions, fears, desires or otherwise that led either into their deicions. I only have empathy that the both of them did have such emotions, fears, desires and otherwise, and that their decisions, outlooks and perspectives have led the both into enmity between themselves and have contributed to a growing 'war' between these two 'groups'. The christian baker, I imagine, feels embarrassment at publicity, doubt perhaps, perhaps christian guilt, perhaps a great fear of what may happen. I am almost certain the christian receives abuse and that he or she suffers. And I don't wish it on her or him.
I imagine the homsexual couple feel some enmity, some anger, some embarrassment, some offence, some of that feeling that makes a person feel 'unworthy' or 'less' or 'like dirt' compared to another. They feel violated in their 'right's, and I imagine the chrsitian feels many of these emotions too.
Both parties are suffering.
My observations are also these;
It would be non-beneficial for me to refuse service to a person under current law if I owned a business, since in owning a business of whatever type, and in having opened that business, I am bound under a countries' business laws, to operate my business within the boundaries of such laws.
I have stated several times that there are several perspectives which I can fathom on refusal to bake a cake as a decision in itself. There are several possible motives for that. Several possible cognitive outcomes that a person would arrive at given the request to bake a cake for a gay wedding. There are several distinctions that can be drawn from the question 'is baking a cake defined as 'support'. It is dependent on whomever the baker is inside. It isn't mine to say that any one distinction is either 'right', or 'wrong', only that the motives and outlooks of any given baker exist, and that a certain distinction is made. The idea of them being 'right' and 'wrong', is dependent upon these factors and how a judge or another person may interpret them, and it is for the law to decide such a distinction.
I only know that it is possible for a 'christian' person to have baked that cake, since some christian people in this room might have done so.
On the other side, the homosexual couples motives are likewise. They have outlooks and conditionings which led to them making their distinctions and decisions.
However, to me, now, both parties are suffering to some extent. And my point again is, that I understand much of the picture, as far as I can. A distinction isnm't mine to be made, unless I understand the hearts behind the actions in entirity.
Were I a judge on the matter, which, I would never be, however, were I (because I think that's what you really want to know), I would explain each side of the argument to either person, since I can see each side of the argument.
To the christian, I would give as much information on all these things as I could, larger even that what I've said in this thread, and to the homosexual couple, I would give likewise. I would explain to them the fear of reprise that led the christian into such a decision, and the absoluteness of their moral standings, the well wishing of what they did and the confusion and arbitration in their minds between what is lawful, what they believe to be righteous, the possible consequences of either action, and the uncertainty of any decision that may be made. The why's, the how's. each time with empathy, not slander.
And likewise to the christian I would show the homosexual's side. The offence and rejection and fear and out-castings, which the homosexual couple would have experienced. Pains, heartaches, slandering and abuses. Therefore explaining the standing on which the homosexual couple made the complaint.
I would argue that should all this be revealed in full, all the motives of the heart (which, interestingly is how God says he will handle the judgement) then each person would have a clear understanding of the other person and a deep empathy would arise between the both of them.
It is not black and white to me. It is not simply a matter of defining the merits of an action. It is much more than that. These are human cognitive processes, human emotions, beliefs, outlooks, perspectives, desires, fears, experiences. They should, in my eyes, be understood as such, and be understood fully as such.
I could never wish suffering on this baker, much less jail, bankruptcy and any other horrible things. For all the things I've said to try to show each side and paint an entire picture, my personal wishes for both parties are forgiveness and peace of mind.
