“But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” (Matt. 5:38-41)

On Thursday, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. Nineteen states now have similar laws, as does the federal government. Facebook and Twitter erupted. Supporters argue the law merely protects religious individuals and businesses in disputes with other citizens or the government. Opponents claim the law is a license for discrimination, especially against homosexuals. There is probably some element of truth in both portrayals. Though the laws do not encourage discrimination, and given their history there is little evidence to indicate they have been used in a broadly discriminatory way, they do allow for the possibility of a legally protected refusal of services (think bakers, florists, etc…) in some situations.

Stunningly, at least for me, I don’t wish to belabor the legalities. Instead, I want to focus on our obligations as Christians. In short, I think Christians should consider conducting business with anyone and for any reason unless conducting that business forces them to sin. They should not, as a rule, use their religious liberties as a means to isolate themselves from the world that surrounds them.* Why? Because the world is in desperate need of the gospel and we are called to spread it however we can and to anyone that will listen. Asserting these liberties makes that job, at least in this situation, much, much harder.

We, as believers, are adjusting to life in a post-Christian age. We are used to a culture that is either somewhat reflective of, or at least not openly hostile to, our beliefs. Within that reality, we could freely argue for and assert our beliefs. Doing so was not inherently divisive, nor did it necessarily detract from the gospel message. Why? Because there was a loosely agreed upon conception of the common good. Though people may differ in how Christianity fit that conception, they rarely saw a conflict between the gospel and their own rights.

Those days have been long past for several decades. A hostile culture means that asserting our political beliefs has consequences for how people look at us and, by extension, the gospel we proclaim. Sometimes, those costs are worth it. However, I am worried that as believers we have adopted our surrounding political culture. In our fierce desire to protect our rights, we have presented ourselves publicly via a political or legal agenda. In doing so, we have too often minimized or ignored the love of Christ. As a result, we are tempted to conceive of people–be they liberals, progressives, pacifists, or homosexuals–so that they are chiefly political opponents or legal adversaries. The face we show to homosexuals, or the LGBTQ community in general, should not always be hidden behind a mask of rights, but one that displays the peace, joy, and love that only comes through the gospel.

We have, in recent years, communicated a very particular message to the gay community. We have marked it as uniquely sinful in a way that makes us uncomfortable in comparison to any other group of sinners. Asking or expecting the government to give us the ability to discriminate uniquely against homosexuals further cements this conception. In this very narrow way, advocating for, and using, this law further alienates homosexuals and splinters any bridge the church might build into that world.

For these reasons, Christian businesses and individuals within those businesses should not turn away clients because they are gay.** This, to me, is the best way to repair and build relationships that are frequently a conduit for the spread of the gospel. Of course, for this to be meaningful, those businesses need to seize opportunities to share the gospel. Business for the sake of business isn’t good enough. Business should be an avenue for the gospel, just like any other vocation in which Christians are engaged.

Let me add a proviso or two for the sake of clarity. Homosexual behavior, according to Scripture, is sinful. My argument should not be construed to say otherwise. Also, showing the love of Christ cannot be interpreted to mean we are free from spreading the truth of Scripture. We have to do both–spread the truth of the Gospel with the love of Christ. How people perceive that truth is beyond our control so long as we share Christ with love.

Even if Christians feel oppressed or picked on in this environment, whether by homosexuals or others, Christ makes our obligations clear. As referenced above, if we view this as unfair or unjust or discomfiting, we should approach those interactions by turning the other cheek, walking the extra mile, and loving even our enemies. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ tells us how to interact socially. He is not spelling out a political agenda, but he is framing a Christian approach to society. By being targeted, we are granted an opportunity to reveal Christ. Instead of just claiming our political rights, we should also seek Christ and his calling. The highest form of political engagement would be to do both simultaneously.

Possible objections:

1. Christian businesses should not be forced to identify with, support, or be seen as approving sin or sinful lifestyles.

At some level, I understand this. Doing business, however, means engaging in economic transactions with sinners. Even if one does business within the Christian subculture, there is still sin involved. Perhaps others are more evolved, but I cannot claim to be free from sin’s grasp. My observations, in conjunction with biblical support, suggest this is the case for everyone. Doing business with human beings is confronting sin on a daily basis. Choosing not to do business with homosexual couples does not limit a business’s interactions with sinful people. Instead, it selects which kind of sin is preferable in comparison to other kinds of sin.

Of course, a florist or a baker who does weddings might argue that there is a difference between working with fallen people and in supporting a twisted conception of marriage that is at odds with Scripture. I would want to be sure those businesses apply the same reasoning to previously divorced couples, adulterers, or others who approach marriage outside of the traditional, biblical conception. If they do, I suppose that makes sense. If they don’t, they need to consider why they don’t.

For believers our default should be to associate with sinners, just as Christ did. Christian holiness is not a calling to be separate from sinners, but a call to separation from our own sins. There is a difference and we should discuss it.

2. This is a matter of conscience. The government should not infringe on religious conscience and we, as believers, should be willing to opt out of such arrangements due to conscience.

As a purely legal matter, I agree–in general. But such claims are most relevant when actual behavior is at issue and not when applied to associations and interactions. Think of this in the context of the “weaker brother” problems in 1 Corinthians 8. Eating meat sacrificed to idols was not sinful, but some, due to their past or their immaturity in the faith, thought otherwise. Paul gives both groups the freedom to choose so long as those who are stronger do not choose in ways that are difficult for these “weaker” brothers to understand. Conscience was relevant given that some thought that eating such meat was wrong. Just as refraining from alcohol or choosing not to serve in the military may be matters of conscience, the issue is one of personal activity. Selectively applying conscience based on context or association is different.

Neither florists, nor bakers, nor videographers for weddings have legitimate conscience claims involving their activities. After all, how could they? They do this for a living. Their claim is that they don’t want homosexuals to benefit from their talents and skills because of the perceived support of homosexual marriage as an institution. I suppose the great question here is whether or not that argument is morally defensible.

I am more sympathetic if there is no obvious cost attached to such an objection, or if the cost is impersonal or dispersed. For instance, a conscientious objection against war will not, in any meaningful sense, hamper the nation’s ability to fight a war. It marks the objector and opens them up for ridicule or other social costs, but no other party is obviously harmed. Or, claiming that one cannot drink as a matter of conscience has no obvious personal cost for anyone other than the one making the objection.

Exercising conscience in business transactions with homosexuals is different. There are costs involved that are not present in these other circumstances. Saying no to a customer is direct and targeted. It creates a personal breach in a way the other scenarios do not. Granted, some might argue that such a breach is worth it.

If Christians believe that denying service is the right choice, we must be very clear about one thing. They are deliberately deciding that their own consciences are more valuable than a possible avenue for the gospel. Again, if they perceive that baking that cake is sinful in some way, that is defensible. And in the end, I would respect that choice even if I disagree with it.

But, let me add one more layer to my concern. I agree the government should have a very limited ability to coerce economic activity. But how I think of that issue legally or constitutionally should NOT shape my decision of whether or not to serve the gay couple. My political ideology as it relates to poverty, for example, should NOT dictate my choice to love my neighbor. My conservatism does not relieve me of my obligation to care for the poor personally.

On this matter, my legal and constitutional views of what government can or cannot do should not alter my interactions with homosexuals in a business context. Those interactions should be structured by my Christian calling.

“For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:15-16)

I suppose, In the end, I think we do have the religious right (constitutionally defined) to refuse services to gay couples in some circumstances. Asserting that right has consequences we should carefully measure. Though I would never argue that refusing service in these situations is evil, we should do our best to live in the spirit of the passage above. Our freedom is a precious thing. Asserting it against government in a manner that alienates a segment of society and, at minimum, complicates how, or if, we share the gospel with the LGBTQ community, is a serious proposition and we should treat it as such.

*This is not to suggest that Christians are somehow deficient when they use the government’s provisions and protections when appropriate. We know, for example, that Paul asserted his Roman citizenship (see Acts 22:25) to protect himself from an unjust flogging. There is a difference between asserting legal protections against government and in using them to isolate yourself from unbelievers.

*This is not to suggest that Christians are somehow deficient when they use the government’s provisions and protections when appropriate. We know, for example, that Paul asserted his Roman citizenship (see Acts 22:25) to protect himself from an unjust flogging. There is a difference between asserting legal protections against government and in using them to isolate yourself from unbelievers.

**I am not addressing churches or other overtly religious entities. They have the ability to determine their own membership or employee requirements. That is not the same as “doing business” in the way I am using here.