First let’s understand exactly what’s contained in the bill sponsored by Republican State Sen. Al Melvin of Arizona. He is not looking to legalize blatant discrimination against homosexuals. He is seeking to correct an apparent anomaly in the law that sees judges and civil rights commissions telling Christian bakeries and photographers that they must bake cakes and photograph gay weddings, even though the very notion is antithetical to their faith.

Melvin simply wants to codify it into law that service professionals who find themselves in such a situation cannot face legal consequences simply because they decline to provide such a service. If a gay couple wants a wedding cake or a pictures, they can get them from a provider who is willing to provide it. They cannot attempt to force a provider who finds the proposition in conflict with their faith to do so.

The examples Cooper uses in the second video are especially dishonest, and completely misrepresent that Christian beliefs that Melvin seeks to protect, which I guess is why Melvin is so flummoxed by the examples.

The problem here is not that a Christian loan officer doesn’t want to make a loan to a divorced person or an unwed mother. Christians are not demanding the right not to associate with imperfect people. If that were the case, we couldn’t even associate with ourselves! The issue here concerns the kinds of services in which the provider of the service essentially joins in celebrating the event taking place. The job of a wedding photographer is to create images that paint the ceremony and the couple in the most positive light possible. The job of a wedding cake baker is to create a cake the celebrates the couple and their marriage.

That is a serious problem for Christians because it goes way beyond liking or not liking gay marriage. It requires you to participate in the celebration of gay marriage. It’s like if I, as a writer, was asked by a two men to write some sort of story, poem or vignette to be read at their wedding ceremony. Do I have the skill to do it? Absolutely. But I wouldn’t do it because I live according to the Bible, which says that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God.

All Martin’s law does is seek to protect people like me who would choose in that situation to decline participation.

There is nothing in Christian doctrine that prohibits a loan officer from lending to an unwed mother or a divorced person. The idea is not that you don’t like the person. Indeed, people in these situations may well need access to a loan more urgently than others so it would behoove a Christian person to help. You’re not celebrating or actively encouraging sex outside of marriage, or divorce, by associating in an entirely unrelated manner with a person who has been involved in these things.

By portraying Martin’s bill as he does, Anderson Cooper completely misrepresents what the bill is designed to do. He either doesn’t understand the bill, or doesn’t understand what Christians believe, or both. Or he’s completely dishonest.

Cooper came out publicly as being gay not long ago. Perhaps he feels that as a gay man who’s out of the closet, he has an obligation to be tough on anyone who sponsors legislation not favored by the homosexual community. But if he’s going to do that, he need to know his facts, and he needs to deal in the truth. Cooper did neither in this interview. His performance is a total disgrace.