The Pauline Approach?

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

Paul in Galatians opposed those who argued that a follower of Christ could not eat with Gentiles who were not circumcised -- it was a sign of a major debate in the early years of Christianity, Acts 15 trying to paper over differences aside. Jesus might have associated with various types of sinners (though some gospels verses suggest he generally stuck with Jewish sinners), people then and some now think it immoral to associate at all with certain types of people based on belief or the like. 

This event came to mind when reading Andrew Sullivan's analysis of the "Christianity" of a Kansas bill (like anti-abortion laws, the effort isn't limited to one state) that would increase the ability of people (even public officials) to discriminate against gays (or more than you can now) for religious reasons.  Sullivan:

The idea that Christianity approves of segregating any group is anathema to what Jesus actually preached and the way he actually lived. The current Pope has explicitly opposed such ostracism. Christians, far from seeking distance from “sinners”, should be engaging them, listening to them, ministering to them – not telling them to leave the store or denying them a hotel room or firing them from their job. But then, as I’ve tried to argue for some time now, Christianism is not Christianity. In some practical ways, it is Christianity’s most tenacious foe.

Now, these bills involves public conduct (accommodations and even public officials in some cases -- after all, who was left defending the anti-SSM marriage laws in one or more states? officials who provide the licenses!), but he makes a more general point here. And, putting aside some will not give much credence as to what that Catholic anti-Christ says, I think Sullivan is ultimately correct. He is also right about how horrible such bills are as to long time strategy.  And, as suggested by the lunch counter example, I fail to understand why sexual orientation should be different here than race or gender, including the "let's compromise and make it only somewhat harder for gays" approach.

As some district court judges have been reminding us as to SSM, tradition alone will not save actions in this area. But, there is a familiar feel to these arguments.

---

* The title of this piece might be deemed ironic, given a few verses from his epistles often are used against gays and lesbians. Still, whatever sorts of people he was talking about, did he not sell them tents or something?