Should Christians who by reason of belief and conscience discriminate against same sex couples be held liable under non-discrimination laws or should there be an exception made in order to uphold their First Amendment religious liberty rights?
Though none of the occupations (I added the butcher for obvious literary reasons) are mentioned in the recent spate of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts passed or proposed in several states, the matter is being driven by a few cases across the country involving Christian businesses and gay couples.
Without citing case law and plunging deep into history and details of the RFRAs, Bob Allen, News Director of Baptist News Global, gives a succinct summary of the matter:
Passed by Congress in 1993, RFRA prevents the government from placing a substantial burden on a person’s exercise of religion unless it is for a compelling reason and by the least burdensome means.
The law has been in the news in recent weeks, as states including Indiana and Arkansas considered state versions with language added to apply similar protection to disputes between individuals rather than only cases involving the state.
Supporters of those efforts say business owners like bakers or florists who believe homosexuality is morally wrong should not be forced to participate in same-sex weddings against their conscience. Opponents say such legislation gives businesses a license to discriminate against customers because of their sexual orientation
I am aware that the writer is among our Moderate Baptist friends. I’d quote Baptist Press but I cannot find a quick quote that adequately expresses the opposing sides.
Some of us might dispute some of the terminology in Allen’s article, particularly the phrase “license to discriminate” but I think he accurately reports the conflicting narratives. We clamor for religious liberty. They clamor against giving businesses a license to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Both sides might agree that those supporting RFRAs have been issued a shellacking lately. What might have been yesterday an easy victory for traditional family values is today not just a defeat but quick and decisive defeat.
Here are some considerations:
1. Public opinion has shifted. Gay marriage is widely accepted in the country and overwhelming accepted among certain demographic segments. The most recent poll showed that most Americans do not believe that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. And, by a wide margin, citizens of our country support allowing gay couples to marry. Of course no one has to like or accept polling results. While a poll doesn’t determine what is right or wrong, it does offer some explanation of why public reaction against RFRAs has been so successful.
2. The social agenda of conservative religious groups has been and is on life support. Nothing new here. The sisyphean reality is that we labor mightily only to get repeatedly flattened. When RFRA bills were filed in my state legislature (two years running) they were met by a broad coalition of social and religious opponents. Although heavily Republican, lawmakers in Georgia understand political power and recognize where it is absent or declining. Southern Baptists don’t put the fear of God or of voters in our politicians any more. Perhaps our energy might be better spent on winning souls.
3. Conservative religious bodies like the SBC are declining. We don’t have the influence or do we swing the votes like we used to. One example is the series of local referenda held here a few years ago on Sunday sales of alcohol. Against the loud opposition of The Georgia Baptist Convention leaders, lobbyists, and many pastors, the measure passed all over the state. Voters in large cities, surburban bedroom communities, and rural country crossroads all agreed that citizens of Georgia should be able to buy alcohol on Sundays if they wish. The Baptists might be officially against alcohol (or gambling) but such opposition no longer translates into political power.
4. Our practice of preaching sermons with the theme of “Take Back America”, “America You’re Too Young To Die”, and “God will judge America” is tired, worn out, and manifestly fruitless. Particularly hubristic is the latter assertion which presumes on God’s prerogatives and assumes that God will act decisively and openly on the sin that some among us rank highest on our scale of abhorrence.
5. Our individual actions in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals are unhealthy and demonstrably counterproductive. I feel sure some of the brethren are still using the old “Adam and Steve” laugh line which, along with other similar, has always been useful in expressing disdain and disgust. Dispite a few more measured voices in the SBC, contempt for homosexuals among us is palpable. Some here have called for the state to re-criminalize and punish for gay activity, for example.
6. On a denominational level, we have not had much serious focus on religious liberty issues.
7. We have lost the public relations battle on RFRAs partly because of the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision which allowed some “closely held” corporations, businesses rather than individuals, to exercise religious liberty rights. Some RFRAs proposed after that decision have included expanded definitions which opponents point to as permitting discrimination by businesses against LGBT individuals. We have argued that such is not the case but our arguments have been overwhelmed by opponents. Their narrative is easily the winner.
8. The whole RFRA business is virtually impenetrable to most people, including those who tend to support our positions on this. There may be a way forward but it will not be more of the same.
9. I suspect that we are headed for more judicial activity on the issue. The ERLC’s Russell Moore, among others, is saying that there should be some accommodation and protection for a business whose activity is creative and artistic, a personal expression, e.g., a baker of a wedding cake or a taker of wedding photographs. So far as I am aware, there is no judicial definition or specification for this. I’d speculate that these arguments will eventually be addressed.
I rather like the statement of Brent Walker, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.
To our LGBT friends: with the astonishingly rapid-dawning first opportunity to marry in our country’s 225 year history, try extending some grace to others who have religiously informed objections to same-sex marriage; and if the baker or florist does not want to provide you a cake or flowers, move down the street and give your business to ones who will. To our conservative Christian friends: with religious liberty protected in this country like no other place in the world, try loving your LGBT neighbors (not even talking about your enemies) unconditionally, and understand that providing them goods and services in the marketplace is an act of hospitality, but it does not indicate approval of their nuptial decisions or their sexual orientation. It seems to me this is a better way for good citizens and good Christians to resolve conflict in the public square.
It is possible that Russell Moore would have lunch with Brent Walker and the two of them could find areas on which to join forces?
I think it is the typical vapidity of Brent Walker, who never met a side of an issue he couldn’t endorse. “Let’s keep practicing homosexuals in membership and leadership in our church, let’s just make them be photographed separately in the directory. No…wait…let’s have a directory without ANY family pictures, and everyone can appear in an individual photograph. Let’s not talk about whether religious free exercise ought to be treated as the constitutionally-protected right that it is; let’s just wish that this conflict didn’t exist.”
I can imagine him in the 1770s: “To our established-state-church friends: How wonderful that you have the imprimatur of the state and the benefit of tax revenues! Shouldn’t that be enough for you? Stop being so mean to your dissenting church brethren! To our dissenting Christian friends: Why not try understanding the general assessment bills and blasphemy laws and perks of the state church? After all, Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. You treat the established clergy as if they were your enemies, but really they are your brothers in Christ.”
Now, it’s true enough that it would’ve been an improvement for the established clergy to stop beating dissenting believers and locking them into the stocks. It’s true enough that God has commanded us all to be subject to the governing authorities. But praise be to God, we’ve had moments in our history when people were able to see all of that…and MORE. They were able to see that it was the right thing to do to advocate for an ideal of greater freedom. They were able to do more than mollycoddle. They had the gumption and resolve to take the kind of stand that, while very unpopular at the time, eventually changed the world.
That’s something you’ll not find in the collected works of Brent Walker.
Not your best moment, Bart. Lead with an insult and plow ahead from there. A better approach would have been respectful disagreement.
Well, William, I tried the “if you don’t have anything nice to say…” approach several times over when you brought this quote into the comment thread of my post and then extolled it multiple times.
Finally, after seeing it so often, I thought perhaps someone ought to articulate another point of view.
Don’t worry. I’ll put a “Brent Walker trigger alert” in future posts if I ever quote him again. No need in jerking anything out of joint.
You may not like the tone of my reply, but it is not without substance.
I agree. Not your best moment.
I also think you’re just a tad confused. Brent Walker had nothing to do with the Olan Mills drama you allude to – you’re thinking of a BRETT not BRENT.
I am going to find a bakery owned by a gay person. And, I’m going to ask him to bake me a cake in the shape of a Bible. I will ask them to put the verse, Leviticus 18:22, “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.”
If they refuse to bake this cake, William, would you be in favor of me taking them to court?
David
If they baked it and decorated the way you requested, I would suggest you do not eat it.
John k,
True. I would not want to eat it.
David
Been done, David. Without success:
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/azucar-bakery-did-not-discriminate-by-refusing-to-115703680320.html
But, no, I would not be in favor of your doing this because it would be unkind, would be putting in the bulls eye some business person who is probably working hard, getting up a 3 am to bake cakes and cookies, trying to make a living. It would seem to be a clear violation of The Golden Rule. Besides, I know you would take a couple of aspirin, pray on the way to the bakery, and your devotion to Christ and Christian love for your neighbor would win out.
But I understand we get exercised about these things.
William,
I would be ALL FOR the gay baker refusing to bake a cake like this. I am FOR freedom.
David
Reuters didn’t ask specifically about refusing to serve a gay wedding. They asked very broadly about refusing services generally to a particular class of people.
Question asked was:
“Businesses should have the right to refuse services to certain people or groups based on religious beliefs”
The type of questions asked determines your polling outcome. Over 62% of democratic and liberals support the right to refuse service to the KKK. Its all in the question.
Should a Muslim taxi driver be allowed not to take a passenger whom has a Dog?
Should a Muslim taxi driver be allowed to refuse to take a passenger who has a sealed container of alcohol?
Muslims in Minneapolis are allowed to refuse service to these passengers gay or straight.
Should a Muslim be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a Gay couples wedding? Check out this video taken in Dearborn, Michigan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4
It is not a question of RFRA or religious freedom. The Question today is only, only, about Christian Freedoms. Are Christians free to practice their faith. Muslims are.
But the point is about discrimination against a class of people in general. The ‘carve outs’ for religious liberty would get differing results. The broad phrasing of some of the RFRAs were such that it was thought that businesses were being given a license to engage in such discrimination against a class of people.
That is the opposing narrative, and it was a winner with the public. It may be weak on facts and strong in speculation but it clearly registered on businesses, legislators, and the public.
Should a Muslim Caterer be forced to serve BBQ pork to a wedding rehearsal dinner?
NO.
David
No one is asking people to offer services they do not already offer. No one is being asked to deliver a message they disagree with. People are being asked to provide the service they advertise whether or not they agree with the lifestyle of the people receiving their service.
When I see someone with a Walmart bag, I do not conclude that Walmart has endorsed that person’s life. Nor do I think Chick-fil-A necessarily approves of the behavior of all of its patrons. I have no idea what a florist thinks of the couple in the marriage being services. And a cake is not an endorsement. Christians are seeking special privilege, not religious freedom. They seek the ability to thumb their noses at people whose lifestyle dares to go against what Christians pretend to be the will of God.
And I had been doing so good at not commenting, but David, your comment was too ridiculous to let go.
Chris,
Again, we’re not just talking about someone selling someone a cup of coffee, or selling a ticket to the movie theater. We’re talking about being asked to bake a cake with 2 men on top of the cake, or taking pics of 2 women getting married. And yes, it would be the same as asking a Muslim to sell pork chops at a caterer, or asking a liberal feminist to bake a cake celebrating Pro Life.
Chris, I would bake the cake, if I owned the bakery. I wouldn’t put 2 men on top, or bake a cake with a pic of a nude woman on it.
I do believe it’s a religious freedom issue. And, why don’t the gays find another bakery? Why are they making this such an issue? Why are they making this into such a big, huge deal?Hummmmmm…. wait a minute….maybe I just answered my own question; ya think?
David
David, why don’t Christians just do the business they’ve always done? Why do they have to make such a big deal about it? Why are they trying to push through laws protecting specific forms of discrimination?
Actually RFRA is a “shield law” protection of religious freedom. It has only been twisted as a pretzel in the media and activist groups lately to the point folks say:
“The broad phrasing of some of the RFRAs were such that it was thought that businesses were being given a license to engage in such discrimination against a class of people.”
A complete distortion of any RFRA law passed in the US by congress or any state. Thoughts are not laws.
I wonder how many homosexual owned bakeries would agree to making a cake with an inscription like,
“Same-Sex Marriage is Sinful”?
And, to be fair to Christian bakers, shouldn’t the homosexual baker be legally forced to comply?
If a Christian runs a hardware store, I don’t think he would have any problem selling a hammer, etc. to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. The same with gays being served at a Christian owned restaurant; no problem.
But for a Christian baker to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage,
a Christian photographer to take pictures for a same-sex marriage,
a Christian restaurant owner to cater a same-sex marriage,
a Christian florist to provide flowers at a same-sex marriage —
that seems to be more of a Christian being forced to put his stamp of approval on the concept of same-sex marriage.
Shouldn’t we be free to respectfully disagree?
David R. Brumbelow
David B.
Here is the answer to your query…
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/294575-court-sides-bakery-denied-christian-two-bible-shaped-cakes/?source=FBshare
I think the question is yet to be decided. Narrowing the discrimination down to refusing to do a personal, creative, artistic service is what some are calling for. I haven’t seen a lot of persuasiveness on this.
But you know, William, this is kind of the point I was making about Brent Walker. Is the fact that this argument is unpopular reason enough for you to say that it shouldn’t be made?
What argument am I saying shouldn’t be made?
Of course, for you to be unwilling to advance an unpopular argument in defense of religious liberty is no big problem. You’re a private citizen. You’re under no special obligations.
Brent Walker, on the other hand, heads up an organization whose mission (ostensibly) is “to defend and extend God-given religious liberty for all, furthering the Baptist heritage that champions the principle that religion must be freely exercised, neither advanced nor inhibited by government.”
So, can anyone show me how Walker’s statement accomplishes his mission statement? It’s no defense of religious liberty. It’s certainly no extension of it (and it’s his job to argue for the extension of it!). I can’t see that it champions anything. Does that press release advance this mission statement? Not in any way that I can detect.
You are making points about what he didn’t say? I thought what he said was appropriate. You might want to do a piece comparing BJCPA and ERLC.
Wait a minute….the old Church Covenant on the wall of the building insists that we abstain from “selling intoxicating beverages.” And the two members of the church who owned stores solidly always refused to do so–one losing his business, over time, to the store up the road that did sell beer.
Were they wrong to force their religious beliefs on the community by declining to serve people who were, in the beliefs of the Baptists, sinning?
Seems we have long tried to encourage Christians not to profit from the sins of others. That we have not been successful in stopping sin, nor in stopping some Christians from sin profiteering, does not require that we give up the effort.
Had a member, a whole, big family, who owned the liquor store. He and his crowd would come every year to the summer revival, every night, and pack a couple of pews. Whenever my wife wanted to make a rum cake, I’d get a deacon who knew his way around the liquor store to go and get the bottle.
The simple answer here is that the guy who doesn’t sell beer, wine, or liquor doesn’t sell it to anyone, not even the Methodists. No discrimination there.
Doug, the crux of the issue is connected with what you’ve posted. Everyone agrees that business owners have the right to decide which products they will sell. Most everyone agrees that business owners shouldn’t discriminate regarding to whom they will sell those products that they offer.
The heart of the question is whether gay marriage is marriage. Jesus says it isn’t. The Supreme Court says it is (or soon will). People are left to choose which voice they will hear.
And so, a Barronnelle Stutzman sees it as a product question. She serves everyone. She offers a number of floral products. Among those, she offers wedding flowers. She does not regard gay-wedding flowers as the same product. She refuses to do any same-sex marriage because that’s not a product that she offers.
As proof of this, ask yourself this question: What if two men came to her and said, “Hey, we’re straight. We don’t plan to have sex. But we’re getting married because my buddy here can get me insurance benefits at his job.” Stutzman still isn’t going to do that wedding. It doesn’t matter whether the participants are gay or straight; she’s not offering the product of flowers for two men to have a wedding ceremony.
The left, on the other hand, views this as the same product. Wedding flowers are wedding flowers are wedding flowers. The only difference is in the customers. She’s discriminating against people without cause.
So, nobody argues that whiskey is the same product as grape juice. That’s why nobody is compelled to sell alcohol. The question is whether this is a product-based decision or a customer-based decision. If you don’t think gay-marriage is marriage, it is clearly the former.
Suppose 90% of Americans are for eating pork.
Since that is an overwhelming majority,
does that mean a Jewish or Muslim owned restaurant should be forced to cater pork ribs at a wedding, whether the marriage is gay or straight?
In other words,
even if a clear majority of Americans believe in same-sex marriage –
that should have nothing to do with forcing Christians to violate their sincerely held beliefs.
David R. Brumbelow
William,
“To our conservative Christian friends: with religious liberty protected in this country like no other place in the world, try loving your LGBT neighbors (not even talking about your enemies) unconditionally, and understand that providing them goods and services in the marketplace is an act of hospitality, but it does not indicate approval of their nuptial decisions or their sexual orientation. It seems to me this is a better way for good citizens and good Christians to resolve conflict in the public square.”
Problem is that no one has done or argued what he implies with his comment (that homosexuals should not be served products and services offered the public because of their sexual preferences – only that certain activity will not be endorsed – ie – “gay weddings”)… the pizza place, nor the photographers, nor the bakers have refused services to homosexuals – instead they have refused to endorse an activity. I see an huge difference.
(Lets not forget that rights recognized and articulated and inalienable rights within the constitution regarding religious liberty (not given mind you but recognized as such) have been placed beneath created and newly introduced “rights” and has been done so under the hand of the govt – forcing people to embrace and celebrate activity has denied the right to decide which activities they wish to endorse with their name, product and art)
As to Brent Walker’s overall advice –
The advice he gives the homosexuals is sound and quite reasonable.
If only his advice had only stopped there before giving advice to his “Conservative Christian Friends” – advice which is not sound advice at all – but instead a cordial (yet transparent) appeal for us to simply capitulate.
Here is another interesting take on this William,
Art is speech….the government forcing a Christian to create art that violates their religious conviction and that do not voluntarily wish to create is, in addition to violating their religious liberty, also infringing on that individuals right to exercise their speech as they see fit.
How about the freedom of assembly (association) – the govt. forcing someone to associate (by catering a party, for example) is also a violation of the constitutionally recognized freedom of that individual.
Litigate bro…that’s where this will be decided.
Legally – you’re correct – but I really don’t care what they say and on the march to telling us as pastors what we must do – I choose to honor God rather than man and I’m confident I’m not alone.
I hope you will give to our bail fund when we’re arrested for “discrimination” and “hate speech” in refusing to do a false ceremony and/or in proclaiming the truth that sinners need to repent – that’s right repent and that’s including the sin of being of being a practicing, unrepentant homosexual.
I often hear from the activists, the Liberals, and the moderates on this issue – “pastors don’t have to perform these types of marriages”, “they are exempt”.
William, do you support the ideas listed above – the pastors are a special breed who have special religious rights that others don’t have? Namely, to refuse to endorse or celebrate “gay marriage”.
If not – well okay then at least we’ll know where you stand.
If so….
I’d like to hear a morally and philosophically consistent explanation why pastors should be exempt and allowed to “act intolerantly” refuse to celebrate this sinful endeavor while other Christians not afforded the same freedom?
Tarheel,
There’s light years of difference between being the agent of the state responsible for marrying two people, and selling someone some cake.
You’re not William.
You know, Tarheel, sometimes you are a bit shrill. Take a couple of aspirin.
I am not obligated to carry out duties as an agent of the state. I am constitutionally protected by the First Amendment in my worship and actions as a minister, as is my church. Roman Catholics don’t have to grant equal clergy rights to women, nor do they have to bring their marriage sacrament in line the state’s laws. There is a considerable body of precedent in all this. The rub comes in peripheral areas like wedding vendors, etc.
Christians don’t wear the victim mantle well here and it’s an insult to persecuted believers in many parts of the world to speak and act this way.
“You know, Tarheel, sometimes you are a bit shrill.”
Yay! You said sometimes! I’m improving! 😉
What protagonists and antagonists both are missing on this issue is that this is not just a freedom of religion issue, but a freedom of speech issue as well. Particularly this is about the freedom not to speak.
What’s being asked for is not the right to deny services to an individual based on their perceived sexual orientation, but the right not to have to speak on behalf of nuptial for which one disagrees. For instance, a photo is a form of speech (thus the reason why pornography is Constitutionally protected according to SCOTUS). Should a photographer be forced to document and speak through photographic form a message to which he is adamantly opposed (whether for religious reasons or otherwise)? Should he not be given the freedom not only to express his thoughts through his pictures, but also to not express thoughts through pictures. The same is true for the speech of other artistic expressions such as cakes, floral and other decorations, printing, etc?
Again, let’s be clear on this issue because I think many are confusing it. This is not about the right to deny services to someone. This is about the right to speech. What we are asking for is not only the right to speak and express ourselves, but also the right to not speak and be forced to express a view to which we are opposed.
That’s right William Carpenter – right indeed!
“…let’s be clear…”
It isn’t clear. That’s why we have politicians, pundits, and bloggers.
Which is also why I speak to clarify the issue. We have bloggers, pundits, and politicians obfuscating the issue (some I think intentionally) because they want to make this about denying service. I want to bring clarity by saying, “Let’s be clear, this is a freedom of speech issue.”
William,
Very sad days for the American public.
The redefinition of passion, disguised in marriage dress, is pretty much a done deal ….. Striking down DOMA ushered into place an ignorant and liberal judicial ruling that allows for a protected “class” that is based upon “activity”. Degrading activity at the very least. It was a sad day for all Americans as the Supreme Court created a precedent and onramp for horrid situations to be instituted, and common sense and decency are now challenged as illegitimate.
Yet even so, …maybe it is beginning to be a wake-up call for Americans too, and those that care about a moral law, as many are now beginning to realize that standing up for common sense moral actions really is a better way for all America. It was a long fight or those committed to “degrading passion” to change the tide and language of morality. It will take work to get back to freedom of speech, where “actions” are no longer creative qualifiers on par with a protected “class” movement, but moreover, where law is associated to a created people and rights are morally based for the good of the people.
Why stand for less… or cry about what has already taken place??
No problem. Stand up for whatever you think right and proper, wake up, fight back. The American public, however, doesn’t agree with your minority position. The gaps are widening, not shrinking, even though we’ve fulminated about, cajoled, and promoted the ‘take back’ position for about 35 years.
We have become a political minority who is most happy and fulfilled while losing in public policy decisions. We love to play the victim.
We have a long history of losing politics. The only winner we have is the Gospel itself. Perhaps we should put more energy in sharing it, individual-by-individual.
No, evangelism and political activism is not a zero sum game. But when ordinary SBC churches give over several Sundays of their sacred worship time to thinly disguised political promotion. To what end? Nothing that has advanced the cause of Jesus that I see.
William T.,
“The only winner we have is the Gospel itself. Perhaps we should put more energy in sharing it, individual-by-individual.
No, evangelism and political activism is not a zero sum game. But when ordinary SBC churches give over several Sundays of their sacred worship time to thinly disguised political promotion. To what end? Nothing that has advanced the cause of Jesus that I see.”
Assumptions lots of you make.
Our church does no such thing. We don’t preach “take America back sermons” nor do we have such Sunday’s….we focus on sharing the gospel – clearly though part of sharing the gospel is exposing sin – and explaining its consequences.
The great commission tells us to go about and make disciples – and part of doing that is teaching Christ followers to rebuke evil and cling to that which is good – do not leave their face in the church house are in the personal home to take it into the world – to live it out every day even in how one conduct their business. I support and encourage business owners to operate thier businesses with thier faith not just in mind – but in practice!
*do not leave their faith in the church house or in the personal home but to take it into the world
Tarheel, exactly right! The Gospel is very powerful and does effect change. How else will the self proclaimed homosexual begin to understand that their actions really do speak louder than words….and their words have been very persuasive to naive and politically motivated Justices. The actions of degrading passion, not only are deviating to foundational morality, those actions also do harm to the individual which emanates into a culture. Degraded passion has always create hardships throughout history.
It is truly no different than the actions and intent alongside pornography. Its like making a pornographer a “special class” of people for what they do, because they have an interest in doing pornography. Pornographers, being American, have rights like any other American, yet making them a special class is what the Supreme Court seems to be in the business of living out in our current culture.
William, there is no need to spend a great deal of time in churches explaining “degrading passion”. It just does not take that long to explain the gross, unnatural actions of degrading passion. Yet, if our children, or others in our congregations are confused about the subject, then by all means we should not just brush it aside because the Supreme Court has spoken. Simply tell the congregation the truth.
God speaks with more authority and puts truth on display, ….we should stand up and do the same in a very precise way. After all, we have the Word of God that is unchangeable and effective.
Glad to hear it. I can hardly find an SBC church in my area who does not go for civil religion, take back America, and trot out GOP candidates on several Sundays each year.
William, you’ve identified an opportunity in your local area to help steer your brothers back to the Gospel and away from political rallying, but I would encourage you not to shy away from telling the truth about “degraded passion”.
this is so sad –
People are not being “denied” because individual business owners disagree with that lifestyle (lifestyle interviews are not conducted) instead they are being denied because the owner Doesn’t wish to render his or her SPEECH (art) in support of something they oppose. He/she is not wanting to participate in and cater a reception an event they don’t want to ASSOCIATE/ASSEMBLE with (attend). He or she is RELIGIOUSLY opposed as Well.
The government is busy usurping and ripping these rights of religious expression, speech and assembly away from christian business owners right before our very eyes and many Christians are being silent about it – Or worse defending and parroting the talking points of those who are doing it.
No one is stopping anyone from “practicing” their “art” any way they want. Those Christian florists and bakers, etc, can bake their cakes a million ways and give them away to their heart’s content. But if you want to open a business, if you want to participate in society, there are rules and guidelines of expected behavior. We adhere to a million of these every day. Christians suddenly want special exemption when the rules require them to be nice to people they don’t want to be nice to. Force everyone else to act Christian? No problem! More legislating morality! Force Christians to be nice to people who choose not to act like them? PERSECUTION! RELIGIOUS SUPPRESSION! THE END TIMES!!!1!
So Chris, can painter be sued for refusing to be commissioned to paint a painting that expresses a viewpoint he disagrees with. Can a singer be sued for refusing to perform at an event he doesn’t support.
To be more specific, could an atheist painter be compelled to paint a picture for a religious organization expressing values of that religious organization (say for instance I want a picture of a mountain scene that encapsulates the creative wonder of God in that scene, and I’ve seen this artists pictures of nature before, therefore I want to commission him for this undertaking).
How about if a rock band was requested to perform at our church’s outreach event (they can play their own songs), but they refuse to perform because they disagree with the religious views of our church. Can I sue them to compel them to perform at my event.
Although some are striving to argue otherwise, these illustrations are what is being asked of the butchers, bakers, and picture makers in this article. A baker and photographer are being asked to take something they do regularly make wedding cakes and take wedding pictures, but to do so in a way that encapsulates a view to which they disagree (a gay marriage). Likewise on the basis, a wedding singer could be compelled to perform at an event which expresses views to which he disagrees. If someone wants to buy my cake, and then decides to take it to a homosexual wedding, I don’t see where I could protest that, or if someone buys my cd which sold on an open market and then decides to play it at a homosexual wedding, I don’t see where I could protest that. Once my product leaves my hands, its outside my purview as to what is done with it. But what is being asked in these situations is for me to produce something I do regularly, but to do so in a way that celebrates something I cannot celebrate; or to perform at an event celebrating an idea that I disagree with.
In an earlier comment thread you asked why Christians don’t just do the business they’ve always done. That is actually what Christians are asking to be allowed to do, the business of celebrating traditional (and legitimate marriages) through their creative arts. Society has now decided to impose something new on them and then pretend that it is not in fact something new.
Chris R.
“No one is stopping anyone from “practicing” their “art” any way they want.”
No one says that are. We are saying that Christians are being asked by homosexuals and the government is forcing them to perform are that they DO NOT want to perform.
*art they do not want to perform.
Chris is actually right about how the Supreme Court is forcing people,…Christians this time, into forced civility in accordance to artificial “class” protection. The only way to undo forced precedent, like that established by the Supreme Court in this matter, is to help reverse the slide.
Mudslides are difficult to control, and tear away good foundations of morality. I’m afraid this current immoral slide, bathed in degrading passion, has not finished its destruction as of yet. Rebuilding morality through law is always a difficult endeavor….takes time. Preaching the gospel is the best remedy for delivering morality and love within a community.
Christian Churches ‘Must Be Made’ To Affirm Homosexuality, Says New York Times Columnist
http://newsforchristians.com/
David R. Brumbelow
David B.,
And, this is EXACTLY where all of this is going. The homosexual crowd is not content to just be accepted as okay; they also want everyone to be FORCED to APPROVE of their sinful lifestyle. And, Churches and Pastors are next on their wicked agenda.
I really think that Christians and the Church are looking at persecution in the near future, and it will be coming from the homosexual/PC crowd and the Muslims. I think we’ve got it coming towards us from these two, very different crowds.
In my area…in the Bible Buckle of the South….people have been seeing Muslims gathering in Church parking lots; dressed in their garb….praying to Allah. I would imagine that their prayers have something to do with bringing down the Christian Churches in the area, just as ISIS is trying to destroy any relic or historical markers from the past that have anything to do with Christianity….to wipe any signs of the Christian faith from the face of the planet.
So, I’m becoming more convinced with each passing day that we’ll face persecution from these two, very different crowds. Christians need to be ready for it.
David
Every law discriminates.
Every law discriminates on the basis of morality.
By definition.
We have a law that says you have to drive on the right side of the road. This law discriminates between those who drive on the right (we leave them alone) and those who drive on the left (we fine or arrest them). This discrimination is based on a moral principle: We ought to limit loss of life and property by creating driving rules.
Our society used to believe that it is morally wrong for two people of the same sex to have sex with each other. So we discriminated on the basis of morality. We didn’t let two men or two women get married. We even arrested them if we caught them in the act.
Now, our society believes that it is wrong to stop two people of the same sex from having sex with each other. So we discriminate on the basis of morality. We allow two men or two women to get married. We prosecute anyone who won’t rent them a motel room or bake them a cake.
As conservative Christians, our moral beliefs used to put us in the majority; now, they put us in the minority. Instead of the ones doing the discriminating, now we’re being discriminated against. Turnabout is fair play, someone might say.
That’s all fine and good if you’re content to live in a society ruled by whatever brand of morality happens to be in vogue. But history teaches us that’s a pretty scary prospect. Hence the Bill of Rights.
What if our society decides that anti-government speech is immoral and should be outlawed? Is that ok? No, the Framers thought, so they gave us the Free Speech clause. If the government wants to discriminate against you based on what you say, they have to have a really good (compelling) reason and the discrimination has to be really necessary (narrowly tailored and no less restrictive means).
What if our society decides that a certain religious practice is immoral and should be outlawed? Is that ok? No, the Framers thought, so they gave us the Free Exercise clause. So, same rules, right? Compelling reasons and narrowly tailored? Yes, said the Supreme Court . . . until it said no. Now, religious freedom offers no protection against discrimination that has any kind of “rational basis.” In other words, discrimination is ok so long as the government had any reason for it, other than that they just wanted to be mean to you.
The RFRAs don’t legislate discrimination any more or less than any other kind of law. What they do is restore the greater protections we used to have based on religious liberty. The pushback we’ve seen against the RFRAs is due to the fact that our societal morality has changed so much that it has created an unwritten Constitution under which sexual freedom trumps religious freedom. (See Al Mohler’s exposition on this.) The RFRAs are quite faithful to the spirit of our written Constitution, but quite contrary to our invisible one.
And with an invisible Constitution, it’s harder to see what’s in there. We can hope the anti-religious discrimination stops with cakes and flowers. I wouldn’t count on it.
Bingo!
Yes, Jeff!
SCOTUS Justices Scalia and Thomas have been fighting hard against the notion of “the living – evolving constitution” for many years.
(you called it the invisible constitution – I think it is same concept)
White House decries therapy for homosexuals
http://bpnews.net/44557/white-house-decries-therapy-for-homosexuals
David R. Brumbelow
Obama and his puppets continue to tear at the very fabric of why Jesus came to die, and at the power of His resurrection. A very powerful American voice squarely poised against the Christ he pawns off at Prayer breakfasts.
God is merciful, yet will never be mocked. We should pray for our leaders!