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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
*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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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).… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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!