“It is the Price of Citizenship”?—An Elegy for Religious Liberty in America

[Mike Verway]

It would be ludicrous for the church to get involved!

There are any number of situations where one’s occupation may conflict with his conscience and with the testimony of his local church to which he has covenanted in membership. Is it none of the church’s business in any of these matters?

Do you really mean this? Yup! Not in the matters you mentioned

The church would be way out of line in these cases (mentioned in this thread): To discipline a member for:

• Renting a home or apartment to a homosexual couple
• Providing limo or taxi service to a homosexual
• Being a vendor at a homosexual wedding be it: baker or photographer or such

How does a Minnesota independent seminary get around Minnesota law if they do not include “sexual orientation” in their nondiscrimination policy?

[Mike Verway] There are any number of situations where one’s occupation may conflict with his conscience and with the testimony of his local church to which he has covenanted in membership.

Please list those occupations:

1. …

2. …

3 …

[Barry L.]

How does a Minnesota independent seminary get around Minnesota law if they do not include “sexual orientation” in their nondiscrimination policy?

[Jim]

[Mike Verway] There are any number of situations where one’s occupation may conflict with his conscience and with the testimony of his local church to which he has covenanted in membership.

Please list those occupations:

1. …

2. …

3 …

Occupations that would conflict with testimony of local church

1. Casino worker
2. Bar owner / worker
3. Abortion Dr / abortion clinic worker
4. TSA worker (joking)

Occupations that would NOT conflict with testimony of local church

1. Professional photographer who in the course of his business may take photos of a gay wedding
2. Limo driver / livery owner who in the course of his business may transport a gay couple

Your turn!

Adding to jobs in conflict from a California perspective:

1. Wine maker or any job that is integral to the liquor industry (production, distribution, sales (not including grocery store or restaurant workers).
2. Any job in the marijuana industry.

[Jim]

Occupations that would conflict with testimony of local church

1. Casino worker
2. Bar owner / worker
3. Abortion Dr / abortion clinic worker
4. TSA worker (joking)

Occupations that would NOT conflict with testimony of local church

1. Professional photographer who in the course of his business may take photos of a gay wedding
2. Limo driver / livery owner who in the course of his business may transport a gay couple

Your turn!

Rob, any job in the marijuana industry?

How would working in a medical dispensary differ from working in a pharmacy now that the dispensary is legal?

I wanted to separate this, but the alcohol related jobs wouldn’t rise to the level of potential church interference unless the church had a prohibition against alcohol in the membership covenant. Of course, while many of us might attend that church, we wouldn’t apply for membership for exactly that reason - so we still wouldn’t be candidates for church discipline.

Pleas note this

would NOT conflict with testimony of local church

is the operative phrase. A local church’s testimony can be nebulous. I am taking Romans 14:16 and the verses surrounding it, I Thessalonians 5:22, and others as my guiding principles.

Until marijuana laws are harmonized at both the State and Federal levels, I’d stay away. Remember, I’m writing from a California perspective. In Del Norte and Mendocino counties marijuana is a big time cash crop. So, I’m including the whole industry not just clerking at a dispensary.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Rob, any job in the marijuana industry?

How would working in a medical dispensary differ from working in a pharmacy now that the dispensary is legal?

[Chip Van Emmerik]

If you go far enough allowing discrimination of conscience, you end up back in segregation. Many (most?) racist whites of the early 1900s would have claimed the right of conscience to “protect” their families and communities by segregation, and would have claimed biblical support for their position.

Chip,

I think you overstate the consequences of such freedom of conscience. And besides, that goes way beyond what I am talking about. Using the authority of government to force segregation or integration is a violation of the rights of individual citizens, IMO. Instead, maybe government intervention is part of the problem rather than the solution.

I am not arguing for a return to early 1900s racial politics, but for a truly revolutionary approach where each person has equal rights under the law. Under the guise of equal rights, we have swung the pendulum too far, at least in some cases (think, Affirmative Action). In a truly free society, one person may discriminate against another, while his neighbor may extend service to the discriminated party, thus earning his business and appreciation. If there is enough demand for both businesses, they may both survive. If not, then the one with the smaller customer base will suffer (all other things being equal).

[pvawter]

[Chip Van Emmerik]

If you go far enough allowing discrimination of conscience, you end up back in segregation. Many (most?) racist whites of the early 1900s would have claimed the right of conscience to “protect” their families and communities by segregation, and would have claimed biblical support for their position.

Chip,

I think you overstate the consequences of such freedom of conscience. And besides, that goes way beyond what I am talking about. Using the authority of government to force segregation or integration is a violation of the rights of individual citizens, IMO. Instead, maybe government intervention is part of the problem rather than the solution.

I am not arguing for a return to early 1900s racial politics, but for a truly revolutionary approach where each person has equal rights under the law. Under the guise of equal rights, we have swung the pendulum too far, at least in some cases (think, Affirmative Action). In a truly free society, one person may discriminate against another, while his neighbor may extend service to the discriminated party, thus earning his business and appreciation. If there is enough demand for both businesses, they may both survive. If not, then the one with the smaller customer base will suffer (all other things being equal).

Problem is that we see the difference between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on sexual orientation, but the federal government now does not. Churches are still allowed to discriminate based on race, but religious institutions are not if they want to keep their tax exempt status and secular accreditation. This will start to spill over to fairness with regards to “sexual orientation”. There will be challenges in the very near future to Christian universities on this.

[Barry L.]

Problem is that we see the difference between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on sexual orientation, but the federal government now does not. Churches are still allowed to discriminate based on race, but religious institutions are not if they want to keep their tax exempt status and secular accreditation. This will start to spill over to fairness with regards to “sexual orientation”. There will be challenges in the very near future to Christian universities on this.

[pvawter] Sorry chip,
I am not being clear enough. You cannot stop racism via legislation, and I don’t think you should try. Racist policy or laws should be struck down. I am talking about the liberty for individual citizens to be racist without that being unlawful. that does not mean I support racism in general, but I support the freedom within the marketplace for people to make decisions according to their own beliefs and deal with the consequences of their behavior.
Why must the government step in every time someone from a “protected class” is mistreated? All that does is create a gap between people in the protected classes and those who are unprotected. Sounds to me like unequal treatment under the law, exactly what these policies purport to exclude.