Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

The Supreme Court’s record in 1st amendment cases is complicated, confusing, and often inconsistent. If the details of appeal law allow, they will wait to appeal for SC hearing until Gorsuch is on the Court, since he is sympathetic to religious liberty arguments, although the particular Episcopal church he is a member of allows homosexual members. Bottom Line: No way to know how the Supreme Court would rule.

Blame this on our “friends” from the South who refused to serve Blacks. The power of the government ramped up to break that segregation. Now, the courts have ruled that owning a business means you cannot select in any way who you want to serve. It is patently ridiculous. But, the power used to break up racial segregation is being used to shut up opposition to same-sex marriage.

I weep that our Christian forefathers sinned by promoting racial segregation, and that has led to even greater sin.

I know most of you are too sanctified to ever watch TV, but some of us are worldly. Back in the 90s there was a TV show called Star Trek: DS9. IMHO it was the greatest of the real Star Trek.

The main antagonist is a Cardassian alien named Gul Dukat. At one point, talking of defeating your enemies, he says the point is not just to defeat them, but “to get them to admit that they were wrong to oppose you in the first place.” That is where the same-sex crowd is headed on this issue.

I fail to see a meaningful legal (not theological) distinction between (a) the artistic expression necessary to provide floral arrangement which she knows a homosexual man brings home to express affection to his homosexual lover, and (b) an arrangement for a homosexual wedding.

But the point of religious freedom and conscience is that it doesn’t matter what you see or fail to see. The conscience belongs to her and she has a right to live under that conscience. You don’t want courts deciding which matters of religious freedom and conscience are legitimate and which are not.

Especially because, “[a] s Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism(link is external),” (slip decision, p.27). Looks like she gave away the farm and hung herself on that one.

I don’t know the full argument she presented, but at face value, a Muslim marriage is an actual marriage not a sinful one. Same with an atheist marriage. And again, it isn’t your conscience that matters. The constitution does not afford you or the courts the right to sit in judgment on that. I think that remains the major problem here.

Larry:

I agree with you that the courts shouldn’t sit in judgment on these matters. But they have, and they will continue to. This is because the advocates for the sexual revolution will keep on pressing their warfare through the courts. This will not change. There is no future for Christians in public hospitality services. They will find you and sue you. Practically speaking, you must:

1. Be very consistent with your Christian beliefs and basically serve only evangelical Christians (what’s a Landmark Baptist florist to do!? :) ) - and thus be sued by everybody, or
2. Serve everybody, make a living, and remain silent about your “artistic expressions” in the context of your business. This is what millions of Christians do every single day where they work. They recognize they live in a passively hostile work environment. They do their jobs. They maintain a Christian testimony. They worship God in their church and preach the Gospel. They shut up at work and, well … work.

I’m not saying this is “right” or “the way things should be.” I’m just saying that is what you’ll have to do. Or be sued. Activists are making courts legislate on matters they shouldn’t really be touching, because these deviants have an agenda. They seek to impose celebration of their deviance through legislation.

Ironically, they’re legislating morality.

Mark, Now I know the truth about you! :)

One thing that is very important here is that historic anti-discrimination laws were fairly tenable—they remedied real discrimination against an easily identifiable group. You get 20% black applicants for jobs/housing, and if nobody with dark skin gets a job or an apartment, you’ve got cause to investigate.

With homosexuals/etc., now increasingly qualifying for protection, you’ve got a case where it’s only obvious that they’re in the group when they are either (a) being completely obvious or stereotypical or (b) contracting for wedding related services. And in the case of (a), if someone really doesn’t want to give them a job or apartment, you simply say “their personality wouldn’t work with our staff or clients” or “their personality is not a good fit for our other renters”, and the EEOC and others are going to have a hard time making anything stick.

And statistics? Given many homosexuals are not “out”, good luck making a statistical case for disparate impact. So apart from harassing photographers, DJs, bakers, and florists, I’ve got to admit I really don’t know what one would do with applying discrimination law to homosexuals—besides making lawyers rich.

Should a Christian programmer be forced to code for a pornography site?

Nope. Which is why a Christian programmer who decides to take that stand will find himself quickly destroyed by he courts unless he is very consistent because, presumably:

• He does not impose a religious test on all clients he has - but he has made an exception for this one. Why?
• Where is the line between who this programmer will code for, and who he won’t? Will he code for a purely secular, benign news site? What if the news site is very leftist, and promotes a very anti-Christian worldview? Why not protest then? Why is there a break now, with pornography?
• What about this particular hypothetical scenario (the pornographer) makes the Christian programmer protest? Is pornography inherently more sinful than the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ articles the post at the news site he programs for?
• Pretend the Christian is a programmer on the next Windows project at Microsoft. He knows the operating system will be used by people who engage in all sorts of criminal activity, including child pornography. Should he file a grievance and demand Microsoft pull him off this project because he can’t be involved with a project which facilitates sinful behavior? Does the employee deserve to review all proposed assignments and impose his own subjective religious test on which projects he takes on?

We can go round and round on this forever, Larry. I agree with you theologically. Legally, I just have no sympathy for the florist. Or the Christian programmer. Quit if you need to - but recognize the position you’re in. Years back, I could have applied to a senior emergency management position at the regional Planned Parenthood. I didn’t even bother - because I couldn’t do the job, in good conscience. If I had applied, got the job, then turned around and been indignant because (gee, who woulda thunk it?) I’m being asked to do things against my conscience, I’d be laughed at.

This world is overtly hostile to convicted Christian principles. We’d better get used to it.

It’s worth noting that a few years back, German authorities applied the fact that prostitution is legal there to “suggest” that unemployed women consider the trade in their search for work, or else lose benefits. Thankfully, they backed off, but it does illustrate what a libertarian (guilty in part at least) will tell you about having government run things; “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

Which is also to say that Mark has a good point in his comment above; more or less to compel people to say “we were wrong all along”. It’s a play for acceptance, really.

Does the Constitution really say that to operate a business means you have to serve EVERYONE?

Remember the old “no shoes, no shirt, no service” signs?

Called “Trials and Tribblations”. Have you seen that one?