Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case
- 3 views
[Larry]Should a Christian programmer be forced to code for a pornography site?
You are a website development company. A pornographer wants you to develop a site for him. Must you?
Or, a local Islamic organization wants you to develop an Islamic evangelization website. Must you?
People used to be “big boys” and “big girls” and just take their business elsewhere. Now, courts are being forced to legislate secular morality, which is something they really cannot do well. The end-result will be that everybody is afraid to do or say anything.
I will say this - Christians who support this florist in this case should be perfectly prepared for a gay florist to refuse to do a Christian wedding at the local Baptist church. They should celebrate that right and not say one single thing about it. That would be consistency.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Mark_Smith]Larry wrote:
Should a Christian programmer be forced to code for a pornography site?
You are a website development company. A pornographer wants you to develop a site for him. Must you?
Or, a local Islamic organization wants you to develop an Islamic evangelization website. Must you?
There are two reasons that a website developer need not develop a site. First of all, pornographers and Muslims are not protected classes, and of course the latter invokes religious freedoms to boot. Also, I would guess that even secular developers might say “there is simply some content that I will not install to your site…”
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
A Christian has a retail store that sells computers. Most computers today are powerful enough to serve webpages with the right software, et cetera
The retailer would sell to all comers with the right cash
No, not apples to apples because computers have a legitimate use.
Muslims are of course a protected class under religion, but then of course you’ve also got your religious freedom rights. Plus, since we don’t know Arabic or Muslim, we ain’t likely to get the job. :^)
Nice oops on my part!
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
We live in a world that “is” not what it ought to be
It’s the law in Washington State
It’s the law in Washington State
But should it be? No, IMO. And I am not even sure they got this law right. This seems a conclusion in search of a reason. This is an easy one. It has nothing to do with being Christian. It has to do with being American.
Per Tyler’s comment, it strikes me that our response to service refused ought to be to go on, but at times to remember that “they don’t like to serve our kind.” Since there are a lot more “fundagelicals” out there than homosexuals, at least in most areas, I think people will get the message if at all they depend on business outside their own demographic.
And really, if a business doesn’t want to serve demographic A, they can do it under the radar. For example, if you don’t want to serve blacks, fly the Confederate Battle Flag. Don’t want to serve fundagelicals? Rainbow flag will do great. Don’t want to serve gun owners? Post the business as a gun free zone.
Which is to say that while anti-bias laws aren’t quite useless, it’s pretty close, as businesses signal what they’re about pretty routinely.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I don’t believe the framers of the Constitution would understand what on earth the Washington State Supreme Court was thinking. The Constitution has been lost. To borrow a theological phrase, it has been “fenced in” by so many precedents and other decisions that you cannot really find it anymore.
You’d need a near-miracle for the Supreme Court to cut through all the layers of interpretive precedent and get back to what the text actually says. I see no hope. Those who looked to Trump to solve our cultural sin were sorely mistaken.
I don’t think the florist should be forced to serve these people. Yet, if you interpret the statutes and precedents, the florist loses. She only loses according to legal standards in accordance with Washington State law, not objective moral standards according to God’s law.
People need to read 2 Peter and buckle up. It’s not gonna get better. Things are ‘bout to get real, ya’ll. We can cry over injustices, or start preparing ourselves for more of this. One thing is certain, the other side ain’t playin’ with kid gloves.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
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?
I talked about this in Sunday School class with the court clerk who was in the spotlight last year. My issue is this - how can a Christian argue that it is against their conscience to prepare flowers for a homosexual wedding if they have been selling flower arrangements to all other sorts of sexual deviancy? Unmarried/Cohabiting Couples, Men and their mistresses, even just teenagers that are in ‘love’ and want something nice to celebrate their third anniversary?
I get that two guys buying flowers for each other is obvious, but we can’t have it both ways. Either don’t do it at all or take all comers. You can’t be consistent without asking invasive and unwarranted questions of your clients.
Personally, I’d advise Christian florists to get out of that field. It’s just a litigation war zone on this topic.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
My issue is this - how can a Christian argue that it is against their conscience to prepare flowers for a homosexual wedding if they have been selling flower arrangements to all other sorts of sexual deviancy?
Because it’s their conscience. It doesn’t have to conform to others. No one has the right to coerce that. That is what keeps getting missed here. People think that other people’s conscience is up for judgment.
The Washington florists ARE obeying their consciences!
- They are obeying the Washington state law by NOT purveying flowers to any weddings
- While continuing their artistic passions of purveying flowers to other events
Their “we must obey God rather than man” option would be:
- Purveying flowers to only to weddings that they deem meeting the standards of godly weddings
- Trusting God
- Experiencing the consequences
OR the “Mayflower” option:
- Go to another “shore” where they can express their artistic passions of purveying flowers selectively
- And not be persecuted by the state
We live in Babylon NOT Theocractic Israel (say the “good times” under Moses or David)
Babylon’s court (SCOTUS) is not likely to help them!
Jim, First, my point was about Jay’s (and other’s) question about how someone can do X and not Y. The answer is that it is their conscience. It doesn’t have to make sense to someone else or be acceptable to them. The whole point of conscience is that it belongs to individuals, not to states, or even to others.
Second, it’s not about Babylon vs. theocratic. This is the history of our country and written right into the founding document. The same thing applies to all religions and all consciences, not simply Christians. Muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. should have all the same rights. The point is that they shouldn’t have to make that choice to stop. Their religious freedoms guaranteed by the founding documents and agreements are being curtailed with no compelling governmental interest.
Third, it is doubtful that SCOTUS will intervene.
Discussion