Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

• Christians refuse to deduct donations to their respective churches
• Churches pay property taxes
• Pastors refuse to claim the housing allowance

What does that have to do with any of this? Tax exemption is designed to protect churches from government interference and power. It is to prevent the use of tax policy to govern religion. No taxes=no power. They can’t come and promise me a lower tax rate for supporting certain things and they can’t raise my tax rate for no supporting certain things. They have no say. None of these things you list would have any effect on the topic at hand which is individual, not corporate, and not even Christian.

I have 2 issues with the florists, bakers & photogs (not saying I am “right” but the issues with which I struggle)

The “artist” claim (me: how are they different than say a plumber or electrician or DJ)
The “we only support god-honoring marriages” (of which “ ‘gay marriages’ don’t qualify” claim)

Are there a lot of plumbers and electricians claiming their work is art? I have seen some of their work, and it doesn’t look like art to me. And I have done some of it. It wasn’t art. But if they make that claim, let them make it and lose the business they would have otherwise had. Let the market work. If people don’t want to make money from a certain thing, then they shouldn’t have to. The irony is that so many on the left are claiming people make too much money and now they want to force them to make more.

On point 2: (Jay was on this line above): What about?

2nd marriages?
Unequally yoked marriages?
Fornicators before marriage unions?
Et cetera

What about them? They are all actual marriages, right or wrong. A gay marriage is not an actual marriage. And if someone doesn’t want to do flowers or photography for these kinds of weddings, then they shouldn’t have to. The government should stay out of it. Let the vendors and the consumers do business in a way that is satisfactory to both. There are plenty of people—Christians and otherwise—who will be glad to take these jobs and make money off of them.

Jim, I don’t understand the consternation. How could this be any more simple? This is not even a hard matter. It requires no baby to split. It is a matter of conscience and market. Let both work. If someone doesn’t want to make money by selling something to someone, then don’t force them to, regardless of the reason they give (or the real reason). And if someone doesn’t want to buy from someone, then don’t force them to.

The government has actual real live problems to deal with. Imagine how many issues of actual significance could have been adjudicated for the time and money that have been put in to this absolutely nonsensical issue.

My answer (or understanding): We live “in the land of the Chaldeans by the Chebar canal” (Ezekiel 1:3)

Hermeneutical issues aside, I agree. My point is not a biblical one or a Christian one. It is a civic one—what our Constitution guarantees to all citizens, Christian or not. It has nothing to do with the Bible. No matter one’s religious persuasion, this should not be controversial. The government should not, indeed is not allowed by the Constitution, coerce religious beliefs or matters of conscience.

Regarding past use of the arguments, you are correct that it is not the same. Therefore, it is illegitimate to treat it the same even if it some people think it’s the same. The fact that some people don’t think carefully is no reason why others should not. We have no right to ignore the truth simply because some other people do. Nonetheless, the market continues to be a powerful force. There were also some compelling government interests at stake in that that do not exist in this. Not the least of which was a prohibitive law (you shall not) as opposed to a permissive law (one is allowed not to). Bigotry is always ugly, even when it comes from the left.

I am surprised Jim that you would make the “we are living in Babylon” point. It seems to me that that kind of reasoning could be used to justify some pretty bizarre government overreach. What if the situation was a Muslim woman who refused to sell the flowers? Should a Muslim caterer be forced to make a pork dish for a gay couple’s wedding? Is it discrimination if they choose not to take that job? It’s not a theological issue. It’s, as Larry has pointed out, one that goes to the heart of what our nation has stood for since its inception.

It seems to me that some in this thread have thrown the baby out with the bath water. In trying to avoid the “America is a Christian Nation” argument they have inadvertently accepted another governmental abuse of personal rights.

Me: neither the florist, baker nor photog - not art

You ever try to make a flower arrangement or take a photo for a special occasion? It is art without question. Plumbing and electrical is science and mechanics.

I personally cannot think of one right that my government has abused / restrained

How about the right of some to run a business according to their religious convictions? That has clearly been restrained. To make it all about you seems a bit selfish and short-sighted. It’s not all about me and there is a longer term picture. The camel’s nose is only the beginning. And I am not one of the Chicken Little Christians; you know, the ones on whom the sky is always falling. But this is a clear-cut and indisputable issue. If a person of any type cannot live by their religious convictions, then it matters not that everyone else can. The camel’s nose is already in.

Rm 14.23

Asking the question shows the presence of conscience - evidence of doubt. I can’t counsel someone to violate their conscience. God’s will is to honor your conscience.

Besides, I think you are asking the question incorrectly. It’s not just a “selling of services” it is a participation in an act.