Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

If someone is just buying flowers at a store and doing the decorating themselves, then, yeah, it’s just selling flowers. I’d have a hard time writing “Congratulations Jim and Jim” on a cake, though. You are saying something by doing that.

But to your original question, two posts back, I still wouldn’t counsel someone to go against their conscience. Might talk through the situation, because we also have a conscientious duty to obey the law as well. But in the end, we obey God rather than man.

[Mark_Smith]

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.

The greatest Star Trek series was TNG. ;)

You would answer this - “Am I violating the will / command of God to sell my services to gay couple?”

How?

I would tell them there is no easy answer but they need to settle in their own conscience what their role is. I would tell them that godly Christians differ and not one of those others can salve their conscience.

• My answer (as a retired pastor):
• Obey the law

The only caveat I would add is that under the law, we have a full right of appeal. I don’t view this as a matter that warrants civil disobedience. And going to jail for it would likely be impossible and unwise. But a person is fully entitled to pursue the full legal course to protect their conscience and their business. Having run that course, should the courts rule against, I think you have no choice but to get out of the wedding business or do them all.

Jim accurately defended my point. Some here would argue that of course we can tell the difference between gay couples that are getting married and non-gay couples. My entire point is that the homosexual counter-argument to that is simple - you can discriminate against gay couples because their genders are obvious, but you are already a hypocrite and discriminating because you cannot refuse (or even recognize) when you sell flowers to heterosexual fornicators or adulterers.

Once they can say that, on the basis of law, the court should rightly agree that Christians are unfairly discriminating.

Don’s reference to Romans 14 is accurate - if you can’t, with a clean conscience and as an easy decision, participate in selling flowers (or whatever) because you may be a party to their sins, then you have your answer and should back out of the business. Thanks, Don, for bringing that passage of Scripture into the discussion!

Here’s a newsflash for Christians - the courts don’t care about theological matters. They care about legal matters. If someone can argue that they are treated any differently on the basis of sexual orientation in a court of law, they win the legal argument. It’s that simple, and I’m really surprised that so many are having a hard time understanding this.

America is not a Christian nation anymore. To act like it is, or to waste time ‘Making America Christian Again’ is utter folly. God is our King, not the President or the Supreme Court. The world has changed, and we need to adapt to that fact, not get bogged down in defending a political state that has no power over souls. God didn’t put us in America to make the country a theocratic state.

And as for this:

I cannot let this post pass in silence. There are some opinions that are so wrong that a response is required.

The greatest Star Trek series was TNG. [Wink]

I completely agree with. :)

What about them? They are all actual marriages, right or wrong. A gay marriage is not an actual marriage

No, Larry, the courts would recognize a second marriage (I mean something outside of Matthew 19 / 1 Cor. 7) as a valid marriage as well. The florist with Christian convictions should refuse to do those as well, and that doesn’t even deal with cohabiting couples that are unmarried, heterosexual domestic partnerships, or just plain old dating relationships with sexual activity.

The courts don’t care about the Scriptural basis of marriages, nor should they. A marriage is a legal contract as well as a theological concept. The courts should only care about the legal side of things and get out of the theology business. Would you want a court deciding that Islamic theology is ‘more correct’ than Christian theology, and ruling accordingly?

If Christians were as hard on heterosexual sin as we can be on homosexual sin, most of this issue would be much clearer and easier to deal with.

My entire point is that the homosexual counter-argument to that is simple - you can discriminate against gay couples because their genders are obvious, but you are already a hypocrite and discriminating because you cannot refuse (or even recognize) when you sell flowers to heterosexual fornicators or adulterers.

That’s not necessarily hypocrisy because you don’t know the status of everyone buying flowers. But most florists probably do not view a purchase of flowers for something like that on the same level as a whole wedding set up which is most more extensive. But again, conscience, Jay. It’s theirs; not yours. They should have freedom of conscience. If they don’t want the business from that couple, they should be allowed to decline it. They are the only ones who suffer.

No, Larry, the courts would recognize a second marriage (I mean something outside of Matthew 19 / 1 Cor. 7) as a valid marriage as well.

What do you mean, “No” Most Christians would recognize a second marriage. That was my point. A second marriage is a valid marriage. A homosexual marriage is not. It’s not the same question.

The florist with Christian convictions should refuse to do those as well, and that doesn’t even deal with cohabiting couples that are unmarried, heterosexual domestic partnerships, or just plain old dating relationships with sexual activity.

Who died and left you in charge of telling Christians what their convictions should be? Why must a Christian florist (or any other kind of Christian) be required to share your conscience and your convictions?

And that’s to say nothing of Muslims, Jews, Christian science practitioners, atheists, etc. all of whom should have the same rights as the florist to do business with whom they wish and succeed or fail based on their choices. Who is going to tell them what their conscience should be?

You seem to think this is about Christianity. It isn’t. It is about religious liberty under the constitution.

The courts don’t care about the Scriptural basis of marriages, nor should they.

This has been my point from the beginning (including the KY clerk case). The law requires religious liberty and freedom of conscience. The court has no business coercing religious beliefs or consciences. It has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with civics in our country. I am not saying courts should rule on Christian theology. They should not. They should rule on the constitution that prohibits restrictions on the free exercise of religion. For the life of me I can’t understand why that is either confusing or debatable.

The law in Washington (and other places) restricts the free exercise of religion and religious beliefs in exchange for a career. As I pointed out, in most cases (Washington included) creed or religion is a protected class. Which makes this a legal absurdity in some ways. The court seems to be requiring of her what she apparently cannot even do to an employee of hers, namely, choose between her religious convictions and her job.

The kernel of our differences can be summed up here:

This has been my point from the beginning (including the KY clerk case). The law requires religious liberty and freedom of conscience. The court has no business coercing religious beliefs or consciences. It has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with civics in our country. I am not saying courts should rule on Christian theology. They should not. They should rule on the constitution that prohibits restrictions on the free exercise of religion.

First off, the court isn’t ruling in accordance with the constitution - it’s ruling in accordance with Washington State law. The Supreme Court is the only one that can finally decide the merits of a claim on state law vs. Constitutional law. Frankly, I’m not real optimistic on the Supreme Court either, after Obergefell and several other cases over the last three or four years.

Secondly, yes, those are the laws right now. I’m talking about where the nation is headed, and it’s headed towards an override/repeal of the kinds of laws (like DOMA) as being ‘discriminatory’. If you aren’t seeing this, you aren’t paying attention. I’m looking at ‘Mene, Mene, Tekel’ writing on the wall and trying to preempt Christians from fighting battles that are doomed to failure and warn those who have no idea just how far out of step they are with society. To put it a different way, Christians are trying to defend Prohibition again. It’s not going to win and shouldn’t be a battle we’re fighting.

We all know that homosexuality is a sin, just as heterosexual sins are. There are massive battles to fight ahead for religious liberty. This particular battle is not worth fighting. In a perfect world, anyone should be allowed to pick and choose their clientele, but that’s not the world we live in. We cannot be consistent on this unless you want to stop participating in all ungodly marriages, incl. homosexual ones. That’s my point.

First off, the court isn’t ruling in accordance with the constitution - it’s ruling in accordance with Washington State law.

This is a problem because state laws cannot override the Constitution at this point in our history. That was the whole basis of Obergfell (in spite of the ruling two years earlier that marriage was a state issue). State laws banning marriage were superceded by constitutional claims.

I am not optimistic on SCOTUS either because they declined to hear the photog case as I recall (or the baker). I imagine eventually they will pick on of them. But who knows what will happen.

There are massive battles to fight ahead for religious liberty. This particular battle is not worth fighting.

If not this, then what battle is worth fighting? This is the farm, or at least most of it. And once you give it away, it’s not coming back. The right to believe and practice according to the dictates of conscience is the bedrock of religious freedom in our country. It is, at least in part, why this country was founded. Once it is given up, there is no longer a line. Again, I think claims of Christian persecution are way overblown. But this seems the real deal. If a Christian is forbidden to live by their conscience in the workplace, what is left?

We cannot be consistent on this unless you want to stop participating in all ungodly marriages, incl. homosexual ones. That’s my point.

I understand your point, but I think it’s wrong for a very simple reason: This is not about participating in a marriage or not. In fact, it’s not even about marriage. It is about freedom of conscience that is guaranteed by the Constitution for all citizens. A citizen of the US should be free to live by their conscience.

What would you say is worth fighting over? I wonder if you have anything you would say is worth fighting over.