Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case

that many people think that they ARE obeying God by not recognizing the legitimacy of the law saying that you cannot say NO to baking a cake for a same-sex wedding, etc. As an example, I listed cases where the law allows things that I would not do.

[Larry]

It strikes me, upon looking in any bakery or even most grocery stores, especially Wal-Mart, that anyone who bakes anything does take part in the sins of others—I am referring specifically to the sins of gluttony and greed. They don’t sell “skinny jeans” in a size 20 because Americans have self-control in the area of eating, after all.

What does that have to do with this?

The core question for the florist, photographer, baker, or whatever is whether they can in good conscience participate in the sins of others. Wouldn’t enabling gluttony count in this regard? We can therefore add one to Mark’s list:

— work at Old Country Buffet or related restaurants. It’s legal, but we can really question whether it’s ethical in some regards to encourage people to “pig out.” No?

….and really, I encourage people to work through things like Mark’s list, because we fundamentalists really do have an obligation to consider the moral and ethical implications of what we do.

Thanks, Jim. I too appreciate you and the interaction here.

You probably have a more sensitive conscience than I. (I didn’t say a weaker conscience). I could sell flowers for a gay wedding
You say “we should obey our consciences” … I say “we should obey the law”

I honestly don’t know what I would do. Knowing my sense of artistry and my artistic ability, those looking to buy flowers for anything would make this a decision I would never have to make.

Regarding conscience vs. law, we must obey our conscience (Rom 14). If we can also obey the law (by not selling flowers, wine, porn, etc.) we should also do that.

Regarding IBT, I remember that case. I think it was silly. But they were entitled to do what they did, which is do what they thought was right and appeal it. Ultimately, they paid a very high price for that. I would not have done it and would have left the church over it. But under the law, they had the right to do what they did.

In this particular case (flowers, or baker, or photog), if their conscience says they can’t do it and the law does not change, then they have to get out of the wedding business. That’s how you obey your conscience and the law.

You wrote:

In this particular case (flowers, or baker, or photog), if their conscience says they can’t do it and the law does not change, then they have to get out of the wedding business. That’s how you obey your conscience and the law.

I agree with that statement.

I want to add this - this is a secular country, and Washington is a secular state. We must always make that differentiation. As a secular state, Washington has to uphold the legal (not theological) rights of all its citizens. For consistency, they must either rule:

1. that everybody in the public service and/or hospitality industry can deny business to anybody they want, according to their own subjective interpretation of their own particular beliefs, or
2. that everybody in the public service and/or hospitality industry must serve people without distinction, as a way to maintain some semblance of fairness and economic decency.

What is a secular state to do?

• Should a hotel be penalized for firing a maid who thinks it’s sinful to clean rooms where pre-marital sex occurred the night before?
• Should Microsoft be forced to retain an employee who thinks he is aiding child pornography by working on the next Windows project
• Should a Landmark Baptist baker be allowed to only serve “true Christians” who are member of “true” Baptist churches?

Once you open the door for this kind of subjectivism, it will never end. Anybody in the world can then use their “conscience” as an excuse for all sorts of activities. We’ve both gone ‘round and ‘round on this, so this is likely the last comment I’ll make here:

• If you make a choice to work in the public service/hospitality industry, and your conscience will not allow you to serve any customer who walks through your door, then you should just do something else. We have no data, but I’m guessing Paul did not care who he made tents for. But, he probably preached the Gospel to them and gladly took their money for the tent.

If you had been around longer…

I am not sure it is possible for me to be around any longer. I am not sure there is any current member who has been here longer than I have. Perhaps Greg Linscott is still registered. IIRC, my membership was in the single digits all the way back when. But I understand your point. I have seen it.

Where we disagree I think:

• You probably have a more sensitive conscience than I. (I didn’t say a weaker conscience). I could sell flowers for a gay wedding
• You say “we should obey our consciences” … I say “we should obey the law”
• You see these rulings as the first (or second … or third) domino against religious freedom in America … I see it as “meh”

Jim, the whole point of Larry’s argument is that he is obeying the law - he’s obeying the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Our point is that the 1st Amendment is being superceded by current court rulings and that we should go with that. I do agree with Larry that the first amendment should trump current law and rulings. Unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in today. Larry’s point is that we do still live in that world and should fight to be able to exercise the rights delineated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights instead of letting it go.

I’m conflicted on that point. Yes, we should be under that…they are our founding documents. I just don’t know how much of an issue Christians should make in defense of ‘rights’ that are accorded by political governments. I was thinking that for a vast majority of Christian history, there simply haven’t been many examples of this kind of issue. It wasn’t like Rome accorded special privileges for religious worship - you either worshipped the Emperor or you were put to death at one point.

It’s a hard question…and I really do think that this may simply be a Romans 14 / individual conscience issue.

FWIW, Larry was a member of SI before I joined sometime in 2004 (I think - we’ve undergone two major upgrades and I don’t know how far back we can search on that. I know the admin/mod logins had to be manually recreated by Aaron when 3.0 launched, and I doubt that the metadata from previous iterations carried over.) He’s one of our longest running members by far.

It really is simple, but the leftys won’t let it happen.

A-If you work for someone, as long as they don’t ask you to break the law, you have to follow their directions.

B- As I said in A, I was on record that the Arkansas/Alabama (?) Register of Deeds a year or so ago needed to register same-sex licenses or resign. That is unless she wants to file a lawsuit contesting the legitimacy of the licenses she is issuing.

C- If you are a private business owner, IMHO you have the right to serve OR NOT SERVE anyone you want. Just because you put a shingle up doesn’t mean you have to take every job. That claim by the SCOTUS was intended to break up segregation. Ok. But it went too far.

D- So, if you own the photography business, you should be able to reject a job FOR ANY REASON. If you work for that owner, you have to do what he/she says. How about that?

It really is that simple.

I agree with Mark, in that if you are an owner/independent, you should be able to accept/reject any job for any reason. If you are an employee, you signed on the dotted line knowing your job duties and agreeing to abide by company policy, and so you should shut up and do your job.

I’m Libertarian enough to say that gov’t should not be decreeing how businesses should operate unless they are providing a service directly related to things like healthcare (which would require credentials/licenses). If you want to only photograph Christian weddings, you should be able to hang a shingle and advertise your services to those select few on the basis you choose.

There are plenty of businesses out there that cater to a select clientele, although the criteria is usually money/status, not sexual ‘orientation’, and their reasons have nothing to do with conscience. If you walk into a fancy-schmancy restaurant looking and smelling like you spent the night in a landfill, you are going to be asked to leave. If you try to walk the red carpet in Hollywood and you aren’t a celebrity, they are going to carry you away while the cameras soak up the drama.

However, if you do not disclose that you only serve a select clientele, I think it’s disingenuous to pick and choose based on what you can and can’t visibly see about a person’s lifestyle choices. I think it makes Christians look foolish when such cases go to court and these inconsistencies are revealed.

IOW, I believe that business owners should be able to do business according to their conscience, but I also think they need to be up front about the services they provide, and who they will provide them to.

Personally, I’m in agreement that providing a product or service doesn’t necessarily make one a party to the lifestyle choices of one’s clients/customers.