Washington court rules against florist in gay wedding case
- 3 views
Petition to Scotus
https://adflegal.blob.core.windows.net/web-content-dev/docs/default-sou…
Alliance Defending Freedom
What would you say is worth fighting over? I wonder if you have anything you would say is worth fighting over.
When the courts start ruling that people cannot be Christians. When the courts start dictating that we can or cannot pray. When evangelism is illegalized. When, and only when, the courts begin to explicitly interfere with clear Biblical teaching, faith, and practice. That’s the kind of thing that we need to be prepared for, because that’s what is coming down the pike like a runaway train.
The option to prepare and be involved in or not be involved in commitment ceremonies or weddings? No, I don’t think that hill is important enough to die on or for.
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.
And anyone that is not a Christian would say that it’s about the freedom of LGBT people to be treated equally under the law. Donald Verrilli noted that when he argued the Obergefell case. That’s why we keep having these discussions over and over again.
Larry, I would strongly recommend you listen to Al Mohler’s Thinking In Public podcast from this week (with Ron Dreher). We’ve already lost this war, and we lost it long before the first Christian was sued.
"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
DREHER: God is not the center of American culture or of Western civilization anymore. But it’s easy to think that this is alarmist when you look around you, especially if you live in the South as I do and see churches everywhere. But go inside those churches. Talk to the people about what they know about the historic Christian faith. You’ll often find it’s very very thin and it. And I think that the loss of faith among the elites in society is huge. Christianity is now a minority position and in many places at the highest levels of our society, it’s considered bigotry, orthodox Christianity is considered bigotry. This is not going to get any better.
MOHLER: No, it’s gonna get any better, and I think—go back to the metaphor of the melting iceberg; the last part melts a lot quicker than the first part, in that there’s not much place to stand. And when I think about this in terms of the binding authority of Christianity evaporating from the culture, and then you mention the elites, of course, you could go back to the 18th century and find evidence of some artistic and literary figures, philosophical figures who held to such a view, accelerated even during the Victorian age in the English-speaking world. But what we now have is the fact that it turns out that the revolutions of the 60s and the 70s were a lot bigger than we knew at the time.
DREHER: That’s right. A lot of Christians think that this all started in the 60s, if we could just get back to the 50s, that was the golden age. But the 60s could not have happened if not for the 50s, if everything had been solid in the 50s. My argument in the book is this has been going on for centuries. We’ve been building this increasing secularization for centuries, and we’re just now living out the fruits of things that happened in this culture in the enlightenment, especially in in the Industrial Revolution. This is not a time for panic, but it is a time for Christians to take seriously the times we’re in, to read the signs of the times and to respond in a responsible way, in a clear way, in a patient way…
MOHLER: …And in terms of the secular turn and how we end up in a situation where Christianity that had once been the predominant, if not the solitary frame of reference, then became one frame of reference among others, and is now a frame of reference, a truth claim, a comprehensive view of life that is repudiated by the elites—we have both written a great deal about the fact that it was the Obergefell decision in 2015 by the Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage that really is kind of the absolute declaration of this secular domination.
DREHER: That’s true. It was the Waterloo of the culture war for our side. And even before Obergefell we had the Indiana RFRA debacle with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana, which Governor Pence and the Republicans tried to pass to extend this nominal protection to Christians and others in case they got sued for discrimination. And the whole world came down on their head, especially big business. And this is the first time in the culture war that big business had taken a side, and they sided thoroughly and completely and decisively against Christians, and the Republican Party did not know what to do with itself.
"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
All the bakers are committed Christians:
- Baker # 1 at Flower’s Foods works on a production line making TastyKakes : Well removed from final purchaser and doesn’t really care who buys it. I’m sure some gay guys eat ‘em
- Baker # 2 at Lunds (10 stores) (my baker): Gay couple asks for a wedding cake and baker makes it. Not too far removed from baker # 1. But also close to #3 b/c it’s a wedding cake and he has to “face the customer”. Also “art” is involved (if one buys the art argument). Remember this?: Muslim cashiers at some local Target stores object to ringing up products that contain pork
- Baker # 3 - Christian proprietor of single shop. Objects b/c of conscience
My view is that the situations are basically alike.
You protest:
- No one would celebrate a wedding with TastyKakes. You’re probably correct but it’s possible
- There’s “art” in the wedding cake (Bakers 2 & 3).
To me it’s all commerce and I could be (well I couldn’t b/c I can’t bake) any of the above, except I would bake the cake and sell it in cases # 2 & 3
I conclude:
- There is no such thing as a gay marriage. God defines marriage not man
- It’s a business transaction
- [I’m not going to the event. They can pick up or I will deliver]
My view … To me … I conclude
Not to beat a dead horse, but herein is your answer, Jim: It doesn’t matter what your view is, what you think, or what you conclude. It’s not your conscience. The government does not give your the right to force your conscience on others. They are entitled to their own. That’s the whole point that, for some reason, seems to be getting ignored. You can think and run your business however you like. You are not entitled to force that on someone else.
The left frequently complains about the right trying to force their conscience and their morality on others. And some are indeed guilty of that. But the left does it as well. The irony is thick.
When the courts start ruling that people cannot be Christians.
First, this continues to miss the point by pretending it is about Christianity. It isn’t. It is about civics and freedom of religion for all religions. We should stand up for all people in this society.
Second and directly to the point, this is exactly what’s been done here. A Christian lives by their beliefs and convictions. That’s what it means to be a Christian. Yet this court has just told her she can’t live as a Christian. She has to compromise either her convictions/conscience or her job/livelihood. It seems to me that you have (unwittingly to be sure) bought into the secular idea that Christianity is only a matter of private beliefs and those private beliefs must not impact the way that you live, at least in some areas. And that is to tell a Christian that they cannot be a Christian at all times. This lady’s Christian conscience requires her to respond a certain way to a particular issue; for her, to not do that is to compromise her Christianity, to stop being a Christian. If your conscience requires of you something else, then you are entitled to that. But you are not entitled to coerce her conscience to live as you think a Christian should live.
Jay, I think you have bought into an exceedingly short-sighted and very dangerous view that is not about religion but about civics.
And anyone that is not a Christian would say that it’s about the freedom of LGBT people to be treated equally under the law.
I disagree. LGBT are treated equally under the law. They have the freedom of religion and conscience to do as they see fit and to do business with whoever will do business with them. This is where I think emotional arguments get made that confuse things and distract from the real issues.
[Larry]My view … To me … I conclude
Not to beat a dead horse, but herein is your answer, Jim: It doesn’t matter what your view is, what you think, or what you conclude. It’s not your conscience. The government does not give your the right to force your conscience on others. They are entitled to their own. That’s the whole point that, for some reason, seems to be getting ignored. You can think and run your business however you like. You are not entitled to force that on someone else.
The left frequently complains about the right trying to force their conscience and their morality on others. And some are indeed guilty of that. But the left does it as well. The irony is thick.
Larry said: “You are not entitled to force that on someone else.”
Me: I’m not forcing my view on anybody. I don’t live in Washington St and I don’t make the laws there.
I said earlier there’s the “world that ought to be” vs “the world that is”
If you are a florist, baker, or photog in Wash st you ought to follow the law. Doesn’t mean you can’t challenge it in court.
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.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
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?
It is about civics and freedom of religion for all religions. We should stand up for all people in this society.
I agree with you on the latter part. Everyone should be free to worship and believe what they want. Even Satanists.
I do not think that the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom will remain untouched here in America. It’s already being redefined by the courts to mean private religious beliefs, not religious practice, and that’s been going on for the last three or four years. Again, we need to pay attention to what’s actually going on out there.
Constitutional rights can be amended, abolished, or overridden by other Constitutional rights, legislative repeal (e.g. Prohibition), or judicial fiat. I do not expect to see this particular right remain in place, and I think that it will be overturned sooner rather than later on the grounds of LGBTQ____ rights. Constitutional ‘rights’ do not apply to believers, because our loyalties and allegiance is to God first and America second. We do what God tells us, regardless.
I, like Jim, do not believe that the ‘expression’ of Christian beliefs is demonstrated in flower arranging any more than it would be for DJ‘ing or baking a cake. Save the pleas of ‘religious expression’ that are guaranteed by the Constitution for those acts that are explicitly from Scripture.
I don’t think we’re going to agree on this, and will bow out of the back and forth with you now, Larry. Thanks for the interaction.
"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
I listened to Mohler/Dreher yesterday as I usually do on Mondays. I found it interesting but not particularly relevant here for the major point. Yes, there is no doubt that Christians are being marginalized. I agree with Jay that “I do not think that the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom will remain untouched here in America.” But that is wholly separate from my point which is civic and Constitutional. And those rights are worth fighting for as long as we are able. There is no Christian obligation to get steamrolled when there are biblical and legitimate options.
Constitutional ‘rights’ do not apply to believers, because our loyalties and allegiance is to God first and America second. We do what God tells us, regardless.
False and true. False because we as citizens have constitutional rights. We do not give those up because we are Christians. In fact, those rights were specifically designed for people like us. It is true that our allegiance is to God first. That allegiance to God should make us good citizens. We are not required to give those citizenship rights up. God has told us to live by our conscience. So we should do that.
I, like Jim, do not believe that the ‘expression’ of Christian beliefs is demonstrated in flower arranging any more than it would be for DJ‘ing or baking a cake. Save the pleas of ‘religious expression’ that are guaranteed by the Constitution for those acts that are explicitly from Scripture.
I know you and Jim believe that. I am not sure what I believe about that. But the bottom line is still that it doesn’t matter what you and I believe. And it doesn’t matter what Christians believe. Conscience is individual and that is exactly what this whole issue is about. “Religious expression” in American civic life has nothing to do with Scripture. And that, once again, demonstrates the error of thinking that this is about Christianity. One of the founding principles of this country was that people have the right to religious freedom and conscience.
This court has essentially told Christians (and other religious faiths) that they are not allowed to live as Christians (or as whatever faith they choose). That is a major problem. Whether it will be remedied remains to be seen. That it is a significant departure from our historical roots as Americans is indisputable.
1st of all I want to thank you for interacting with me so graciously on this topic. You are smart, passionate, and a worthy opponent. I’ve known you for some time I hold you in high regard.
We probably are closer in our views than our interaction on this thread may indicate.
Where we agree (I think):
- That the gay agenda is very strong and is targeting Christian businesses to score points (so far 3-0)
- That Christians have rights in the US (other religions as well)
- That Christians may contest laws. [The Apostle Paul used his rights as a Roman citizen]
- That we ought to obey God
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”
On the danger of obey our consciences: I cite the example of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple which refused to withhold taxes on money paid to its employees (about like Dino guy). Caselaw:
The members of Indianapolis Baptist Temple (IBT) believe it to be a sin for their church to pay taxes. Accordingly, since at least 1987, IBT has paid none of the federal employment taxes for which it is responsible. After attempts to secure payment of the taxes due through 1993 failed, the government filed suit against IBT to recover the amount owed. Unpersuaded by IBT’s various defenses, the district court granted the government summary judgment. IBT now appeals on the ground that the religion clauses of the First Amendment protect it from liability.
Note the bizarre claim of Pastor Dixon:
Dixon, however, says that if the IRS prevails, an official church would be created “that must totally surrender the sovereignty of the Lord’s church to the IRS.”
“The Czar of Religion (cults) in Washington, D.C., will replace the Lord Jesus Christ as the Head of His church,”
The Law allows me to:
-get divorced for any reason
-get an abortion
-have pre-marital and extra-marital sex
-open a pornography business
- drink alcohol if I am 21 (through that in there for fun!)
I could go on and on. The point is, many things that are legal that are not ethical.
You are a brave soul. You are bright and articulate, and I appreciate your argument. If you had been around longer, you would realize that half of the people you are arguing with here at Sharper Iron think the American Revolution was sinful! You are talking to people who think the cause of George Washington etc. was not just. Now, do you think they are interested in the cries of injustice from a baker or a photographer over a same-sex wedding? I am not trying to be combative here, but serious.
So, keep that in mind when they discuss the Constitution and the freedoms from government that the people have.
Discussion