Doug Wilson - A Theology of Resistance for Florists

I’ve been pretty forthright about my views of the case of the baker, the photog, and the florist.

Yes, you have been forthright about your views, but I wonder about the principles and the limits of your views.

Let’s revisit the photographer. Let’s say someone wants to hire him to do a pornographic shoot. Should he be compelled to do so, since he offers his services to others? Or what about a lingerie shoot? Or a swimwear shoot? Should the courts compel any or all of these?

I’m still confused.

That poem is pretty widely known and is meant to illustrate that there are times when it is morally desirable and necessary to stand up and speak out against evil.
I did not say anything at all about ‘compromise’ and certainly don’t believe that you are compromising. You seem to think that it’s not worth standing for because it’s ‘over a cake’. So I want to know, in all seriousness, what your opinion is on when it would be time to take a stand.

Jim, If a Christian owns a business, they cannot say I will be a Christian at home, but faith agnostic at work. If they are a true Christian, then their faith will infuse their business and affect how they do their taxes, hire their employees, and ‘market’ and ‘deliver’ services.

Sure, selling a product to a homosexual - such as a hammer at a hardware store - will unlikely sear the conscience of most Christians. However, providing customised orders for a gay wedding service is much more personal. For you to smear this florist’s convictions - which is what you are doing from your armchair computer - is not particularly charitable. It would be far better if we in unity celebrated this florist stand in living out her faith - even if it is not exactly where all of us would draw the line.

Yes I am at my “armchair computer” (actually a recliner / computer!) and it is easy to make judgments about what others should and shouldn’t do. I am in IT and don’t have to sell to the public. As a matter of fact I avoid selling to the public: I give an old chair to Goodwill instead of selling it on Craigslist, et cetera.

To Jay: I jumped ot a conclusion about your comment and took it as a barb directed at me and I guess it was not

To Larry re the photog and photoshoots … I can’t answer that. I know what I would do. I cannot answer every permutation of commerce because my mind doesn’t work like that. I can say I would not do a photoshoot like that. How a commercial Christian photographer should address those issues is a matter for him, his spiritual counselors and his lawyer.

And onto the lawyer … I would suggest that any Christian who is involved in commerce know the relevant law.

To Larry re the photog and photoshoots … I can’t answer that. I know what I would do. I cannot answer every permutation of commerce because my mind doesn’t work like that. I can say I would not do a photoshoot like that. How a commercial Christian photographer should address those issues is a matter for him, his spiritual counselors and his lawyer.

Jim, I appreciate that (almost) answer, but it wasn’t to my question. My question was “Should the courts compel him to?”

You have previously said (if I recall correctly) that the courts are correct to compel this woman to do the flowers, the photog to do the wedding shoot, and the baker to bake the cake. My question is Do you believe the courts would be correct to compel these photo shoots? (I think the “my mind doesn’t work like that” is pretty close to a cop out, my friend. Just exchange the facts of one for the facts of the other and see how you conclude. No one will hold you to it at the threat of a sword.)

You say that these questions are a matter for the photog, his spiritual counselors, and his lawyer. But you previously said (if I understand you correctly) that these are matters for the court … that if you are going to offer a public service, you must serve all comers. Do you stand by that when it comes to photography of pornography?

You have said that you wouldn’t do the shoots. But what would you do if a court compelled you to? You have said this woman should give up her stance and do the flowers because the court said to. Would you take the same position if the court demanded you do this photoshoot? If not, why not?

Again, I am not trying to overly press you. I am trying to determine if there are any limits to your position about what the courts should compel.

…what should a Christian do in this situation?:

Martha is a Christian. She is a decades-long member of the local IFB church, where she attends & serves faithfully. Her day job as the license clerk down at City Hall has had her (among other functions) dispensing marriage licenses for the last 30 years.

The state legislature recently passed a law that permits gay marriage in her state. At opening time on the morning it takes effect, about a dozen same-sex couples are lined-up outside her department’s door.

What should she do? Grant the licenses (although personally opposed to the new law)? Refuse to open the department’s doors? Resign on the spot?

Look at this from the world’s perspective. They believe that sexual orientation is not a choice and not sinful. They have studies to back that up. And for that reason, they see this issue in the same way they look at race discrimination. I am not saying they are right. I am just saying that is how they see it.

If you see it from that perspective, it is easy to understand why the government has gone in the direction they have. They would fine a restaurant for not serving African Americans (and most of us would support that fine) so they have no qualms about fining bakers for not making a cake for a gay wedding. I don’t really consider this persecution. I just think it is a difference of opinion about whether homosexuality is a sin. And we might as well resign ourselves to the reality that the government is never going to agree that it is a sin. Ain’t going to happen.

Larry raises a good point; I can see a faithful Christian either (a) issuing licenses she doesn’t agree with or (b) resigning because she believes it’s wrong.

Regarding the photographers, most photographers can and do have things they won’t do, and generally you’ll see a statement on their forms that indicates this. Models do the same, really. The trick is whether the ordinary clauses that allow photographers to refuse to do nudity, violence, and the like would be applicable to refusing to cover same sex mirages. I am guessing (per GregH’s comment) that the answer in a lot of places will be no. Pastors and churches will be allowed to refuse under the 1st Amendment if they make their objections consistent.

That said, my guess is that if a pastor/church is not careful about this—say they knowingly unite a couple living in sin—they’re going to undermine this freedom. And I can imagine a lot of “fundagelical” pastors and churches falling into this trap. The big thing that will make this less likely is (a) homosexuals are only 2-3% of the adult population (b) they’re not generally terribly keen on fundagelical churches to begin with (c) our churches are often not the prettiest sites in the world, and (d) homosexuals appear to be marrying at a much lower rate than heterosexuals so far. But I reckon that at some point, legal papers will be filed. Might as well be ready, and might as well lay down the law for cohabiting heterosexuals while we’re at it.

GregH -

This is what makes the issue so difficult. Like Jim, I work in IT, and I don’t really care too much about the sexual identity/orientation of the people that use our resources. It really, legitimately, doesn’t matter to me one bit. I would, however, like to be afforded the privilege of refusing to build out an IT network for, say, Lambda Legal. I’ve had places like Planned Parenthood contact me about working for them and have refused every time, and the recruiters have always been very understanding about that. One of them even told me that it was really hard finding people who would work for PP.

What the government’s position (and that of political liberals) seems to be is that I must be willing to do any work for anyone who could potentially want my business, regardless of what I believe. And while I understand that and can even agree with it to an extent - Jim Crow laws did exist, did need to be struck down by the courts and were not only wrong but sinful - I don’t know that I can start a consulting business or something like that if a refusal to bid on the network for a LGBTQT_____ development is going to cost me not just a job, but could potentially bankrupt me. I know that Randy Alcorn chose to go into poverty rather than pay the judgment that he incurred for that abortion case many years ago, and it might wind up being a rule, not an exception, in the near future here in the United States.

[Jim]

“At what point do you take a stand?”

My response: Not over a cake.

[Jim]

Larry wrote:

Jim, In your mind, is there anything a court could not compel a person to do in terms of commerce?

I can’t answer this … sorry,

I’ve been pretty forthright about my views of the case of the baker, the photog, and the florist.

Someone PM‘d me to say my view is a slippery slope to ministers being compelled to do gay marriages. I don’t think so.

[Bert Perry]

….my gut feeling is that just as Paul would buy meat and wine from the markets after it had been offered to pagan gods, God won’t judge us for doing business with sinners, especially since that’s us.

But that said, I agree that Christian businessmen do have a responsibility to carefully consider what products are offered. Refusing certain messages on cakes (like the store that refused to decorate a birthday cake for a kid whose parents had named him “Adolf Hitler”) is a great start, as is refusing to stock some kinds of cake toppers.

The difficult thing would be to be a musician or caterer, I’d think. Then you’ve got to be there, and you’d have to be careful to say “such and such is not on the playlist.”

[GregH]

Look at this from the world’s perspective. They believe that sexual orientation is not a choice and not sinful. They have studies to back that up. And for that reason, they see this issue in the same way they look at race discrimination. I am not saying they are right. I am just saying that is how they see it.

If you see it from that perspective, it is easy to understand why the government has gone in the direction they have. They would fine a restaurant for not serving African Americans (and most of us would support that fine) so they have no qualms about fining bakers for not making a cake for a gay wedding. I don’t really consider this persecution. I just think it is a difference of opinion about whether homosexuality is a sin. And we might as well resign ourselves to the reality that the government is never going to agree that it is a sin. Ain’t going to happen.

Jim,

I don’t think you understand the the difference between the kind of commerce in which you simply sell something (like a hammer), and artistic content creation in commerce. That’s what makes the cake maker, photographer, and florist co-celebrants with their clients, that they are creating art and expressing themselves for profit. You’re making a category error.

What if you were a statue maker, and you were asked to make a statue in the shape of a penis or some other pornographic. You would reply, excuse me, but I don’t do that kind of art. There is some art a Christian artist can, and should refuse to participate in. Look at 1 Cor 10 in the weaker brother/meat offered to idols discussion. Paul is OK with eating meat offered to idols, just don’t in the temples. Why? Did the meat somehow change? No it was that the normally generic act of eating meat could very easily be confused as celebrating the rites associated with idol worship, and they should not be done. Especially in the case of a wedding photographer (definitely for a cake maker and florist) he is participating in and enhancing the joy over something which God hates.

[Shaynus]

Especially in the case of a wedding photographer (definitely for a cake maker and florist) he is participating in and enhancing the joy over something which God hates.

Would/should Christians also then be precluded from participating as photographers, florists, bakers, etc. in heterosexual weddings under various circumstances? What if:

1. The heterosexual couple is known to have engaged in cohabitation or premarital sex?

2. One or both members of the couple are divorced, due to his and/or her commission of adultery in the previous marriage.

3. One member of the couple is a believer; the other an unbeliever (“unequally yoked”).

The question then: should a Christian participate in a heterosexual wedding in which he/she knows there is “something which God hates?”