Doug Wilson - A Theology of Resistance for Florists

[Joel Shaffer]

Shaynus wrote:

Jim,

“What if” questions are tremendously valuable for getting at the assumptions and mechanics for moral and other reasoning. That’s why they’re asked.

Shayne

True…. But like any good thing, it can also be abused. “What if” questions used inappropriately can become the basis for the slippery slope fallacy, which often pervades fundamentalism.

True…. But deciding in advance never to answer them is foolish in my opinion.

Larry nails it, but I do think the courts or politics will eventually favor freedom of conscience. I’ve seen polling that says Americans actually do support religious freedom on views of marriage and “the way they run their businesses.” 81% agreed with such a statement.

http://www.brnow.org/News/February-2015/Survey-81-for-religious-freedom…

I think LGBT rights groups may be overreaching on their recent victories, and America is trending libertarian on both left and right.

All of the “what if’s” are not going to help answer the question. It’s just spaghetti flinging. There are a variety of businesses operating on different models and principles. What applies to one doesn’t apply to another.
It seems to me that at the heart of this is the idea that certain professions selling products/services to weddings feel that by providing their products or services to a same sex wedding, they are ‘participating’ in that ceremony, and therefore putting their blessing on it.

I think this is bogus, but if they want to fight that fight, go ahead. However, if other Christians do not believe that doing business is by default ‘blessing’ their customer’s events and life choices, then they are also free to not support this particular battle.

All of the “what if’s” are not going to help answer the question

I am confused Susan. How does answering a “what if” question not answer the question?

The point of a “what if” question is to explore the limits. We already know that Jim and you do not believe in the right of a business owner to live by their beliefs and conscience. Let’s avoid the “what if” and ask outright, are there any limits to that for you? Would you in any way limit the power of government to impose on a business owner or compel a business owner to do business against their religious beliefsh and conscience? Or can the government compel anything they so desire?

(No what ifs there, so hopefully we can avoid the “spaghetti flinging” issue … whatever that means).

I think this is bogus

But do they have the right to disagree with you and live by that disagreement? Or must they compromise their conscience to conform to your view?

(No “what ifs there either. Just straightforward questions.)

[Larry]

All of the “what if’s” are not going to help answer the question

I am confused Susan. How does answering a “what if” question not answer the question?

I already explained why “what if” questions are not useful here. “There are a variety of businesses operating on different models and principles. What applies to one doesn’t apply to another.”

For instance, freelancing doesn’t involve sitting around waiting for someone to assign you an article or project. Freelancers pitch their ideas to the magazines and businesses they would like to work with. There are different kinds of employer/employee and business/client interactions based on if you are creating/manufacturing, facilitating/brokering, freelancing, renting, distributing, or consulting. You’d need about a million “what ifs” to cover them all.

We already know that Jim and you do not believe in the right of a business owner to live by their beliefs and conscience.

Really? “We” know this? Who is “we”? And is that really what Jim and I have advocated? Let’s see… that’s one strawman, and an ad hominem. Gesundheit.

But do they have the right to disagree with you and live by that disagreement? Or must they compromise their conscience to conform to your view?

I’ve already said anyone who wants to fight for the right to deny service to someone based on their age, race, religion, gender, or disability is welcome to do so. I have the right to disagree with fighting on that particular hill.

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

Paul in Romans seems to use “what if’ questions to good effect, so there’s that.

Susan and Jim, can you imagine any commerce in which a Christians actually would be supporting gay marriage or another abhorrent practice? If yes, is your answer always to just get out of that business if they are asked to go against their conscience? Use your imagination and draw out the implications of what you’re saying.

[Shaynus]

What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

Paul in Romans seems to use “what if’ questions to good effect, so there’s that.

Susan and Jim, can you imagine any commerce in which a Christians actually would be supporting gay marriage or another abhorrent practice? If yes, is your answer always to just get out of that business if they are asked to go against their conscience? Use your imagination and draw out the implications of what you’re saying.

I didn’t say “what if” questions were bad. I said they serve no purpose in this discussion because there are too many business models and each has its own dynamic. How about ya’ll try to stick with what has actually been said instead of making stuff up.
I said earlier that the crux of this was people’s perceptions of what it means to ‘participate’. I would not feel I was ‘participating’ by providing a service or product for a same sex wedding that I provide to every other customer, because I’m not participating in my other customer’s lives either. A wedding cake for an adulterer or spouse abuser doesn’t make me a participant in their actions. Of course, adulterers and spouse abusers aren’t a federally protected class, so there’s that.

How far do you plan to go with the ‘participation’ idea? What about watching movies by celebrities who give time and money to support gay marriage, and buying products from companies that give money to LGBT organizations? You can’t watch Star Wars any more, people.

Here’s a “what if” for you - if you believe that providing a cake for a same sex wedding is participating in that wedding, then aren’t you obliged to ask every single person for whom you bake a cake about the purpose of their celebration so that you don’t accidentally support a same sex couple’s event or activity? Or is it OK to support same sex couples as long as you don’t know about it?

IMO, to support same sex marriage would be to join an organization, give money for that cause, or speak out in favor of it.

I already explained why “what if” questions are not useful here. “There are a variety of businesses operating on different models and principles. What applies to one doesn’t apply to another.”

So how does that make “what if” question not useful? The “what if” actually distinguishes one business or venture from another, and it narrows the “variety” down to a specific. The “what if” is the acknowledgement that what applies to one doesn’t apply to another. I am not arguing they are all the same. I am arguing they are different, and that difference is precisely why I can understand refusing service in some cases, and not in others.

Really? “We” know this? Who is “we”? And is that really what Jim and I have advocated? Let’s see… that’s one strawman, and an ad hominem. Gesundheit.

“We” is the we who have read your comments (and Jim’s) in this thread. You said you think it is bogus (either the issue itself or the claim of conscience), you said Christians should sell their products to whomever, you said that business is not a time and place to work our your disagreements with other lifestyles and religious choices, you said that a Christian (your daughter specifically) has to do business with whoever crosses your threshold, and if one chooses not to they will have to face the consequences of it. How are we to understand that other than you believe that a Christian does not have the right to live by his conscience in certain business ventures? You have said it is the law and Christians cannot refuse service, and you placed no qualifications on that. Again, how are we to understand that? That sounds an awful lot like you believe a Christian business owner does not have the right to live by their conscience and beliefs; he or she must do business with whoever comes through the door no matter what. Did you misspeak?

You might go back and read both your comments to clarify for us. And you might reconsider your logical fallacy poster since there doesn’t appear to be either a straw man or an ad hominem in there.,

I’ve already said anyone who wants to fight for the right to deny service to someone based on their age, race, religion, gender, or disability is welcome to do so.

And you added sexual orientation on the end of that as a protected class (which is actually the issue; not the other things). And you added “and lose” to the end of the fight. In other words, your words here appear to defend homosexuality as a protected class and any refusal to serve them will result in a rightful loss in court since the law (which Christians must abide by) requires service..

So you seem to say that the court is correct to deny the right to deny service based on issues of religious freedom and conscience; the law requires such service and no refusal can be tolerated. Is that correct?

And in the end, the issue still comes down to whether or not the government should be in the position of dictating religious freedom and conscience. I think not.

Here’s a “what if” for you - if you believe that providing a cake for a same sex wedding is participating in that wedding, then aren’t you obliged to ask every single person for whom you bake a cake about the purpose of their celebration so that you don’t accidentally support a same sex couple’s event or activity? Or is it OK to support same sex couples as long as you don’t know about it?

Your big problem is that you’re seeing this all from the perspective of yourself and what you would do, and not what someone else might think or do. Real religious freedom means protecting all of us from governmental intrusion or from real harm from businesses. You are in effect judging the conscience of someone else. If a business wanted to do this, that should be up to them. They may not be in business for long because most of society would vote with their feet to avoid such a business. Both would be OK with me. I am for private businesses being allowed to ask whatever questions of conscience they want, up to and including if I was a Christian and refusing to serve me on that basis. A free market would weed out such businesses.

IMO, to support same sex marriage would be to join an organization, give money for that cause, or speak out in favor of it.

The point isn’t what’s in your opinion. It’s what government can compel someone to do or not do.

Here’s a “what if” for you - if you believe that providing a cake for a same sex wedding is participating in that wedding, then aren’t you obliged to ask every single person for whom you bake a cake about the purpose of their celebration so that you don’t accidentally support a same sex couple’s event or activity? Or is it OK to support same sex couples as long as you don’t know about it?

We actually have an inspired answer to this. God said to ask no questions for your conscience’ sake. So no, you are not obliged to ask any questions or anyone.

How far do you plan to go with the ‘participation’ idea? What about watching movies by celebrities who give time and money to support gay marriage, and buying products from companies that give money to LGBT organizations? You can’t watch Star Wars any more, people.

You may to be too young to remember the days of boycotts and people who would refuse to see certain movies (if they attended at all) because of who was in them, or people who wouldn’t eat in certain restaurants because they served alcohol or had a bar, or people who wouldn’t buy clothes from certain stores, etc.

But the point is that each Christian (or non-Christian) has the right to make those decisions. Those shouldn’t be forced on them.

Larry- I do not understand why Christians choose this particular hill on which to fight. There are many kinds of wickedness, and apparently it is OK to serve cake to a serial adulterer, or make animal balloons for a child abuser, but not for a gay person. Why that line in the sand?

I think “conscience” is doing way too much cherry picking.

And no - I don’t believe the gov’t has the right to dictate religious freedom and conscience. But I don’t think this is a argument about religious freedom and conscience. And if someone wants to right for business owners to have the right to pick-and-choose who they sell and serve to, then go for it. Get the gov’t out of the business of dictating to businesses.

I think the crux of this argument is about what is and isn’t “participation”, since no one has advocated that ALL products and services be denied to gays. Just wedding cakes.

Even if gender or sexual orientation isn’t a protected class (and I haven’t suggested that it should be), you’ve still got the question of whether or not you will do business with someone because you believe doing so makes you a ‘participant’. And then you have to decide which actions or lifestyles choices you find so heinous so that you won’t sell or serve those people.

[Shaynus] Real religious freedom means protecting all of us from governmental intrusion or from real harm from businesses… If a business wanted to do this, that should be up to them. They may not be in business for long because most of society would vote with their feet to avoid such a business. Both would be OK with me. I am for private businesses being allowed to ask whatever questions of conscience they want, up to and including if I was a Christian and refusing to serve me on that basis. A free market would weed out such businesses.

I agree. But I haven’t been talking about ‘the way things outta be’, but how things actually are. And I think to advocate for a free market would be a way to fight for rights that would be much more productive.

I think the crux of this argument is about what is and isn’t “participation”, since no one has advocated that ALL products and services be denied to gays. Just wedding cakes.

This is emphatically not the crux of the argument, and I think the resistance to exploring other professions or circumstances is perhaps an attempt to limit the argument in a way that lets you keep the it very limited. The argument Larry, I and others are making is that government action in this case is incredibly expansive since it deals with anything about which a person could have an informed conscience in a business situation. The reason many Christians are choosing this hill to die on, is not because they care that much about writing on a cake. It’s because they’ve done the reasoning to its logical conclusion, and don’t like where it leads.

The beauty of America is that we have a Constitution which makes certain broad statements that are law. In this case the free exercise clause of the first Amendment to the Constitution is the law of the land broadly, but there may be certain laws that are currently in violation of that supreme law. The law is in multiple layers.

I do not understand why Christians choose this particular hill on which to fight. There are many kinds of wickedness, and apparently it is OK to serve cake to a serial adulterer, or make animal balloons for a child abuser, but not for a gay person. Why that line in the sand?

I can appreciate that you don’t understand this. Not being a cook or a cake decorator, it’s not my issue either. But issues of conscience aren’t open to evaluation by others in this way. I don’t know that these people involved would serve a cake to a serial adulterer or make balloons for a child abuser. They may well be consistent on that. But that’s not the point. The point is that people should have the right to live by their conscience and the government should not have the power to step in and contradict that.

I think “conscience” is doing way too much cherry picking.

Perhaps, but some people may view your conscience in the same way. That’s the way consciences work.

And no - I don’t believe the gov’t has the right to dictate religious freedom and conscience. But I don’t think this is a argument about religious freedom and conscience. And if someone wants to right for business owners to have the right to pick-and-choose who they sell and serve to, then go for it. Get the gov’t out of the business of dictating to businesses.

I will accept that you don’t believe the government should dictate this, but I don’t see how you can say this isn’t an argument about religious freedom and conscience. The lady in question says her conscience would not allow her to participate in this ceremony in this way because of her religious beliefs. So you are telling her she is wrong? It’s really not about her conscience? How would you go about proving to her that this is not really about her conscience?

It may be that her conscience is poorly trained or outright wrong. It may not be. But the government shouldn’t get to make those decisions.

I think the crux of this argument is about what is and isn’t “participation”, since no one has advocated that ALL products and services be denied to gays. Just wedding cakes.

The reason was given, that decorating flowers for a wedding is a different level than providing flowers for other things. I don’t know if perhaps you didn’t read the story or see the interview this lady gave, but I thought she was pretty clear on it. The same has been said about cakes and photography. For myself, I could talk to homosexuals, attend parties at their house in celebration of graduation, birthdays, cookout, whatever. But marriage is a different thing. I would not attend a wedding, or a reception for a wedding, an engagement party, etc. The reason is simple: I can approve of graduation, getting older, hanging out with friends, etc. I cannot approve of the relationship itself. And to show up at a celebration is to celebrate with them. For artists, their work is done in a way to celebrate something, to help others celebrate. It is a participation in a celebration.

Now, if you don’t agree, I am fine with that. But there is an individual right at stake.

Even if gender or sexual orientation isn’t a protected class (and I haven’t suggested that it should be),

That was your explanation at 1:19 yesterday for why you can’t refuse a homosexual.

you’ve still got the question of whether or not you will do business with someone because you believe doing so makes you a ‘participant’. And then you have to decide which actions or lifestyles choices you find so heinous so that you won’t sell or serve those people.

I agree. But the point is that the individual gets to make those choices, not the government. And the government should not deny a person’s right to conscience and to make a living because someone holds a view that is socially unacceptable.

I was a traveling IT guy in Washington DC, visiting places my boss sent me.

People I’ve happily worked with:

• A clear cross dresser.
• Gay men and women.
• A member of Obama’s cabinet.

People I’ve refused to work with after the first meeting.

• A likely drug dealer.
• A man who ran strip clubs.

This isn’t an academic discussion to me.