Christian response to homosexual marriage?

[bjs]

Should Christians in the USA support or oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage in their state?

I put this debate topic in this sub-forum because I’m not really interested in atheists’ opinions here, but I do wonder what Christians think.

On the one hand, we do not have to look far in our world to see what happens when people try to enforce their worldview on others. The result is always disastrous. I do not like the idea of Christians trying to legal enforce their worldview.

On the other hand, recent history has shown us that when gay marriage is legalized the right to oppose, or even abstain from involvement, is quickly lost. Opposing or abstaining from homosexual marriage is outlawed on the charge of discrimination. If gay marriage is legalized then we should expect, at the very minimum, that those who are morally opposed to homosexual action will still be required to act in support of homosexual actions if they wish to do business in their state.

I am unsure of the right approach. What do others Christians think?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 48 by dianaiad]

It is evil to allow one's religious sensibilities that are not based on anything rational to give one an excuse to mistreat others.

You mean 'rational' as defined by you, yes? As in 'if I think it's rational, it's rational, and if I don't agree with it, it isn't?"

.........."We don't serve your kind here" is evil.

None of the examples I gave you involved 'we don't serve your kind here.' Indeed, most of them were examples of people who did indeed 'serve your kind here,' but simply said "we don't believe as you do and don't think you should have the right to force us to participate in your religious rites any more than we have the right to force you to participate and abide by ours."

Making absurd comparisons to rational, health based laws or sanitary practices, like wearing shoes and shirts where food is served does not help the argument you present.

I only gave one example of that sort of thing. None of the rest were examples based upon what you term to be 'rational, health based laws or sanitary practices,' and even THAT was for the purpose of finding out if a merchant had the right to make rules of any sort in his business or establishment.

Perhaps I should have led with "does a restaurant have the right to insist that men wear ties to dinner?" Because, frankly, they do.

You've said yourself that despite your religious convictions re: same sex relations being sinful, you would not personally discriminate.

I would not...because I don't think that if a gay couple wants to get married, they shouldn't be able to, within government rules and their own belief systems.

However, if such a couple insisted that they be married in one of our Temples, I would have a problem with that...exactly the way I would have a problem if someone insisted that everybody has to be married in a Catholic cathedral by a Catholic priest if they want to consider themselves 'married," and for the same reason.

I suggest that is because you appreciate the difference between true participation in 'sin' and imposing unnecessary religious customs to discriminate against individuals in ways that are unkind.

But don't you see?

That is EXACTLY what the gay rights activists are doing themselves! I don't understand, really, why you don't see that this is EXACTLY like forcing an atheist child to participate in public prayer, or forcing a Jewish child to be one of the Wise Men in a Christmas pageant, or forcing a Christian woman to wear a hijab...

I would go ahead and photograph, or cater, or offer my back yard to a gay couple, because it is not against my beliefs to do so.

However, if it were against my beliefs, I absolutely have the right to say 'go find someone else."

Just as I absolutely support the rights of the local "Christian" school to refuse to hire me simply and only because I would/could not sign their 'statement of faith.'

It's a matter of the first amendment, Danmark, not of political correctness. We have fought too hard to see to it that we CAN believe as we wish, worship (or not) as we wish to go backwards here.

And yes, sometimes that means that a couple can't force someone who disagrees with their lifestyle to support them in an event that celebrates that life style, specifically...like a wedding.

Sometimes that means that a teacher isn't going to get a job in a school owned by folks with different religious beliefs.

It's not about skin color. It's not about homosexuality or anything else that can't be changed. It's about things one chooses to do and believe.

I wouldn't go to a photographer who specialized in gay weddings and force him to shoot my straight one just to make some political point. I wouldn't ask a Baptist preacher to officiate at my wedding; I'm a Mormon. I'd want my Bishop.

I wouldn't go do a Kosher caterer to handle my birthday party. I LIKE ham sandwiches.

And I certainly don't expect any of them to 'do it my way' because I think my beliefs are more politically correct than theirs.

Sometimes, Danmark, being free is NOT politically correct, and hallelujah for that.

I agree with much of what you write, particularly about the protection the 1st Amendment gives our beliefs. But the devil is in the details, in the specifics re: which laws and what harms to people [evils] are caused by acting on certain beliefs.

Most of us, Jews, Christians, Muslims agree that some of our scriptures or past doctrines are not rational, at least as applied today. The easiest non pejorative example is in Leviticus 19 where it was forbidden to wear garments made of blended fabrics.

Racial discrimination has in the past been justified by scripture, or interpretation of scripture, and sometimes by official pronouncement. Those who had a moral compass independent of the religious fiat of the day knew better all along. Some may have been delighted to have their religion as an excuse for these immoral practices. Others were torn between their internal knowledge of right and wrong and their loyalty to their faith.

I suggest that this is one of those times and one of those issues. I am aware of the arguments that sexual preference is not as immutable a characteristic as supposed 'racial' differences. I cannot, under the rules of this forum, properly express my disagreement with this assessment as colorfully as I'd like.

When I picture a young man going into a bakery and ordering a wedding cake for "Adam & Steve," and I see the clerk say "No," all I hear is "We don't serve your kind here." I don't expect to be admitted to a private religious ceremony reserved for believers only. But I do expect to have no discrimination whatsoever when I enter a commercial establishment open to the public, regardless of my race, religion, beliefs, or sexual orientation. If it were not for the U.S. Constitution as amended there are parts of this country I could not travel thru because I could be denied fuel, food, and accommodation based the whim of of some religion.

[dianaiad]

When I picture a young man going into a bakery and ordering a wedding cake for "Adam & Steve," and I see the clerk say "No," all I hear is "We don't serve your kind here." I don't expect to be admitted to a private religious ceremony reserved for believers only. But I do expect to have no discrimination whatsoever when I enter a commercial establishment open to the public, regardless of my race, religion, beliefs, or sexual orientation. If it were not for the U.S. Constitution as amended there are parts of this country I could not travel thru because I could be denied fuel, food, and accommodation based the whim of of some religion.

Then your hearing is faulty, if yesterday that same young man came in, ordered three dozen cupcakes for Steve's birthday and was greeted with a grin and a 'what flavor would you like the icing to be?"

It is important to understand that if you are a member of a minority group, this does NOT give you the right to have everybody privilege your religious beliefs over theirs.

If Adam and Steve are refused services of any kind because they are gay...it's discrimination.

If the only service they are denied is participation in the wedding because the WEDDING is against the beliefs of the proposed provider, it isn't.

Or rather, it is...but not on the part of the provider. It is then discrimination on the part of the customer, forcing someone to participate in a religious event against his will............and NOTHING in the law, the constitution or good sense says that one who opens a business MUST provide services that violate his religious or ethical beliefs.

Really.

Just as it is against the constitution to force an atheist to fold his arms, bow his head and repeat a prayer. It is exactly, and I do mean exactly, the same thing.

Same principle.

[Danmark]

When I picture a young man going into a bakery and ordering a wedding cake for "Adam & Steve," and I see the clerk say "No," all I hear is "We don't serve your kind here." I don't expect to be admitted to a private religious ceremony reserved for believers only. But I do expect to have no discrimination whatsoever when I enter a commercial establishment open to the public, regardless of my race, religion, beliefs, or sexual orientation. If it were not for the U.S. Constitution as amended there are parts of this country I could not travel thru because I could be denied fuel, food, and accommodation based the whim of of some religion.

Then your hearing is faulty, if yesterday that same young man came in, ordered three dozen cupcakes for Steve's birthday and was greeted with a grin and a 'what flavor would you like the icing to be?"

It is important to understand that if you are a member of a minority group, this does NOT give you the right to have everybody privilege your religious beliefs over theirs.

If Adam and Steve are refused services of any kind because they are gay...it's discrimination.

And that is exactly what is happening when they can't order a wedding cake from a company that sells wedding cakes. We've been over this many times. Selling a cake is not 'participation.'

Racial discrimination and sexual discrimination have a long history of phoney baloney excuses exactly along the lines you suggest are just fine. The barber claims his clippers will dull if he cuts 'negro hair' or that HE does not believe in discrimination, but his customers will leave him if he does not fall in lock step with the majority. Employers discriminate against women, not because they are women, but because they get pregnant.

"Sure Steve, we'll sell you a loaf of bread, but not a wedding cake because [Eeeuuw!] that offends our religious beliefs. Rubbish!

As I've written before, no one should be allowed to actually participate in activities they find abhorrent or that truly violate genuine, religious beliefs. But they also should not be allowed to use the pretense of super attenuated 'participation' as an excuse to be either unkind or to break the law.

There are certain religious beliefs or customs that should not be imposed on a free society. For example, if some religion believes that their women, men, or children should be able to hide their identity at all times by wearing 'religious garb' in all public circumstances, I have no problem with government excluding them from places where such attire poses a genuine safety issue. There are limits to behaviors that should be tolerated just because some person claims "religious freedom." There are Christian fundamentalists who claim they have not just a right, but a duty to kill abortion clinic personnel, or keep their children from receiving life saving medical treatment.

"Religion" along with "free speech" as well as "minority status" are not talismans that trump all. Each case is a question of fact, but discrimination against minorities will and should be viewed with a strict scrutiny test because of long standing traditions that attempted to justify prejudice and discrimination against those groups.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Danmark]

I would also just like to point out that this point has been addressed and settled in court. A jury agreed that it is discrimination. Lawyers, bantered over either side and the conclusion is it was discrimination.



I agree Danmark, let's take gay out of it for a minute.

Person A sells wedding cakes

Person B&C is getting married

Person B is white Person C is Black

Person A believes interracial marriage is against his religious beliefs(I grew up in the south this was a common argument,my grandma still makes this argument). Person A denies Person B&C a wedding cake.

Person A refuses to sell person B&C a wedding cake on religious grounds.

Person A is discriminating against person B&C on religious grounds.



I would really like to see how this is not discrimination. The courts have settled these types of arguments time and time again. The argument that its not discrimination is played out tired and old. It just got picked up refreshed polished and applied to LGBT individuals. The lack of originality in these arguments suggests that the individuals who make them know they are wrong they just are all out of ideas.

Sure lets discriminate against millions because of the off chance that 1 person might get offended at some point.


I am sorry but to me that logic does not compute.

[Nickman]

I am torn on the subject that is at hand because of our Constitution. I am a strict Constitutionalist these days. On one hand, a person has a right to choose what they do, say, or whom they will provide services to. A business owner should retain the right to serve who they wish. Flip the coin, and ask "does the customer have the right, over the owner of the establishment, to decide where and when they can receive services?"

I am pro civil rights for all humans regardless of race, creed, gender, and sexual preference, but this is not a free card to do anything you want whenever you want with whomever you want.

I think that the rights, in this case, are in favor of the person who owns the business. They have the right to decide whom they will serve.

I hope that my whom and who are right. I have always struggled with these.

[dianaiad]

When I picture a young man going into a bakery and ordering a wedding cake for "Adam & Steve," and I see the clerk say "No," all I hear is "We don't serve your kind here." I don't expect to be admitted to a private religious ceremony reserved for believers only. But I do expect to have no discrimination whatsoever when I enter a commercial establishment open to the public, regardless of my race, religion, beliefs, or sexual orientation. If it were not for the U.S. Constitution as amended there are parts of this country I could not travel thru because I could be denied fuel, food, and accommodation based the whim of of some religion.

Then your hearing is faulty, if yesterday that same young man came in, ordered three dozen cupcakes for Steve's birthday and was greeted with a grin and a 'what flavor would you like the icing to be?"

It is important to understand that if you are a member of a minority group, this does NOT give you the right to have everybody privilege your religious beliefs over theirs.

If Adam and Steve are refused services of any kind because they are gay...it's discrimination.

And that is exactly what is happening when they can't order a wedding cake from a company that sells wedding cakes. We've been over this many times. Selling a cake is not 'participation.'

Personally?

I agree with you. But I'm not the one selling the cake. Mind you, I think that the best way to handle that is to privately boycott the bakery, not by lawsuit. I would boycott that bakery, personally, just because...ordinarily (unless the cake is supposed to be pornographic and then the baker can object on other grounds) the only difference between an Adam-and-Steve cake, an Eve-and-Emily cake and an Adam-and-Eve cake would be the top, and the baker can always tell the participants to get their own flippin' cake tops. If the only 'participation' is the baking and decorating of a cake and the delivering of it, that's just plain silly.

If we are talking about something that would be DIFFERENT for a same sex marriage and something that actually involves active participation...like, y'know, photography? That's very different. I would not boycott such a business any more than I would boycott (other than that I simply wouldn't require one) a photographer who specialized in same sex weddings. One should go to someone who specializes in offering services specifically for one's own needs.

Either way, if the problem is the EVENT, not the people in it, and the objection is religious?

No matter how objectionable someone else may find it, it's a basic right. It has to remain that, or you are providing precedents that would take us back to stocks in the town square for those who don't go to the correct church on Sunday.

The only difference would be who's in the stocks; the idea is the same; you march to what WE think is politically correct, or you get punished.

And our freedoms go away.

Racial discrimination and sexual discrimination have a long history of phoney baloney excuses exactly along the lines you suggest are just fine. The barber claims his clippers will dull if he cuts 'negro hair' or that HE does not believe in discrimination, but his customers will leave him if he does not fall in lock step with the majority. Employers discriminate against women, not because they are women, but because they get pregnant.

"Sure Steve, we'll sell you a loaf of bread, but not a wedding cake because [Eeeuuw!] that offends our religious beliefs. Rubbish!

You mean, not politically correct.

Nobody has a problem with those who will sell you corned beef, but not ham because doing so offends religious beliefs.

People are all up in arms, though, because a church owned university won't sell coffee in the cafeteria...because that's not politically correct.

Yet the principles are exactly the same.

Nobody has a problem with a Kosher catering company that will only 'do' Jewish weddings.

Everybody is up in arms about a company that will only 'do' heterosexual weddings.

Political correctness, not principles are at work here.

In other words, what I see is that a whole bunch of people have decided that someone else's religious beliefs are not as good as their own, and have determined to force the other guy to toe the 'proper' line.


And they do NOT see how that will backfire.

It wasn't a good idea back when the Puritans decided that everybody had to toe their line or get put in stocks, and it's not a good idea now that those who disapprove have decided that "Christians" (or whoever) have to toe the politically correct line.

I see no difference between you, frankly, and it's not a good idea either way.

Now...if a bakery refuses to provide any and all services to a gay person simply and only because he is gay...that's one thing.

To refuse to provide services to an EVENT that violates his religion, when he would (and does) provide services in all other aspects?

That's not 'discrimination.' That's religious freedom.

Whether we agree with his stance or not, he has the absolute right to HOLD it. And to behave accordingly.

Btw, the constitution, by putting this stuff in the very FIRST amendment, not only first, but the only right that is mentioned TWICE, tells us that religious freedom does indeed 'trump all,' and atheists should be extremely grateful for that.

It's the only reason we are able to have all these different viewpoints.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 55 by Nickman]

I hear you, however,"whom they will provide services to. A business owner should retain the right to serve who they wish"

I see the right to free speech, I see the right, to worship whatever religious belief or non-belief you want. There are lots of rights. I don't see in the constitution the right to restrict services provided to the public at large.

Specifically this deals with the tenth amendment of our constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Since discrimination is does not delegate on the issue of discrimination and services nor does it prohibit the states from doing it. As a someone whom adheres to the constitution, this would lead me to believe that the states and the people have the right to decide on this issue, which they already have.

In Colorado where this issue came up. They have a law in plain text that states you are not allowed to discriminate services offered to the public based on sexual orientation. The bakery in this case offered their services to the public and therefore are in violation of a law decided on by the state. The state has the right to make such a law.

More to the point it does not violate the 1st amendment either as it does not prohibit one from freely exercising their religion. Specifically where does it say you cannot participate in wedding services in the bible? Is baking a cake participation?

The bible does not address gay weddings nor does it say that you are not allowed to participate in them.

Baking a cake for a wedding would be a stretch to make it participation. Since the services are not being offered for free it is not support.

On top of that if he did not wish to offer services to the whole public he did not have to. He could have created a private baking club that only offered services to christians or christians within his denomination. No one is preventing him from doing that.

The facts are the state has the constitutional right to make anti-discrimination laws, and the baker was in violation of these laws. There is no legal leg for the baker to stand on. Neither the constitution nor the state laws support his case he is in clear violation of the state law and must abide by it.

They have the right to decide whom they will serve.

In the state of Colorado they do not based upon race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. However, they are free to not offer their services to the public.

[Danmark]

[Replying to dianaiad]

No, I am not talking about being 'politically correct.' I am talking about observing the Constitutional protection individuals are entitled to.

Btw, the constitution, by putting this stuff in the very FIRST amendment, not only first, but the only right that is mentioned TWICE, tells us that religious freedom does indeed 'trump all,'

Again this is incorrect, in public settings, and in regard to the safety of third parties, particularly juveniles, religious freedom does not "trump all." Neither does freedom of speech. The most famous example is "you are not allowed to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater.

It has been oft said that your freedom ends where another's nose begins.

We agree that people should not be compelled to participate in ceremonies or procedures or events they find immoral or contrary to their religious beliefs. We only disagree on what constitutes "participation." On that, reasonable minds may differ, and as is frequently the case in the law, it must be decided on a case by case basis with regard to the specific facts.

In some of the many examples you've given on this subject, you cite cases that never come up. But if a catering company is owned by a Jew, and holds itself open to catering events, it cannot refuse service to a group that does not share the Jewish faith, unless the service genuinely requires "participation" in the event. Delivering a cake is not "participation" in the event.

I came up with an idea similar to yours re: the cake example. If I were in the wedding cake business and I had a heartfelt and genuine concern that simply selling a wedding cake to Adam and Steve violated my beliefs against "participation" I'd sell them the cake and, since in your scenario I hold no ill feelings toward them as persons, I'd smile warmly offer them the chance to write their own message. Or I'd sell them the cake and a decorating set for the offensive script and the 'Wedding couple' figures if required. Would it really be reasonable to refuse to sell two 'groom dolls?'

How "Congratulations Adam and Steve" could violate someone's religious sensibilities is truly beyond me. There is a limit, or should be, to how trivial and insignificant are the excuses for not providing service.

The hard case for me, would be if a Nazi approached my business and wanted me to decorate a cake with a Swastika.

Should a Christian who owns and operates a bakery open to the public have the right to refuse to decorate a cake with a Star of David? Or a Jew refuse to put a cross on a patron's cake? At some point the uproar of the righteous 'religious' refusal obscures the trivial peg of the request.

Should a printing company owned by a Jew or Christian refuse to publish the other's church bulletin? At what point does a printer, open for business to the public, have a right to refuse printing jobs unless he agrees with the opinions expressed?

Some of the examples may seem trivial, but the real life situation is that in regions that are dominated by people of one particular faith or belief, the refusal of service can be a major inconvenience.

This was part of the rationale in the landmark, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (379 U.S. 241, 1964) .
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/publi ... lanta.html

[dianaiad]

To everybody...

I wonder.

There are all sorts of specialty stores out there. Indeed. almost all stores are 'specialty stores' in some way or another...that is, businesses that only offer services to a specific group.

My father, for instance, though he worked at JPL and used the California Institute of Technology equipment and at the Cal Tech area, and even though the guy next to him...who actually reported TO him, worked for Cal Tech directly, worked for neither institution. He worked for a 'contractor,' who provided his services to both JPL and Cal Tech for a fee. Dad was paid by the contractor, not Cal Tech.

This contractor did not provide workers for anybody BUT Cal Tech. Indeed, had they tried, Cal Tech would have sued them.

If any other person came to that contractor and said "I want you to provide someone to build me a rocket..." they would have been told where to fire it.

There's a lady down the street who has a business; she makes menorahs and other Jewish themed jewelry for the members of her synagogue. She won't sell them to anybody else; if you aren't a Jew...and an orthodox Jew at that, you ain't getting one of her candle sticks. period.

Nobody is upset with her.

There's a local cupcake shop that provides cupcakes for all sorts of occasions...but she's adamant about one thing: she won't decorate any of them with religious symbols of any kind. It's OK with her if you TAKE them to a religious event, but she isn't going to decorate her cupcakes accordingly.

Nobody is upset with her.

Then there is the far too often mentioned example of the Kosher deli on the corner, which absolutely will not serve anything that is NOT Kosher. To anybody.

Nor, in its catering arm, will it cater any non-Jewish event. They will do your Bat Mitsvah. They won't do your Cinceneria.

Nobody is upset with them.

So if a bakery specializes in cakes for heterosexual, or even more narrowly, specifically Christian heterosexual weddings, how can it be forced to provide services it doesn't advertize?

I mean, here in California there are quite a few catering/photographic businesses that advertise exclusivity; all they do are gay weddings.

How is it that THEY are allowed to discriminate, but someone who only does heterosexual weddings is not?

It is.....

a problem, is what it is.

[Danmark]

To everybody...

I wonder.

There are all sorts of specialty stores out there. Indeed. almost all stores are 'specialty stores' in some way or another...that is, businesses that only offer services to a specific group.

My father, for instance, though he worked at JPL and used the California Institute of Technology equipment and at the Cal Tech area, and even though the guy next to him...who actually reported TO him, worked for Cal Tech directly, worked for neither institution. He worked for a 'contractor,' who provided his services to both JPL and Cal Tech for a fee. Dad was paid by the contractor, not Cal Tech.

This contractor did not provide workers for anybody BUT Cal Tech. Indeed, had they tried, Cal Tech would have sued them.

If any other person came to that contractor and said "I want you to provide someone to build me a rocket..." they would have been told where to fire it.

There's a lady down the street who has a business; she makes menorahs and other Jewish themed jewelry for the members of her synagogue. She won't sell them to anybody else; if you aren't a Jew...and an orthodox Jew at that, you ain't getting one of her candle sticks. period.

Nobody is upset with her.

There's a local cupcake shop that provides cupcakes for all sorts of occasions...but she's adamant about one thing: she won't decorate any of them with religious symbols of any kind. It's OK with her if you TAKE them to a religious event, but she isn't going to decorate her cupcakes accordingly.

Nobody is upset with her.

Then there is the far too often mentioned example of the Kosher deli on the corner, which absolutely will not serve anything that is NOT Kosher. To anybody.

Nor, in its catering arm, will it cater any non-Jewish event. They will do your Bat Mitsvah. They won't do your Cinceneria.

Nobody is upset with them.

So if a bakery specializes in cakes for heterosexual, or even more narrowly, specifically Christian heterosexual weddings, how can it be forced to provide services it doesn't advertize?

I mean, here in California there are quite a few catering/photographic businesses that advertise exclusivity; all they do are gay weddings.

How is it that THEY are allowed to discriminate, but someone who only does heterosexual weddings is not?

It is.....

a problem, is what it is.

As I've said:
A. Many cases are fact specific. There is no single answer about the law in this case. If there were, there'd be no need for lawyers or courts re: Constitutional law in this area.
B. "Nobody is upset with them," is irrelevant, even if true.

There are all kinds of unlawful things, both civil and criminal, that occur every day. If no one complains then to some extent it does not matter. But just because no one files a lawsuit, does not make the activity lawful.

The case re: your father is inapposite. A contractor in the aerospace industry is not holding himself out to provide services to the general public.

The cupcake lady is fine. She just in the cupcake business. She's not making religious symbols for anyone. Good for her. I wouldn't expect her to make a cupcake for me with an atheist symbol. [Not sure what that would be. Plain works. ]

If the menorah lady just sells to her friends on a private basis fine; but if she runs a shop open to the public and she sells candlesticks, but first asks, are you Jewish as a condition of the sale, she's probably violated the law, whether anyone is upset with her or not. I imagine if she only sells religious objects that have been 'blessed' or otherwise have already been endowed with some religious meaning, I imagine she is on good ground not selling to anyone who does not meet the qualifications.

I don't expect to be able to purchase military or law enforcement regalia for a particular jurisdiction unless I'm qualified to own the item.

No one can be forced to sell what they don't stock; however, purposely advertizing: "we don't serve your kind here" or words to that effect, is going to be actionable.