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]

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.

A Kosher Deli does not have to sell ham. I think this one has been answered many times.

All I'll add is the story of the Rabbi who went into the non Kosher Deli, pointed to the ham and asked:

"How much is that fish?"
The butcher replied, "That's ham."
The Rabbi replied,
"Did I ask the name of the fish?"

[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"

Which allows for a person to choose who they will serve with the business that they established. The word "public" does not make a requirement or restrict the rights that a business owner has.

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.

Only if that law does not discriminate against the rights of the business owner to do business with whoever they decide to do business with. Any law created that violates the Supreme Law of the Land (Constitution) is null and void.

Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

IOW's, the 8 listed Bill of Rights are not to be limiting in what rights people actually have, and construed as such to disparage other rights not specifically listed.

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?

But it does violate the 9th which retains the rights of the people to choose whom they will do business with. It cannot be mandated to infringe on a person's right to choose, anything.

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.

I could really care less what the Bible says or does not say. The point here is that the business owner has the right to serve whoever they wish, because it is their company. Their right to do business with whoever they want should not be infringed.

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 business owner is not making a binding agreement with anyone. There is no contract made to serve everyone in the public sphere. The only contracts made are the individual sales to the people that the business owner decides to sale to. The business owner provides a service and retains the right to serve whom they wish. It should not be mandated to require that a business owner has to sell anything, let alone to a certain group of people that they do not want to sell to.

BTW, I am not racist or discriminating here, I am just standing behind the rights of each and every person. If one side says that "the customer has the right to shop anywhere," then why does the business owner have to relinquish their rights to serve everyone?

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.

The 9th Amendment has been violated if they are required to serve everyone. Every person has the right to participate in commerce but this right is not a free card to participate in commerce with everyone. It only goes as far as those who wish to do business with you.

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.

And that is again a violation of the 9th Amendment. A person cannot be required to do business with someone they do not wish to do business with. There has to be a mutual agreement on the transaction. That is the freedom that we share in America.

I have the right to participate in commerce with anyone that I desire to. And they have the same right, which either side can refuse at any time.
I have the right to refuse being a customer at any store for any reason that I want. As do businesses have that same right, although it is not very wise if you are in the business of making money.

As to the State of Colorado decision, the Federal Government should have stepped in to protected the rights of the people who had their rights violated.

I want everyone to be able to shop anywhere they wish regardless of race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I don't want someone's rights violated based on the false idea that the channels of commerce are something that are binding to the public in general.

[Nickman]

I think that most people think that businesses are "public" buildings. They are not. They are privately owned by people and not paid for by the public, therefore, the public does not retain the right to do as they wish in these establishments. In public buildings, the public actually pays taxes on those properties and have the right to enter as they wish. Businesses are purchased by private citizens, in most cases, and are therefore their own property. They retain the right to do whatever business they wish on their property. This is not different from you owning your home and deciding the affairs that happen there.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 61 by Nickman]

There is no contract made to serve everyone in the public sphere.

Oh but there are. Business Licenses and Permits are required to operate a business open to selling goods to the public. You also have to file for a State tax id # for your business it is not as simple as opening up a store and say come buy my stuff. There are a number of zoning and permit issues you have to clear first.

https://www.sba.gov/content/what-state- ... iness-need

When you sign these permits you agree to the rules associated with them.


As to the 9th amendment it does not say you have the right to deny service in a business you own. It says the following "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

It does not say you have the right to deny service. Frankly the vagueness of it could be used to make anything a right. Laws against sex with minors violates a pedophiles 9th amendment right to the pursuit of happiness. Really this is the most poorly written aspect of our constitution but it is what it is and the lack of any specificity does not help. It is up to us to interpret what that means. If you say it means we have the right to deny service I would be open to hear that argument, the question though is that a natural right? No one is forcing you to sign the business licenses and permits that allow you to open a business to the public at large. Since there is no coercion or force applied I see no reason for it to be a natural right to deny service as the law does not prevent you from doing that. What the law prevents is that businesses operating within the state must adhere to the laws of that state or face fines. No one is forcing anyone to have a business open to the public.

As stated by others in this thread there are ways to address this issue. If he only wanted to sell cakes to heterosexual couples he could simply not offer wedding cakes in his place of business but work through a private cake club associated with certain churches he has an exclusivity agreement with. This would ensure a steady stream of customers that are heterosexual Christians and he would not have to worry about selling to LGBT individuals or atheists or muslims or hindus.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 62 by Nickman]

That is not entirely true and subject to the context of the specific business you are talking about. Growing up the Super Wal-mart in our town was acquired with eminent domain and tax dollars helped build its parking lot. This was the case as we lived in a small small small town and the wal-mart was seen of public-interest. Lots of public money went into this wal-mart so no the acquisition of land and the construction of part of the property was bought and paid for by the public.

Again its more complicated than simply buying land putting a building there and opening your doors. There are also public loans the construction of roads sidewalks etc that go into some businesses as well.

[Nickman]

Oh but there are. Business Licenses and Permits are required to operate a business open to selling goods to the public. You also have to file for a State tax id # for your business it is not as simple as opening up a store and say come buy my stuff. There are a number of zoning and permit issues you have to clear first.

But those contracts are not between the business owner and the customer. They are contracts based on tax purposes for owning a business.

https://www.sba.gov/content/what-state- ... iness-need

When you sign these permits you agree to the rules associated with them.

Not one rule in these "permits" does it require serving everyone. That is because they are not based on clientele. It is all tax based.

As to the 9th amendment it does not say you have the right to deny service in a business you own. It says the following "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

I already showed the original.

It does not say you have the right to deny service. Frankly the vagueness of it could be used to make anything a right. Laws against sex with minors violates a pedophiles 9th amendment right to the pursuit of happiness.

Then you have not taken into account all the other amendments. It does not allow for pedophilia. Only three crimes can be committed under the Constitution: violation of one's Life, Liberty, or Property. This is also outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Pedophilia violates all three since it violates one's life, liberty (who they have sex with) and property (their body).

Really this is the most poorly written aspect of our constitution but it is what it is and the lack of any specificity does not help.

It does when you understand what constitutes a true crime. The violation of one's life, liberty, or property.

It is up to us to interpret what that means. If you say it means we have the right to deny service I would be open to hear that argument, the question though is that a natural right? No one is forcing you to sign the business licenses and permits that allow you to open a business to the public at large.

There is no business clause that states you have to provide service to everyone just because you decide to open a business.

Since there is no coercion or force applied I see no reason for it to be a natural right to deny service as the law does not prevent you from doing that. What the law prevents is that businesses operating within the state must adhere to the laws of that state or face fines. No one is forcing anyone to have a business open to the public.

Opening a business is not an agreement to serve everyone. It is a decision to sell a product. It is a personal venture into the realm of commerce. There are no requirements by natural law found in our Constitution that you have to be nice to customers, or cater to a specific group, or sell products at all. This is all just made up stuff you are spouting.

As stated by others in this thread there are ways to address this issue. If he only wanted to sell cakes to heterosexual couples he could simply not offer wedding cakes in his place of business but work through a private cake club associated with certain churches he has an exclusivity agreement with. This would ensure a steady stream of customers that are heterosexual Christians and he would not have to worry about selling to LGBT individuals or atheists or muslims or hindus.

It doesn't matter. Any of it! A business owner retains the right to sell what he wants when he wants to whom he wants as long as it doesn't violate a person's life, liberty, or property. Refusing a sale to a person does not violate a person's life, liberty, or property. That is a fact.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 62 by Nickman]

That is not entirely true and subject to the context of the specific business you are talking about. Growing up the Super Wal-mart in our town was acquired with eminent domain and tax dollars helped build its parking lot. This was the case as we lived in a small small small town and the wal-mart was seen of public-interest. Lots of public money went into this wal-mart so no the acquisition of land and the construction of part of the property was bought and paid for by the public.

Again its more complicated than simply buying land putting a building there and opening your doors. There are also public loans the construction of roads sidewalks etc that go into some businesses as well.

The road in front of my house was built by public funds. A person has the right to drive, walk, loiter in the street. They paid for it. The property I purchased is not public. Neither is a business that is not paid by public funds. There is no difference. You seem to want to violate a property owner's rights based on whether or not they sell stuff.

[Nickman]

Who owns the goods being sold in a store? The owner! Does the owner of the goods have a right to decide who they sell to? It is their stuff by the way. They OWN it. It is simple. You guys are making the owner lose their rights. This debate is all about property rights. No one has a right to my property or anyone else's unless consent is given to sell it by the owner.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 65 by Nickman]

There is no business clause that states you have to provide service to everyone just because you decide to open a business.

Yes there is they are not all for tax purposes. The acquisition of a business license means you have agreed to the terms and conditions of receiving said license this includes

Employees rights
Wage statutes
Civil Right statutes according to the state

Ever wonder why businesses that sell food have restrooms?

Why is there handicap access required in most states on most businesses?

There are rules and regulations that each state assigns to places of business open to public accommodation


The baker in question violated the Colorado Anti-discrimination Law

"In the areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations, discrimination is unfair treatment of an individual or group because of their protected class (characteristic). Retaliation is also a prohibited discriminatory act, where adverse action is taken against an individual because of his or her participation in a protected activity (i.e. speaking in opposition to a discriminatory act, filing a discrimination complaint, or participation in a discrimination investigation or lawsuit)"

This includes minorities and LGBT individuals

That is Colorado law each state is different and the tenth amendment gives them the power to make said rules.

It is not non-sense I am spouting if it was non-sense then why have the courts continually upheld these laws?

If your argument is so flawless and true to the constitution then why have the lawyers not used your argument?

If what you say is true that these laws violate the 9th amendment why have they not been over turned.

Mind you this has had its day in court many many times. What you are saying simply isn't true, but merely an interpretation of the constitution that the courts simply don't agree with.


Maybe pedophillia is a bad example because I agree with you 100% and would have to argue against what I believe to make my point so uhmm lets move on lol.

How about sexual consent laws. Lets say a 19 year old and a 16 year old have a sexual relationship. In some states that is defined legally as statutory rape regardless of consent. Is that a violation of the 19 year old's 9th amendment rights? or the 16 year old's 9th amendment rights?


My point that I am trying to make is that you are assigning a specific right that is not defined nor spelled out in the constitution. You are using a vague line in the 9th amendment to assign your belief to it. If I believe it was my right to be a drug mule and smuggle heroin in my rectum is it a violation of my 9th amendment rights?

after all it is my property(my recutum) my life(the health risks associated) , liberty(my choice and passion to be a drug mule)

[Danmark]

Who owns the goods being sold in a store? The owner! Does the owner of the goods have a right to decide who they sell to? It is their stuff by the way. They OWN it. It is simple. You guys are making the owner lose their rights. This debate is all about property rights. No one has a right to my property or anyone else's unless consent is given to sell it by the owner.

It is important to distinguish between what a person believes is accurate re: his rights and what is the current state of the law. Again I refer you to the landmark Heart of Atlanta case.

The fact is, according to civil rights and business law experts, when business owners hang up open signs, whether literally or figuratively, they have a responsibility to treat all customers equally under the law.
http://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com/new ... f887a.html
BTW, that site is operated by a Tucson business journal and offers a wealth of information for Arizona businessmen on this subject; e.g:

Public Accommodation
Discrimination in places of public accommodation
What is protected?
Race; Color; National origin/ancestry; Sex/gender; Religion/creed; Disability (physical and mental)
Places of public accommodation include:
Restaurants; Banks; Hotels; Museums; Parks; Day care centers; Health clubs; Stores (grocery, department); Theaters; Health care facilities
Source: Arizona Attorney General’s Office Civil Rights Division

One of the first things a law student is surprised to learn is that when he buys real property, he does not 'own' it in any absolute sense. What he has purchased is a certain bundle of rights, which vary depending on deed or contract.

Generally he has purchased the right to exclude others; however there are circumstances where the right of the State trumps even that right and, for example, allows the police entry against the owner's will. I may not like that if it is my house, but that is the law, and I grudgingly may agree with it when a court has granted the State a right to enter to search for a terrorist.

Re: the law, the question has been long settled. The owner of a 'public accommodation' absolutely may NOT refuse service due to a person's race, gender or beliefs.

Not only is this the law, but it is a good policy in my opinion. Consider what would happen if this were not the law. Any hotel, restaurant, bank, or grocery store could refuse service or sales to anyone for any reason. Christians, Jews, atheists, Mormons, Irish, the blind, those with canes or in wheelchairs; people who just don't "look right" according to the owner's whim.

And that is exactly what happened in the American South and other regions of the country before passage and enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Negroes" were not allowed to go to most hotels or restaurants; had to sit in the back of the bus; had to use "colored" drinking fountains and rest rooms. "WHITE ONLY" signs were ubiquitous.

I remember a case in law school that I disagreed with vehemently, Wickard v. Filburn. Poor old Roscoe Filburn was not allowed to grow more wheat than the amount the government set, even tho' the excess was for his own consumption and never left his property. This was because of a law passed during the great depression to support the price of wheat and the court's rationale was that Filburn's action affected "interstate commerce".

Filburn argued that since the wheat for him and his farm and never entered commerce at all, let alone interstate commerce. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market and have an effect on interstate commerce.
As outrageous as this may sound, it is still the law of the land, tho' in subsequent cases the Courts have decided the government's ability to so regulate is not absolute. The rationale and history of the case is interesting. You can read a reasonable summary at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn