The Bible-based laundry list in the article of reasons not to serve someone at your place of business is amusing, but it serves another point: such discrimination seems highly unlikely to happen because, well, you couldn't stay in business, right? Exclude divorcees, people with tattoos, anyone who illegitimate (or has illegitimacy in their family tree going back generations)? Potential customers would laugh in your face (or spit in it) for asking, and your doors would shortly close.
No, the only time such discrimination works is when a majority chooses to take a "principled" stand against a minority — where it won't hurt too much, won't alienate too many others, won't overly damage the bottom line, where there are plenty of Our Kind around to fill in the gaps and maybe even reward us for our moral behavior with additional custom.
That's a big part of what's pernicious about the "religious freedom" law in Indiana, and, to similar laws when proposed: they provide a vehicle for not just (to be charitable) for person religious expression, but for the majority to safely discriminate against a minority who can't strike back, e.g., gays.
It's not a sign of moral courage, but of bullying.
I am a Christian business owner in Indiana
Not really. But If I were, this is the sign I would put in my door.“Dear Valued Patrons.
Due to my sincerely held religious beliefs, and in light of the RFRA, recently signed by our Dear Leader …
I'd love to see an already existing sign up in Indiana (where they already were allowed, by law, to discriminate against gays if they were so inclined) that said "We Don't Serve Gays".
No, really….I'd love to see one for no other reason than to give all the teeth gnashers and clothes renders something to back up their claims that the sky was, now, falling.
The problem with this argument is that history just doesn't support it. RFRAs have been around for decades, at the federal level and in ~20 states. Show us one court case where an RFRA was used to support discrimination and the argument will start to attain some validity. But simply calling something "discrimination" when it hasn't actually produced any thing of the sort, is problematic. The idea that "straight only' signs are going to start showing up in restaurants and stores is truly eyeroll worthy. And if they did, you know those doors would be closing soon. The demonizing of people of devout religious faith in this issue is just exactly that. For reference, here are 10 actual court cases where RFRAs were applied: http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/meet-10-americans-helped-by-religious-freedom-bills-like-indianas/
+Charles Carrigan It's not demonizing people of devout religious faith. It's taking a stand against bigots. The Bible is full to overflowing with life instructions that are routinely ignored by "people of devout religious faith" (or do you think they actually sell their daughters?). It's not religion when the so-called 'faithful' pick and choose which of their God's directions to adhere to. It's also not religion when the so-called 'faithful' treat some of God's words as law but others as "guidelines". solely at the 'discretion' of the 'faithful'.
This is not about religion. Nor is it about faith. It's about bigotry and hatred.
One of the best responses to the "People who go to church are hypocrites" line was "Yes, you're exactly right. The church isn't a hotel for saints, but a hospital for sinners."
It's sort of like the big company CEO who decries a whole state for being "bigoted' because of a law (that has nothing to do with discrimination, by the way), yet continues to do business with countries who, routinely, murder gays and women. Which is his right, of course.
People aren't perfect.
+Terence Stigers you just proved my point about demonizing people.
+Charles Carrigan Um.. no. I didn't. I simply pointed out the underlying idiocy of your Christians-as-victims stance.
The truth of the matter is that the majority of the people talking about this issue aren't, in fact, talking about Christians at all (including the Indiana law itself, which completely fails to mention Christians). Instead, they're talking about rights. And about social justice. They're talking about the people who actually will be victimized by this law.
Christians are just feeling like victims because they don't like being the butt of the jokes.
+Mark Means "The church isn't a hotel for saints, but a hospital for sinners"
So what you're saying is church-goers are imperfect and therefore it's okay for them to discriminate against others?
No, just that they're imperfect.
+Charles Carrigan There are some distinct differences between Indiana's law and the federal (and most state) RFRAs. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/ and http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/31/indianas-rfra-similar-federal-rfra/70729888/ describe those differences.
1. They explicitly extend the ability to claim a burden on religious beliefs to all for-profit businesses.
2. They allow a defense under RFRA from a private suit when the state is not involved.
3. They allow a pro-active defense under RFRA, not just when religious rights have been infringed, but when someone claims they are likely to be infringed.
+Mark Means It's clearly a direct reaction against court rulings regarding cases where business did discriminate against gays, particularly clear given the folk who were the biggest backers of this law,
+Mark Means Good point. So we probably shouldn't put them in a position to judge the worthiness of others.
+Terence Stigers you're hilarious, claiming that my point is false when you repeatedly prove it by your ad hoc, broad brush attacks. You have repeatedly demonized people who support this law, but you can't see it in yourself that you're doing it, even while you make over-generalizing negative statements. Too funny. I won't try to continue this with you, and I'll let you have the last word.
+Dave Hill I'll check out those links, but everything I've read about the so-called differences has said that they are either 1) really minor; or 2) just natural results of the Hobby Lobby case. And again, it is one thing to simply claim that some law is discriminatory, and another thing altogether to demonstrate that it actually results in discrimination. We've had a whole lot of the former the last couple of days and exactly zero of the latter. In fact, in every case I've heard about where RFRAs come up against discrimination laws, the RFRAs lose.
So I don't think there is any way that these laws will allow people to do the things that the opponents fear they will. No one is going to have signs hanging up saying "No gays allowed". On the flip side, in fact, I also don't think these laws will even allow some of the people who support them to do what they really want either, but only time & the courts will tell. Nobody legitimate in this thing really wants to discriminate; what they want is to not be forced to use their artistic work to support something they feel is contrary to their most deeply held beliefs about the most important social institution that exists. There is a huge difference in a baker who says "I can't decorate a cake in a way that endorses homosexual marriage" and another who says "I won't sell any kind of cake ever to a homosexual person". The former is reasonable, the latter is not, but we have a conflation here where most people don't seem to be able to recognize the difference. But like I said, I don't think the RFRA would even allow people the first option anyway when it comes up against anti-discrimination laws. See this article on that angle: http://www.vox.com/2015/3/31/8319415/indiana-religious-freedom-discrimination
+Charles Carrigan _"Nobody legitimate in this thing really wants to discriminate; what they want is to not be forced to use their artistic work to support something they feel is contrary to their most deeply held beliefs about the most important social institutiom that exists."_
Um, that is, in fact, discrimination.
And the law, of course, doesn't narrowly apply to just "artistic work" — it applies to any sort of business.
And Hobby Lobby (a sorry decision on its own) extended the federal RFRA decision only to "closely held" family companies. The Indiana RFRA opens it up to any corporation doing business in the state.
And, ironically, while you say that nobody knows what they're talking about because nobody has yet been harmed by this … the new law itself would allow a suit to be filed if a new state law was claimed to be likely to create a religious burden.
+Charles Carrigan Demonize:
1. To turn into or as if into a demon.
2. To possess by or as if by a demon.
3. To represent as evil or diabolic.
Um.. no. Again. You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
+Dave Hill you and I obviously disagree on what constitutes discrimination. Forcing someone to go against their conscience is not acceptable in a free society in my opinion. This gets to the very heart of free speech, and like it or not, the decoration of a cake and the taking of photographs is very much an artistic enterprise. Those artists are exercising their right to speak with the work they create, and the government has no business telling them what speech they must make. Forcing people to speak with their art in support of things that are contrary to their most deeply held beliefs is a hideous act in a free society in my opinion. You must not agree with that, however, and I would love to hear why you think that is an acceptable act for the government to do. Should a baker who believes in homosexual marriage be forced to decorate a cake in a way that says marriage is only between a man & a woman? I certainly don't think so. That's all that is being asked for from those who value religious freedom – to let people decline from participating in celebrating events that go against their deeply held beliefs. That is very different from a baker who says he won't bake a birthday cake for a person who happens to be gay – that's discrimination and no amount of religious expression makes any sense there as a defense. There is a nuance here that I think is lost on many people, and it makes all the difference in the world. And come on, there has to be a way where we can all learn to live together in a free society, respect one another's personal convictions, and still all get a piece of cake. This is pluralism at its finest.
+Dave Hill And, yet, it's not discriminatory to force someone to do something, whether you agree with them or not, against their religious convictions?
RFRA doesn't give anyone carte blanche to "discriminate" against anyone else. It just assures them their day in court, should things go that way.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/01/how-rfra-works-explained-in-one-chart/
+Dave Hill we'll have to agree to disagree on the Hobby Lobby decision. I think the Hobby Lobby decision was a very good one, very much in line with what the court has said in other cases, and very much in line with the spirit of RFRA laws. It was obviously very narrowly applied to only closely held, strongly religious family businesses. It would never have worked with other types of corporations, and if the Indiana law is trying to extend that beyond the Supreme court's very narrow ruling, then I would agree it is problematic. Like I said I'll have to read those two links you posted, I haven't had a chance yet.
Just curious – is it okay for Catholics to refuse service to Protestants?
And let's get to the heart of this –
In our society you can easily preserve your religion's cake-decorating mandates simply by not opening a bakery. If you choose to open a bakery, however, you are doing so within the confines of our society, which expressly stipulates that you cannot discriminate against other members of our society.
This is not an attack on anyone's beliefs. If you cannot bake a cake for an atheist without feeling like it compromises your faith, then please exercise your right to NOT OPEN A BAKERY.
+Terence Stigers
_Just curious – is it okay for Catholics to refuse service to Protestants?_
Sure, if they felt that strongly about it, why not?
So, what you're saying is you can have a business only if you have no convictions/beliefs….whatsoever. Or do you mean just the convictions/beliefs you deem worthy?
+Mark Means Don't be foolish. What I'm saying is pretty simple: one person's convictions do not trump another person's rights. And NO ONE'S convictions/beliefs allow them to infringe upon the rights of others.
This is where you folks keep getting confused. This is not a religious issue. It is a secular one. It is about whether any one person is going to be allowed to take away the rights of any other one person. The reason why you want to take away another person's rights is, in fact, immaterial.
Should all businesses have to close on Saturday to avoid violating the Jewish Sabbath? Should you have to take the crosses off of your churches because they offend Jehovah's Witnesses? Should businesses have to stop making a profit because it offends socialists? Should all eating establishments stop serving meat because it offends vegetarians?
They call it a slippery slope for a reason.
"This is not a religious issue. It is a secular one. It is about whether any one person is going to be allowed to take away the rights of any other one person"
How is declining to bake a cake (or whatever) for a couple "taking away their rights"? You mean to tell me they can't go anywhere else to get said good/services?
"You mean to tell me they can't go anywhere else to get said good/services?"
No. I'm saying any particular bakery cannot refuse to bake a couple a cake just because they're Christians.
No, you said someone was "taking away someone's rights" by not serving them. Not serving someone is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "taking away their rights".
They have the right to suck it up and move on.
Actually, it IS taking away someone's rights when you refuse them service. This is why we call it 'discrimination'. Because people in our society have the right to not be discriminated against simply because adherents to ancient superstitions cannot open their minds.
You might want to open up your Bible and reread the parts where Jesus talks about how you should treat other people.
"Actually, it IS taking away someone's rights when you refuse them service."
How so?
You know what…..never mind.
The absurdity of the conversation and your totally predictable talking points (arguing over word definitions, invoking "WWJD") are giving me a headache.
I'm muting and will leave you to your faux outrage/histrionics.
Peace out.
I really meant what I said about rereading your Bible. Jesus had some great stuff to say about how people should treat each other.
+Charles Carrigan I might — might — entertain the question of "this is a horrible compulsion of someone to exercise their innermost artistic talents for something that they profoundly disagree with" … if the bill limited itself to "artistic talents, religious objections to the compulsion to provide". It does not. It applies to bakers deciding that baking a cake for a gay couple is becoming complicity in their sinful lifestyle, and it applies just as much to a restaurant manager deciding not to accept a gay couple's custom, a gas station attendant refusing to run the pumps for a car with a rainbow sticker on the back fender, or a hotel manager refusing to let a gay couple stay at their hotel, all of them for "religious" reasons.
"Forcing someone to go against their conscience is not acceptable in a free society in my opinion."
There were people who very seriously objected, on religious grounds, to the mingling of the races, either in neighborhoods or in restaurants or in marriages. Thank goodness RFRA wasn't thought of then even by the most deep-dyed Southern segregationists.
+Mark Means Not serving someone certainly seems to be a violation of civil rights as defined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
How dare you lump in prostitutes with tax collectors!
At least those women were doing an honest job… 😉
Didn’t we already answer the question about not serving someone in the 1960’s with the Civil Rights Act? I seem to remember that saying that if you’re a public business, you don’t get to choose who sits at your counter and who you serve, no matter you religious beliefs.
Seems that Mark and Charles would like for the “truly, very religious” folks to get to say who gets to eat at their public business’s lunch counters again. I mean, it’s not discrimination if you’re really backing up your religious convictions? Come on, that’s not even a coherent argument, much less one that should be made by anyone over the age of 10. Heck, my 6 year old would know that’s a stupid claim to try and make.
Ahhh, Mark took the very mature route of, “I’m being inconsistent and can’t compete with facts in this argument” and called his opponent irrational, so he took his ball and went home. Well played sir, well played.
@Trevor — You are correct, the Civil Rights Act (albeit just for the protected classes noted) treats “public accommodation” very broadly, and does not allow for sincere religious beliefs to trump that as public policy.
I think it’s telling that the word “discrimination” is in such bad grace (a good thing) that it’s rejected in this argument, that clearly it’s meant to be a justification for discrimination. We allow such things in some circumstances — you can discriminate against people dressed against your dress code, you can discriminate against an ex-con regarding a job requiring security, you can discriminate based on even protected classes if the reason is compelling enough. That is being asked for through these RFRA laws is the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs; that this is too sensitive to actually admit is, again, telling.
So if a White Supremisist sincerely believes non whites are inferior and should be treated poorly then that’s OK?
@LH – That seems to be the answer from this mindset.
Now if a White Supremacist were to simply believe that — well, not much an be done (or should be done, other than social opprobrium or kindness). It’s using that sincere belief as an excuse to act in a way that is otherwise illegal that starts to cause problems.
+Dave Hill on many of those points I would agree with you. Let me be clear: I do not believe that a restaurant owner can decline to serve people at a restaurant, nor a gas station attendant refuse to pump gas, or a hotel manager refusing to let them stay at a hotel, just because they are gay. I part ways with a lot of libertarian folks on this issue at this point – they wish to say that someone can refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time they wish. There are still restaurants all over the U.S. with signs in their businesses proclaiming that they have "reserved this right".
But I think there are some situations where significant nuance is necessary. When someone is asked to play a significant part in a wedding ceremony, for example, I draw a line there. If a gay person walks into a bakery and asks for a birthday cake, then they should get a birthday cake because the baker bakes and decorates and sells birthday cakes. There is nothing about being involved in the celebration of a birthday that goes against the religion of anyone (that I'm aware of anyway; I'm sure there are exceptions but let's keep the discussion focused on the reasonable here). The baker who refuses to decorate a reasonably requested "happy birthday" cake just because the person is gay is being unreasonable, and the invocation of their religion doesn't make any sense. Nothing about the Christian religion says that birthday celebrations are immoral. Decorating a cake that proclaims the goodness of a homosexual marriage, however, is a different matter. The cake baker is being asked to create something artistic that makes a proclamation that goes against what the cake baker believes is God's design for marriage relationships. And the cake baker should be consistent in this – he/she should also refuse to bake the cake if other violations of the marriage covenant are also clearly being violated. Christians believe that marriage is a lifetime commitment, for example; if the "marriage" being established was "to automatically expire after 2 years and go up for review again", then the cake baker should again decline to be involved with such a ceremony. In other words, it doesn't have anything to do with the specifics of who is getting the cake, it has to do with whether or not the cake baker is willing to participate in the particular wedding ceremony. Again this gets back to the idea that artistic creations are a form of speech, and speech cannot be forced against the deeply held convictions of the artist. As another example – this one real life rather than theoretical – check out the details about a case involving a florist. Her case was "covered" by the Indy Star paper, but they left out quite a few important details that the GetReligion bloggers have brought to light: http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2015/4/1/in-reporting-on-christian-florist-who-declined-to-participate-in-same-sex-wedding-indy-star-misses-chance-to-provide-real-insight
+Charles Carrigan Um… no. Nobody is asking a baker to "celebrate" anything. They're just asking the baker to bake a cake. The baker is not being asked to participate any more than they would be 'participating' in a birthday, retirement, Bar Mitzvah, little league championship, baby shower, dinner party, or any other of the plethora of reasons people purchase cakes from bakeries. Your attempt to tie bigotry to freedom of speech is equally specious. Discrimination is discrimination, and in this country no one is allowed to do it. With good reason.
In Britain no vendor has to sell you anything (and it doesn’t have to be at the ticketed price, as long as you have an opportunity to decide on the purchase – this is why petrol stations are one of the few places where displaying the wrong price means they must sell at the displayed price, as its already in your car).
However they may NOT treat you different on equality reasons.
Black Man – Can I buy a widget please
Server – sorry we are all out
Black Man – There’s one in the window
Server – We don’t sell display items
White Man – Can I buy a widget please
Server – sorry we are all out
White Man – There’s one in the window
Server – We don’t sell display items
This is OK
Black Man – Can I buy a widget please
Server – sorry we are all out
Black Man – There’s one in the window
Server – We don’t sell display items
White Man – Can I buy a widget please
Server – sorry we are all out
White Man – There’s one in the window
Server – Certainly sir – have a discount because its a display item
Is not OK.
There is a simple test to see if it is discrimination. Replace ‘Gay’ with ‘Black’, ‘Jewish’ and finally ‘vendors description’.
If the behaviour changes then its discrimination.
Also – if a law allows you to discriminate against gays, does it allow you to discriminate against blacks and jews. Would those bakers etc refuse to cater to a Bar Mitzvah on the basis the Evil Jews killed Baby Jesus. If they would not, then they have double standards. If a law allows you to discriminate, it must allow all discrimination – ie they can say they don’t serve blacks. It is immoral to only protect some people and not others, if all those people are ‘legal’.
+Charles Carrigan I think it would be difficult to draw a bright line between "pumping gas" and "creating something artistic," and, for better or worse, the law is prett bad at significant nuance (or, rather, police, prosecutors, judges, and juries are). Even your description here is full of words that would let people (let alone the justice system) play fast and loose in one direction or another (or both): "significant," "nuance," "reasonably," "that I'm aware of," "reasonable," "doesn't make any sense." Particularly when it comes to seriously held religious beliefs, all those terms go out the window.
While I can see the distinction you are drawing between a birthday cake and a wedding cake, I can equally well see others not making that distinction. I am a devout Christian cake baker. I consider homosexuality, in the words of Leviticus, an abomination. As the Bible says in other contexts, "better that he should not have been born." Where is the bright line of what I should do here? I bake cakes for a living. I bake birthday cakes. I bake wedding cakes. I bake anniversary cakes. I bake generic congratulations cakes. Am I celebrating the life of a gay person by baking them a birthday cake (and should I also be asking if the birthday boy or girl was conceived in vitro)? Should I be inquiring as to what a gay person is being congratulated for (winning a contest=good, being named head of the local gay activism group=evil)? If marriage is such a moral high ground for me, am I also obliged when asked to bake (or decorate) a "Happy Anniversary" cake the genders of the couple involved (let alone whether it was a common law or civil, not a church, marriage, or if one or both of the couples was previously married, or if they lived in sin before hitching the knot)?
I would argue that baking a wedding cake is no more "participating in the particular wedding ceremony" than setting up tables, or mowing the grass outside the venue, or cooking the reception meal, or filling the get-away car with gas, or making up the room at the place where the couple is honeymooning. It may very well be an artistic endeavor (though that seems to denigrate the artistic element of day-to-day tasks, or the day-to-day element of artistic tasks), but that doesn't somehow trump everything else involved.
And all of this ignores that the law in question was not about artists, or even artistic endeavors, but about all activities and, as originally pass in Indiana, all businesses.
"Artistic creations are a form of speech, and speech cannot be forced against the deeply held convictions of the artist." Except when the artist has put themselves in the position of responding to orders by anyone who comes in the door. We're not talking about an artist who creates stuff then puts it up for sale; we're talking about someone whose business is accepting orders from people who walk in the door. As a "public accommodation," they are no different at that point than a hotel or a restaurant or a grocery store.
+Charles Carrigan I read the GetReligion article you posted.
It's hard to get past an article that opens with a big picture of Fox News' coverage of the event, let alone one that suggests a news article has to be treated skeptically if the newspaper's editorial board has taken a position on the subject.
But beyond that, the story doesn't change anything. That Ms Stutzman has gay clients and gay friend and gay employees and is, apparently, quite friendly with gay people, only says that she is not a mean-spirited bigot — which is a good thing, personally, but this isn't a case of being a good person or a bad person, but of discriminating in providing a service. That she has sometimes provided flowers arrangements to people she knows are gay doesn't change that she didn't do it in the case at hand, any more than "Well, I let blacks sit at the lunch counter Monday through Saturday, but I reserve Sunday for white folk because they're the ones I go to church with" stands. Or an employer being happy to hire people he knows are gay, unless they are married. Or, let's say, a florist agreeing to make floral arrangements for both white weddings and black weddings, but not for the wedding of a mixed-race couple because mindling of the races against her religion.
If I go into a public business providing a service — whether that service is "artistic" or not, I am obliged not to discriminate based on a variety of protected classes — which, in some venues, includes sexual orientation. If I can't bring myself to to provide those services on a non-discriminatory basis, I should find a different line of work to go into and use that artistic talent come through in other ways. Claiming a religious exemption as Ms Stutzman has might look attractive in her case, but it also allows for far less savory and far less limited discrimination to take place, under the auspices of sincerely held religious beliefs.
Could you actually point to a real example of a religion that has as parts of its doctrinal statements, a statement against "mixed-race marriages"? Because there is a difference between people who try to use their religion to justify their positions, and people who are actually sincerely trying to follow a set of creeds. Sure people argued that their religion supported various racist positions, but that's not the same as actually having a set of doctrines. The Christian view of marriage is not a new thing that's happening in response to social change in some sort of reactionary fashion. A good judge should be able to tell the difference. And that gets back to your point about the law being bad at significant nuance – that's the thing about being a judge and interpreting law – you had better get really good at understanding nuanced arguments if you want to be good at your job.
Suppose a caterer is an openly gay Episcopalian; the faith articulated by his Church includes a sincere belief that homosexuality is a gift from God and part of God's good creation. He has a list of clients that includes a dominantly black Pentecostal church. That church is hosting en event for ex-gays and asked him to cater the event. Is he allowed to decline, citing that it violates his sincere beliefs and everything he stands for as a liberal Christian? Or does is he forced by the government to serve and cater the event? I strongly support the former, not the latter. He has willfully served them in the past and will do so again in the future, but in this case he feels it would be wrong to do so in this specific case. It is clear that the caterer is not discriminating against an entire class of individuals – but when the situation is reversed, a lot of people sure are quick to play the bigotry card.
If you don't like the florist, or the cake baker, how about a photographer? Photography is protected by first amendment freedom of speech, and a photographer is clearly someone who creates art. A photographer has to be clearly involved with the ceremony, in attendance, creating art that celebrates the event. Are you willing to say that the government must force that person to participate in the ceremony and create art that affirms something that they sincerely oppose? I say no, absolutely not; this is a free speech issue.
Can't we find a way where both sides can show some tolerance to one another? Yes, of course we can, but we're going to have to be willing to learn to live with and respect people that we disagree with.
+Charles Carrigan "But, in a carefully concocted set of circumstances I just made up, couldn't there be a way in which it would be acceptable for 'religious' people to violate the rights of others under the guise of 'following their conscience'?"
No.
It really is that simple.
+Charles Carrigan SCOTUS has held (and general jurisprudence has as well) that pointing to precise doctrine is not necessary, just that it be a sincerely held religious belief. Otherwise you place the courts in the position of determining doctrinal purity, which I think none of us (least of which the courts) want to be in.
I can certainly point you to any number of devout Christians who, from antebellum South, to today, hold that mingling of the races is against the explicit word of God, and have pointed to Biblical passages to back themselves up. I certainly do not want to judge whether their beliefs are "pure" or "doctrinal" or "orthodox" or "truly Christian" — I can say that they don't align with what I believe to be Christ's teachings, but I would decline to have my beliefs be made the rule of law.
"That's the thing about being a judge and interpreting law – you had better get really good at understanding nuanced arguments if you want to be good at your job"
I think we can probably agree that nuance, let alone consistency, in such arguments is hardly a universal attribute in the judiciary, which is in part why we end up with things appealed up through the system. The definition of who is a "good judge" will vary significantly from person to person — as will even a broad statement about Christianity. _"The Christian view of marriage is not a new thing that's happening in response to social change in some sort of reactionary fashion"_ flies in the face of two thousand years of changing interpretations of what marriage is about, what drives it, how it is celebrated, what rules apply to it, etc. What is the role of a husband in marriage? Or a wife? Is divorce to be allowed? On what grounds? What about remarriage? What about marriages that span different faiths? And what defines different faiths — different Protestant sects, Catholicism, or beyond? You can find many Christian individuals and denominations who consider these rules, including whether gays can wed within the church, from very different perspectives.
… and with that I have to set aside the rest of my reply to later … 🙂
+Charles Carrigan "Can't we find a way where both sides can show some tolerance to one another? Yes, of course we can, but we're going to have to be willing to learn to live with and respect people that we disagree with."
Yes. And we had that before anyone tried to codify their beliefs into law.
See, this is the point where you seem to be getting confused. As the situation stands, Christians are trying to leverage their beliefs into a legal excuse to take away other people's rights. You mistakenly think that the opposite is also the case. You seem to think that gay people are attempting to take away Christians' rights by asking bakers to bake cakes.
But in order for this stance to indeed be true, Christians would already have to have the right to discriminate against gay people. A right first has to be possessed before it can be taken away.
And nobody is trying to take any rights away from Christians. They are simply trying to stop Christians from taking away anyone else's rights.
Which is exactly what Christians are trying to do in this case. And it is NOT okay.
+Dave Hill you're stretching it on "changing interpretations of marriage" there; we're not talking about roles, we're talking about husband & wife together until death do us part. Suggesting that other attributes of marriage are relevant here is avoiding the central issue. The fundamental "husband & wife" thing has been consistent for millennia. Now Christians/Jews/Muslims/& others are being asked to normalize various sexual behaviors that are inconsistent with our beliefs, and any objection is quickly and loudly met with cries of bigotry. We're not being asked to just let people do their own thing; we're being told that if we don't fully support it and accept it that we're simply hateful people.
It's pretty clear here that we aren't finding much in the way of common ground, so I'll let you have the last word on this one.
+Charles Carrigan Could you direct me to anything at all that Jesus said about homosexuality? Please cite chapter and verse.
+Charles Carrigan I think it's easy to make a case for some core "standard" view of marriage, even just within Christianity, by excluding extraneous factors. The roles within a marriage have been considered a critical part of what marriage is throughout the Christian West, with Biblical passages to support them (and, thus, unrest in a similarly brief period while normalizing the idea that women are not legal chattel). Marriage was also profoundly understood to mean a pairing of people of the same class (thus its use as a tool for controlling property inheritance and political dynasties) and race — and, again, people were asked to normalize marriages, not long ago, that were inconsistent with their belief, interracial marriages. One can take a quick look at miscegenation laws (and rulings enforcing them) restricting marriage between Whites and Blacks, or Whites and Asians, to see how profoundly those people felt that such marriage was against the laws of God and against the very definition of what marriage was meant to be as ordained from above.
I do agree, though, that people are being told to accept — to the extent necessary for society to operate — the idea of gay marriage. I have no doubt that some folk will continue to judge it as "t'ain't natural," and that others will simply see it as a bad idea, but as with interracial marriage (or marriage with a previous divorce, etc.), nobody's being forced to support it as their personal cuppa, but to not discriminate against it in provision of business services, employment services, or the law. Bemoan it at the bar, belittle it from the pulpit, be bound and determined that you wouldn't let your daughter marry one, that's a social thing. From a legal thing standpoint, treat it neutrally.
+Charles Carrigan In response to your example about the liberal Episcopal caterer — yes, to be consistent, I would have to say that taking a job for a cause he finds abhorrent is an unfortunate part of offering one's services to the public, for pay, as a caterer. The scenario is no different from saying, "Gosh, I find associating with blacks to be morally repugnant, so I'm going to turn down the job," or "Baptists are so theologically off the reservation that I cannot support them by offering catering services."
@ Charles – You said, “The fundamental “husband & wife” thing has been consistent for millennia.” Actually, that would be an incorrect reading of the Bible. In the Bible, there are many different “types” of marriage that are allowed, at least initially. I believe there is support for a man+woman+woman+woman (Lamech, Jacob, David, etc.) as well as man+woman+concubine (Abraham, Gideon, Nahor, etc.).
So saying that it’s “fundamentally about a ‘husband & wife'” isn’t quite correct, and is in fact a more modern interpretation of Scripture as well as the structure of marriage.