BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Let me instead ask you, what in your mind would amount to a substantial burden for a baker? Would anything be off limits legitimately for him?
Indiana....
- Thread starter goldfly
- Start date
Let me instead ask you, what in your mind would amount to a substantial burden for a baker? Would anything be off limits legitimately for him?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Since I have repeatedly stated that I don't understand what a "substantial burden" amounts to for a Christian in this context, perhaps I am the wrong person to ask.
I assume that any butcher, baker, or candlestick is going to tend to look at the color of the money that a person is carrying and not ask them how they prefer to get down in the bedroom. I also assume that they're free to withhold their services from anyone, provided they aren't illegally discriminating.
Stepping back a bit, I fail to see how your comment that "Jesus did address sexual sin" isn't a cop out. It's avoiding two larger points, the first of which is that Jesus didn't admonish his followers to refuse to deal with a certain class of person. The second is that it still doesn't address the reason that this "sin" seems to be so much more abhorrent than others. I realize that you said that to you, it is not. But we aren't in the middle of a nationwide furball because people want to discriminate against/protect against discrimination the adulterers, fornicators, and lusters-in-the-heart, somehow.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
1. But what exactly does that mean? Would a a baker be within his rights to say, "you know I really don't want to make a cake that uses crude language"? Or, which celebrates swingers parties? Is there anything in your mind that would be a legitimate reason for him to refuse?
2. It's not a cop-out. Jesus upholds, teaches, even intensifies the sexual ethic which says sexual relations are for within the marriage covenant between one man and one woman. To act like that's not what he does is disingenuous. Yet, I do agree with you that far too many of those protesting SSM haven't been consistent with the Christian sexual ethic. I think the point about those activities connected with a SS wedding is that those are blatant expressions of something that many believe is morally wrong. If someone wanted a cake decorated in such a way as to celebrate their adulterous affair or their throuple sexual activity or premarital sex, then many of these same ones objecting, would object to those things as well. In like manner if someone wanted to a cake decorated to celebrate greed or theft or murder or rape or any number of things like that I personally would want the freedom to so, "you know I don't want to condone these things, I'll provide you with an undecorated cake for you to do with as you will, but if you have to have it so decorated, let me encourage you to go to someone else." It's the celebration of a public act that is viewed as sinful that is in question, not sharing a meal with people, not offering them other services which aren't seen as endorsements of sexual activity. Does that make sense?
I personally think that should be their prerogative to not provide that service. I also think that the gay baker who doesn't want to decorate a cake with, "homosexuality is a sin" (which isn't an illegal statement at this point) should have the right to refuse service. I don't get the burden it places on the customer to shop elsewhere.
But, for the Christian I would make the distinction that the baker should serve the gay customer when asking for anything else, which wasn't an explicit endorsement of the lifestyle. And beyond that i think that baker should love and converse and honor that customer in as many legitimate ways as possible.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
1. I think I answered that question to the best of my ability. I think that people should have the latitude to run their businesses as they choose. However, in certain arenas, certain classes of people are legally protected from discrimination under certain circumstances. So if, say, gender identity or sexual orientation—or race or sex or creed—is protected, there is less latitude.
2. I don't dispute the bolded sentence above. But there is no duty placed on the faithful to take or not take any particular action in the realm of commerce, is there? And there is still the question of where ruffled sensibilities become "substantial burden.'
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
^^^ Just added a bit more Julio.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
1. But are they protected from any and all refusal of services? If someone of a different creed comes into a Muslim butcher shop and asks for something that the Muslim butcher doesn't provide due to his creed, is it discrimination if he doesn't serve him that slab of bacon? I'm not saying, nor are any of these bakers/photographers I have read of saying, that they wouldn't serve the LGBT community in toto, just in providing a service which tacitly condones that which is against their creed.
2. Sure there is. Why wouldn't there be?
Not to be argumentative, but I just don't get why you don't get it. I'm not saying you must agree.
57Brave
Well-known member
1) If someone came into a Muslim butcher chop and asked for something that the Muslim butcher doesn't provide it would be like walking into a Muslim butcher shop and asking for a hub cap to a 58 Buick. Or walking into McDonald's and asking for Chateau Briand. He doesn't sell that. What your example has to do with denying someone service because of their sexual orientation is (how you say in English) ----- off the map
2) I grew up around the Amish. The answer they found is to deal with themselves and to be let known we don't deal in superfu;ous things like wedding cakes or hub caps . Are you and the cult of the Christian wedding industry ready to shun. That is the term used by the Amish
2) I grew up around the Amish. The answer they found is to deal with themselves and to be let known we don't deal in superfu;ous things like wedding cakes or hub caps . Are you and the cult of the Christian wedding industry ready to shun. That is the term used by the Amish
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Me neither, but I still don't get it. And certainly, you don't have to agree.
I would guess that—bear in mind that I'm neither a lawyer nor a theologian—in point #1, a faithful Muslim has a specifically enumerated duty not to handle pork. This stems from teaching and interpretation rather than from scripture (which simply forbids consuming it) but I would guess that refusing to sell it is easier to understand as a proscribed action, and therefore more legally defensible, than refusing baking a cake for a ceremony that is civil in nature, based on the sexual orientation of the customer, since "Consumer of bacon" is not a class that is protected against discrimination by statute. That's not an entirely satisfying answer, but that's my first crack at it.
As for point 2, I'm still not satisfied that there is any kind of proscription against commerce with X. I'm certainly out of my depth and could be wrong about this.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Part of our disconnect and understandably so is that we operate with differing presuppositions and at times definitions. For instance the very matter in question - what is a marriage. You based on your definition ask, "what's the big deal?" Me based on mine, "why don't you get it?" But whether we get one another, my wish would be for us (society) would be to tolerate one another precisely when we don't get one another, if that makes sense. I mean, it's almost then when maybe we should back off the most and give people space. But my fear, and I know i've said this over and over, is that such space won't be allowed much longer. Just take how some interlocutors here describe those who hold the opposing views. I want to call many Gay totalitarians and they no doubt want to call me a frickin religious bigot and hate-monger (or cultist). Right?
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
"What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They're less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. Over the years, I've patronized restaurants owned by members of all those groups. Today, if I went out into Greater Los Angeles and chatted up owners of mom-and-pop restaurants, I'd sooner or later find one who would decline to cater a gay wedding. The owners might be members of Rick Warren's church in Orange County. Or a family of immigrants in Little Ethiopia or on Olvera Street. Or a single black man or woman in Carson or Inglewood or El Segundo.
Should we destroy their livelihoods?
If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?
Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief.
Whereas declining to cater a gay wedding affects people on one day of their life at most, denies them access to no public accommodation, and would seem to signal discomfort with the institution of same-sex marriage more than animus toward gay people (so long as we're still talking about businesses that gladly serve gays). I also suspect that the sorts of businesses that are uncomfortable catering a hypothetical gay wedding aren't uniquely averse to events where same-sex couples are celebrating nuptials. I'd wager, for example, that they'd feel a religious obligation to refrain from catering an art exhibition filled with sacrilegious pieces like Piss Christ, the awards ceremony for pornography professionals, a Planned Parenthood holiday party, or a Richard Dawkins speaking engagement.
A faction of my fellow gay-marriage proponents see things differently.
The latest opponents of gay marriage to be punished for their religious objections to the practice are the owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana.
Matt Welch lays out what happened:
1) Family owners of small-town Indiana pizzeria spend zero time or energy commenting on gay issues.
2) TV reporter from South Bend walks inside the pizzeria to ask the owners what they think of the controversial Religious Restoration Freedom Act. Owner Crystal O'Connor responds, "If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no….We are a Christian establishment." O'Connor also says—actually promises is the characterization here—that the establishment will continue to serve any gay or non-Christian person that walks through their door.
3) The Internet explodes with insults directed at the O'Connor family and its business, including a high school girls golf coach in Indiana who tweets "Who's going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?" Many of the enraged critics assert, inaccurately, that Memories Pizza discriminates against gay customers.
4) In the face of the backlash, the O'Connors close the pizzeria temporarily, and say they may never reopen, and in fact might leave the state. "I don't know if we will reopen, or if we can, if it's safe to reopen," Crystal O'Connor tells The Blaze. "I'm just a little guy who had a little business that I probably don't have anymore," Kevin O'Connor tells the L.A. Times.
The owners of Memories Pizza are, I think, mistaken in what their Christian faith demands of them. And I believe their position on gay marriage to be wrongheaded. But I also believe that the position I'll gladly serve any gay customers but I feel my faith compels me to refrain from catering a gay wedding is less hateful or intolerant than let's go burn that family's business to the ground.
And I believe that the subset of the gay-rights movement intent on destroying their business and livelihood has done more harm than good here—that they've shifted their focus from championing historic advances for justice to perpetrating small injustices against marginal folks on the other side of the culture war. "The pizzeria discriminated against nobody," Welch wrote, "merely said that it would choose not to serve a gay wedding if asked. Which it never, ever would be, because who asks a small-town pizzeria to cater a heterosexual wedding, let alone a gay one?" They were punished for "expressing a disfavored opinion to a reporter."
To what end?...."
Link
Should we destroy their livelihoods?
If I recorded audio proving their intent to discriminate against a hypothetical catering client and I gave the audio to you, would you post it on the Internet and encourage the general public to boycott, write nasty reviews, and drive them out of business, causing them to lay off their staff, lose their life savings, and hope for other work? If that fate befell a Mormon father with five kids or a childless Persian couple in their fifties or a Hispanic woman who sunk her nest egg into a pupusa truck, should that, do you think, be considered a victory for the gay-rights movement?
Before this week, I'd have guessed that few people would've considered that a victory for social justice. And I'd have thought that vast majorities see an important distinction between a business turning away gay patrons—which would certainly prompt me to boycott—and declining to cater a gay wedding. I see key distinctions despite wishing everyone would celebrate gay marriage and believing Jesus himself would have no problem with a baker or cook acting as a gay-wedding vendor. A restaurant that turned away all gay patrons would be banning them from a public accommodation every day of their lives. It might unpredictably or regularly affect their ability to meet a business client or dine with coworkers or friends. It would have only the most dubious connection to religious belief.
Whereas declining to cater a gay wedding affects people on one day of their life at most, denies them access to no public accommodation, and would seem to signal discomfort with the institution of same-sex marriage more than animus toward gay people (so long as we're still talking about businesses that gladly serve gays). I also suspect that the sorts of businesses that are uncomfortable catering a hypothetical gay wedding aren't uniquely averse to events where same-sex couples are celebrating nuptials. I'd wager, for example, that they'd feel a religious obligation to refrain from catering an art exhibition filled with sacrilegious pieces like Piss Christ, the awards ceremony for pornography professionals, a Planned Parenthood holiday party, or a Richard Dawkins speaking engagement.
A faction of my fellow gay-marriage proponents see things differently.
The latest opponents of gay marriage to be punished for their religious objections to the practice are the owners of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana.
Matt Welch lays out what happened:
1) Family owners of small-town Indiana pizzeria spend zero time or energy commenting on gay issues.
2) TV reporter from South Bend walks inside the pizzeria to ask the owners what they think of the controversial Religious Restoration Freedom Act. Owner Crystal O'Connor responds, "If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no….We are a Christian establishment." O'Connor also says—actually promises is the characterization here—that the establishment will continue to serve any gay or non-Christian person that walks through their door.
3) The Internet explodes with insults directed at the O'Connor family and its business, including a high school girls golf coach in Indiana who tweets "Who's going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?" Many of the enraged critics assert, inaccurately, that Memories Pizza discriminates against gay customers.
4) In the face of the backlash, the O'Connors close the pizzeria temporarily, and say they may never reopen, and in fact might leave the state. "I don't know if we will reopen, or if we can, if it's safe to reopen," Crystal O'Connor tells The Blaze. "I'm just a little guy who had a little business that I probably don't have anymore," Kevin O'Connor tells the L.A. Times.
The owners of Memories Pizza are, I think, mistaken in what their Christian faith demands of them. And I believe their position on gay marriage to be wrongheaded. But I also believe that the position I'll gladly serve any gay customers but I feel my faith compels me to refrain from catering a gay wedding is less hateful or intolerant than let's go burn that family's business to the ground.
And I believe that the subset of the gay-rights movement intent on destroying their business and livelihood has done more harm than good here—that they've shifted their focus from championing historic advances for justice to perpetrating small injustices against marginal folks on the other side of the culture war. "The pizzeria discriminated against nobody," Welch wrote, "merely said that it would choose not to serve a gay wedding if asked. Which it never, ever would be, because who asks a small-town pizzeria to cater a heterosexual wedding, let alone a gay one?" They were punished for "expressing a disfavored opinion to a reporter."
To what end?...."
Link
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
"...Proponents of using the state to punish businesses like this often draw analogies to Jim Crow. Julian Sanchez has persuasively addressed the shortcomings of that argument (even presuming that opponents of gay marriage are motivated by bigotry):
...The “purist” libertarian position that condemns all anti-discrimination laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a priori unjust violations of sacrosanct property rights is profoundly misguided and historically blinkered. We were not starting from Year Zero in a Lockean state of nature, but dealing with the aftermath of centuries of government-enforced slavery and segregation—which had not only hopelessly tainted property distributions but created deficits in economic and social capital transmitted across generations to the descendants of slaves. The legacy of state-supported white supremacism, combined with the very real threat of violence against businesses that wished to integrate, created a racist structure so pervasive that unregulated “private” discrimination would have and did effectively deprive black citizens of civic equality and a fair opportunity to participate in American public life.
We ultimately settled on rules barring race discrimination in employment, housing, and access to “public accommodations”—which, though it clearly restricted the associational freedom of some racist business owners within a limited domain, was nevertheless justifiable under the circumstances: The interest in restoring civic equality was so compelling that it trumped the interest in associational choice within that sphere. But we didn’t deny the existence of that interest—appalling as the racist’s exercise of it might be—and continue to recognize it in other domains. A racist can still invite only neighbors of certain races to dinner parties, or form exclusive private associations, or as a prospective employee choose to consider only job offers from firms run or staffed primarily by members of their own race. Partly, of course, this is because regulations in these domains would be difficult or impossible to enforce—but partly it’s because the burden on associational freedom involved in requiring nondiscrimination in these realms would be unacceptably high.
Some of the considerations supporting our limited prohibition of racial discrimination apply to discrimination against gay Americans. But some don’t. Sexual orientation, unlike race, is not transmitted across generations, which means a gay person born in 1980 is not starting from a position of disadvantage that can be traced to a legacy of homophobic laws in the same way that a black person born in 1980 is likely to be disadvantaged by centuries of government-enforced racism. We don’t see the same profound and persistent socioeconomic disparities. Sexual orientation is also not generally obvious to casual observation in a commercial context, which as a practical matter makes exclusion more costly and labor intensive for the bigot. And while I’ve seen any number of claims that allowing private orientation discrimination would give rise to a new Jim Crow era, the fact is that such discrimination is already perfectly legal in most of the country, and it seems as though very few businesses are actually interested in pursuing such policies.
Rather, the actual cases we’ve been hearing about recently involve bigoted* photographers or bakers—who run small businesses but are effectively acting as short-term employees—who balk at providing their services to gay couples who are planning weddings. (I take for granted that gay marriage should, of course, be legal everywhere.) What’s the balance of burdens in these cases? The discrimination involved here doesn’t plausibly deny the gay couples effective civic equality: There are plenty of bakers and photographers who would be only too happy to take their money. Under the circumstances, the urge to either fine or compel the services of these misguided homophobes comes across as having less to do with avoiding dire practical consequences for the denied couple than it does with symbolically punishing a few retrograde yokels for their reprehensible views. And much as I’d like for us all to pressure them to change those views—or at the very least shame them into changing their practices—if there turn out to be few enough of them that they’re not creating a systemic problem for gay citizens, it’s hard to see an interest sufficiently compelling to justify legal compulsion—especially in professions with an inherently expressive character, like photography. In short: Yes, these people are assholes, but that alone doesn’t tell us how to balance their interest in expressive association against competing interests at this particular point in our history.
Perhaps that excerpt convinced some readers to rethink using state coercion to punish an atypically religious baker, photographer, or pizza seller, but they remain convinced that informal punishment of the Memories Pizza family is still appropriate.
The question I'd ask those who want to use non-state means to punish mom-and-pop businesses that decline to cater gay weddings is what, exactly, their notion of a fair punishment is. Nearly every supporter of gay marriage is on board with efforts to publicly tell people that their position is wrongheaded–I've participated in efforts like that for years and insist that respectful critique and persuasion is more effective than shaming. What about other approaches? If their Yelp rating goes down by a star does the punishment fit the "crime"? Is there a financial loss at which social pressure goes from appropriate to too much? How about putting them out of business? Digital mobs insulting them and their children? Email and phone threats from anonymous Internet users? If you think that any of those go too far have you spoken up against the people using those tactics?
(If not, is it because you're afraid they might turn on you?)..."
...The “purist” libertarian position that condemns all anti-discrimination laws, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a priori unjust violations of sacrosanct property rights is profoundly misguided and historically blinkered. We were not starting from Year Zero in a Lockean state of nature, but dealing with the aftermath of centuries of government-enforced slavery and segregation—which had not only hopelessly tainted property distributions but created deficits in economic and social capital transmitted across generations to the descendants of slaves. The legacy of state-supported white supremacism, combined with the very real threat of violence against businesses that wished to integrate, created a racist structure so pervasive that unregulated “private” discrimination would have and did effectively deprive black citizens of civic equality and a fair opportunity to participate in American public life.
We ultimately settled on rules barring race discrimination in employment, housing, and access to “public accommodations”—which, though it clearly restricted the associational freedom of some racist business owners within a limited domain, was nevertheless justifiable under the circumstances: The interest in restoring civic equality was so compelling that it trumped the interest in associational choice within that sphere. But we didn’t deny the existence of that interest—appalling as the racist’s exercise of it might be—and continue to recognize it in other domains. A racist can still invite only neighbors of certain races to dinner parties, or form exclusive private associations, or as a prospective employee choose to consider only job offers from firms run or staffed primarily by members of their own race. Partly, of course, this is because regulations in these domains would be difficult or impossible to enforce—but partly it’s because the burden on associational freedom involved in requiring nondiscrimination in these realms would be unacceptably high.
Some of the considerations supporting our limited prohibition of racial discrimination apply to discrimination against gay Americans. But some don’t. Sexual orientation, unlike race, is not transmitted across generations, which means a gay person born in 1980 is not starting from a position of disadvantage that can be traced to a legacy of homophobic laws in the same way that a black person born in 1980 is likely to be disadvantaged by centuries of government-enforced racism. We don’t see the same profound and persistent socioeconomic disparities. Sexual orientation is also not generally obvious to casual observation in a commercial context, which as a practical matter makes exclusion more costly and labor intensive for the bigot. And while I’ve seen any number of claims that allowing private orientation discrimination would give rise to a new Jim Crow era, the fact is that such discrimination is already perfectly legal in most of the country, and it seems as though very few businesses are actually interested in pursuing such policies.
Rather, the actual cases we’ve been hearing about recently involve bigoted* photographers or bakers—who run small businesses but are effectively acting as short-term employees—who balk at providing their services to gay couples who are planning weddings. (I take for granted that gay marriage should, of course, be legal everywhere.) What’s the balance of burdens in these cases? The discrimination involved here doesn’t plausibly deny the gay couples effective civic equality: There are plenty of bakers and photographers who would be only too happy to take their money. Under the circumstances, the urge to either fine or compel the services of these misguided homophobes comes across as having less to do with avoiding dire practical consequences for the denied couple than it does with symbolically punishing a few retrograde yokels for their reprehensible views. And much as I’d like for us all to pressure them to change those views—or at the very least shame them into changing their practices—if there turn out to be few enough of them that they’re not creating a systemic problem for gay citizens, it’s hard to see an interest sufficiently compelling to justify legal compulsion—especially in professions with an inherently expressive character, like photography. In short: Yes, these people are assholes, but that alone doesn’t tell us how to balance their interest in expressive association against competing interests at this particular point in our history.
Perhaps that excerpt convinced some readers to rethink using state coercion to punish an atypically religious baker, photographer, or pizza seller, but they remain convinced that informal punishment of the Memories Pizza family is still appropriate.
The question I'd ask those who want to use non-state means to punish mom-and-pop businesses that decline to cater gay weddings is what, exactly, their notion of a fair punishment is. Nearly every supporter of gay marriage is on board with efforts to publicly tell people that their position is wrongheaded–I've participated in efforts like that for years and insist that respectful critique and persuasion is more effective than shaming. What about other approaches? If their Yelp rating goes down by a star does the punishment fit the "crime"? Is there a financial loss at which social pressure goes from appropriate to too much? How about putting them out of business? Digital mobs insulting them and their children? Email and phone threats from anonymous Internet users? If you think that any of those go too far have you spoken up against the people using those tactics?
(If not, is it because you're afraid they might turn on you?)..."
sturg33
I
Not sure if these are your words or someone else's, but extremely well said.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
The article above is written of course from someone with a differing view on the matter, but I think who approaches the issue in a helpful way.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
"One of the striking features of the brouhaha surrounding the RFRA protests of last week is the violence of the rhetoric used by those who accuse many of their (comparatively mild-mannered) opponents of being motivated by hate. When the advocates of peace and tolerance call for the burning down of a Christian-owned pizza parlor, Rod Dreher asks the obvious question: Who are the ones who are really full of hate?
Even as the Indiana incident fades from the headlines, Dreher’s question is likely to become more, not less, apposite because it touches on the consequences of a development which at first glance seems counterintuitive: The transformation of the libertarian impulse of the sexual revolution of the sixties into the totalitarian ambition of today’s sexual politics. How did this happen?
Last week I commented on the detachment of love from any prior notion of virtue and its reduction to emotional and sexual self-fulfillment. A moment’s reflection, of course, reveals that a change in the definition of love requires a change in the definition of its antonym, hate. Thus, if love is rooted in self-realization, then hate is anything which prevents this. Hence critics of the revolution are by definition those who hate, however moderately they express their dissents.
To this we should add a point I have noted before: Oppression is now a highly psychologized category. Put bluntly, it is not about hurting bodies or bank balances. It is about hurting feelings. Once the preserve of the post-Marcuse New Left, this view has gradually gained general social acceptance. And thanks to the influence of Freud refracted through Marcuse, political oppression has come to be closely associated with sexual repression.
The final piece of the puzzle is provided by the way sexuality has been made fundamental to identity. Again, this is an obvious legacy of Marcuse and company and one with great practical significance for the public square. For in contemporary Western society, once something is a matter of identity, it often has the privilege of functioning as a legal category. Thus, the civic debate about sexuality has shifted from the ballot box to the civil courts, and the rhetoric of individual liberty has been exchanged for that of civil rights.
As a self-proclaimed persecuted minority, the sexual revolutionaries enjoy the greatest unchecked privilege of our time, that of identity victimhood, with a monopoly on the positive language of love and freedom. That gives them the uncritical sympathy of the news media. At the click of a mouse and at no personal risk or cost they are then able to raise a #PitchforkWieldingMob to intimidate any opposition into silence. And, as always, there are those whose conveniently confected outrage makes them happy to administer the coup de grace: The pinkie-to-the-wind politicians and those principled champions of the people, the corporate CEOs who are happy to do business with the humanitarian House of Saud while courageously calling out the mutaween of Indiana.
In short, these lobby groups have shifted the categories of discourse and changed the rules of practical public engagement on the issue of sexual ethics in a way that preempts any and all deviation from the party line. For such totalitarian ideologues, there can be no common ground upon which to build a compromise with critics. Thus, it does not matter how moderately we word our arguments against the sexual revolution. To disagree is to indulge in hate speech, to oppress the weak, and to recapitulate the sins of Southern segregationists.
L. P. Hartley famously commented that “the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.” Not any more. For anyone who today rejects the claims of the new sexual orthodoxy, it is not the past which is a foreign country but the present. It is here and now where they do things differently. Very differently indeed."
Link
Julio, the above gets at some of the definition troubles we now have.
Even as the Indiana incident fades from the headlines, Dreher’s question is likely to become more, not less, apposite because it touches on the consequences of a development which at first glance seems counterintuitive: The transformation of the libertarian impulse of the sexual revolution of the sixties into the totalitarian ambition of today’s sexual politics. How did this happen?
Last week I commented on the detachment of love from any prior notion of virtue and its reduction to emotional and sexual self-fulfillment. A moment’s reflection, of course, reveals that a change in the definition of love requires a change in the definition of its antonym, hate. Thus, if love is rooted in self-realization, then hate is anything which prevents this. Hence critics of the revolution are by definition those who hate, however moderately they express their dissents.
To this we should add a point I have noted before: Oppression is now a highly psychologized category. Put bluntly, it is not about hurting bodies or bank balances. It is about hurting feelings. Once the preserve of the post-Marcuse New Left, this view has gradually gained general social acceptance. And thanks to the influence of Freud refracted through Marcuse, political oppression has come to be closely associated with sexual repression.
The final piece of the puzzle is provided by the way sexuality has been made fundamental to identity. Again, this is an obvious legacy of Marcuse and company and one with great practical significance for the public square. For in contemporary Western society, once something is a matter of identity, it often has the privilege of functioning as a legal category. Thus, the civic debate about sexuality has shifted from the ballot box to the civil courts, and the rhetoric of individual liberty has been exchanged for that of civil rights.
As a self-proclaimed persecuted minority, the sexual revolutionaries enjoy the greatest unchecked privilege of our time, that of identity victimhood, with a monopoly on the positive language of love and freedom. That gives them the uncritical sympathy of the news media. At the click of a mouse and at no personal risk or cost they are then able to raise a #PitchforkWieldingMob to intimidate any opposition into silence. And, as always, there are those whose conveniently confected outrage makes them happy to administer the coup de grace: The pinkie-to-the-wind politicians and those principled champions of the people, the corporate CEOs who are happy to do business with the humanitarian House of Saud while courageously calling out the mutaween of Indiana.
In short, these lobby groups have shifted the categories of discourse and changed the rules of practical public engagement on the issue of sexual ethics in a way that preempts any and all deviation from the party line. For such totalitarian ideologues, there can be no common ground upon which to build a compromise with critics. Thus, it does not matter how moderately we word our arguments against the sexual revolution. To disagree is to indulge in hate speech, to oppress the weak, and to recapitulate the sins of Southern segregationists.
L. P. Hartley famously commented that “the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.” Not any more. For anyone who today rejects the claims of the new sexual orthodoxy, it is not the past which is a foreign country but the present. It is here and now where they do things differently. Very differently indeed."
Link
Julio, the above gets at some of the definition troubles we now have.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
And one more:
"Why might a Christian refuse to attend, cater, or participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony?
Just to keep the question on track, let’s set aside two related issues. First, we are not talking about whether Christians should have the right to refuse to participate in a gay wedding without facing government fines and coercion. If the CEO of Apple can keep conservative faith-based apps out of the App Store, then conservative Christians should not be forced into gay weddings with cakes and flowers. But that’s not the issue at hand. Second, for simplicity sake let’s assume this is a discussion among traditional Christians who believe–as the church has always believed and as most of the global church still believes–that same-sex sexual behavior is sinfuland that marriage is a covenantal and conjugal union between a man and a woman.
With those two clarifying comments we can address our question head-on: Why would a Christian feel conscience bound to not be a part of a gay wedding?
It’s a reasonable question, and I hope those asking it are willing to be reasonable in thoughtfully considering a conservative response. It’s not because of bigotry or fear or because we are unaware that Jesus spent time with sinners that leads us to our conclusion. It’s because of our desire to be obedient to Christ and because of the nature of the wedding event itself.
A wedding ceremony, in the Christian tradition, is first of all a worship service. So if the union being celebrated in the service cannot be biblically sanctioned as a an act of worship, we believe the service lends credence to a lie. We cannot come in good conscience and participate in a service of false worship. I understand that sounds not very nice, but the conclusion follows from the premise; namely, that the “marriage” being celebrated is not in fact a marriage and should not be celebrated.
Moreover, there has long been an understanding that those present at a marriage ceremony are not just casual observers, but are witnesses granting their approval and support for the vows that are to be made. That’s why the traditional language speaks of gathering “here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation.” That’s why one of the sample marriage services in the PCA still has the minister say, “If any man can show just cause why they may not lawfully be wedded, let him now declare it, or else hereafter forever hold his peace.” Quite explicitly, the wedding is not a party for friends and family. It’s not a mere ceremonial formality. It is a divine event in which those gathered celebrate and honor the “solemnization of matrimony.” Which is why–as much as I might want to build bridges with a lesbian friend or reassure a gay family member that I care for him and want to have a relationship with him–I would not attend a same-sex wedding ceremony. I cannot help with my cake, with my flowers, or with my presence to solemnize what is not holy.
But Jesus hung out with sinners! He wasn’t worried about being contaminated by the world. He didn’t want to turn people off to God’s love. He was always throwing open the floodgates of God’s mercy. He would say to us, “If someone forces you to bake one cake, bake for him two!” Okay, let’s think this through. I mean actually think for a few sentences, and not just with slogans and vague sentimentality.
“But Jesus hung out with sinners.” True, sort of (depends on what you mean by “hung out). But Jesus believed marriage was between a man a woman (Matt. 19:3-9). The example of Christ in the Gospels teaches us that we should not be afraid to spend time with sinners. If a gay couple next door invites you over for dinner, don’t turn them down.
“He wasn’t worried about being contaminated by the world.” That’s not the concern here. This isn’t about cooties or sin germs. We have plenty of those ourselves.
“He didn’t want to turn people off to God’s love.” Perhaps, but Jesus did so all the time. He acted in ways that could be unintentionally, and more often deliberately, antagonistic (Matt. 7:6; 13-27; 11:20-24; 13:10-17; 19:16-30; 23:1-36). The fact of the matter is Jesus turned people off all the time. This is no excuse for us to be unthinking and unkind. But it should put to rest the thoroughly unbiblical notion that says if someone feels hurt by your words or unloved by your actions that you were ipso facto sinfully and foolishly unloving.
“He was always throwing open the floodgates of God’s mercy.” Amen. Let’s keep preaching Christ and preach as he did, calling all people to “repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).
“If someone forces to you bake one cake, bake for him two!” This is, of course, a true and beautiful principle about how Christians, when reviled, must not revile in return. But it hardly can mean that we do whatever people demand of us, no matter our rights (Acts 16:35-40;22:22-29) and no matter what is right in God’s eyes (Acts 4:18-20).
A wedding is not a dinner invitation or a graduation open house or retirement party. Even in a completely secular environment, there is still a sense–and sometimes the wedding invitations say as much–that our presence at the event would honor the couple and their marriage. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to attend a wedding (let alone cater it or provide the culinary centerpiece) without your presence communicating celebration and support for what is taking place. And, as painful as it may be for us and for those we love, celebrating and supporting homosexual unions is not something God or his word will allow us to do."
Link
"Why might a Christian refuse to attend, cater, or participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony?
Just to keep the question on track, let’s set aside two related issues. First, we are not talking about whether Christians should have the right to refuse to participate in a gay wedding without facing government fines and coercion. If the CEO of Apple can keep conservative faith-based apps out of the App Store, then conservative Christians should not be forced into gay weddings with cakes and flowers. But that’s not the issue at hand. Second, for simplicity sake let’s assume this is a discussion among traditional Christians who believe–as the church has always believed and as most of the global church still believes–that same-sex sexual behavior is sinfuland that marriage is a covenantal and conjugal union between a man and a woman.
With those two clarifying comments we can address our question head-on: Why would a Christian feel conscience bound to not be a part of a gay wedding?
It’s a reasonable question, and I hope those asking it are willing to be reasonable in thoughtfully considering a conservative response. It’s not because of bigotry or fear or because we are unaware that Jesus spent time with sinners that leads us to our conclusion. It’s because of our desire to be obedient to Christ and because of the nature of the wedding event itself.
A wedding ceremony, in the Christian tradition, is first of all a worship service. So if the union being celebrated in the service cannot be biblically sanctioned as a an act of worship, we believe the service lends credence to a lie. We cannot come in good conscience and participate in a service of false worship. I understand that sounds not very nice, but the conclusion follows from the premise; namely, that the “marriage” being celebrated is not in fact a marriage and should not be celebrated.
Moreover, there has long been an understanding that those present at a marriage ceremony are not just casual observers, but are witnesses granting their approval and support for the vows that are to be made. That’s why the traditional language speaks of gathering “here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation.” That’s why one of the sample marriage services in the PCA still has the minister say, “If any man can show just cause why they may not lawfully be wedded, let him now declare it, or else hereafter forever hold his peace.” Quite explicitly, the wedding is not a party for friends and family. It’s not a mere ceremonial formality. It is a divine event in which those gathered celebrate and honor the “solemnization of matrimony.” Which is why–as much as I might want to build bridges with a lesbian friend or reassure a gay family member that I care for him and want to have a relationship with him–I would not attend a same-sex wedding ceremony. I cannot help with my cake, with my flowers, or with my presence to solemnize what is not holy.
But Jesus hung out with sinners! He wasn’t worried about being contaminated by the world. He didn’t want to turn people off to God’s love. He was always throwing open the floodgates of God’s mercy. He would say to us, “If someone forces you to bake one cake, bake for him two!” Okay, let’s think this through. I mean actually think for a few sentences, and not just with slogans and vague sentimentality.
“But Jesus hung out with sinners.” True, sort of (depends on what you mean by “hung out). But Jesus believed marriage was between a man a woman (Matt. 19:3-9). The example of Christ in the Gospels teaches us that we should not be afraid to spend time with sinners. If a gay couple next door invites you over for dinner, don’t turn them down.
“He wasn’t worried about being contaminated by the world.” That’s not the concern here. This isn’t about cooties or sin germs. We have plenty of those ourselves.
“He didn’t want to turn people off to God’s love.” Perhaps, but Jesus did so all the time. He acted in ways that could be unintentionally, and more often deliberately, antagonistic (Matt. 7:6; 13-27; 11:20-24; 13:10-17; 19:16-30; 23:1-36). The fact of the matter is Jesus turned people off all the time. This is no excuse for us to be unthinking and unkind. But it should put to rest the thoroughly unbiblical notion that says if someone feels hurt by your words or unloved by your actions that you were ipso facto sinfully and foolishly unloving.
“He was always throwing open the floodgates of God’s mercy.” Amen. Let’s keep preaching Christ and preach as he did, calling all people to “repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).
“If someone forces to you bake one cake, bake for him two!” This is, of course, a true and beautiful principle about how Christians, when reviled, must not revile in return. But it hardly can mean that we do whatever people demand of us, no matter our rights (Acts 16:35-40;22:22-29) and no matter what is right in God’s eyes (Acts 4:18-20).
A wedding is not a dinner invitation or a graduation open house or retirement party. Even in a completely secular environment, there is still a sense–and sometimes the wedding invitations say as much–that our presence at the event would honor the couple and their marriage. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to attend a wedding (let alone cater it or provide the culinary centerpiece) without your presence communicating celebration and support for what is taking place. And, as painful as it may be for us and for those we love, celebrating and supporting homosexual unions is not something God or his word will allow us to do."
Link
DirkPiggler
Well-known member
For the record I agree with your position on this issue, but several times in this thread you've incorrectly defended that position by referring to the Civil Rights Act.
As of now sexual orientation or preference is not a protected class. The Civil Rights Act doesn't apply to cases involving discrimination against LGBT persons. It should, and probably will one day, but for now it doesn't.
That is where the focus should be - all these state laws that allow discrimination on those terms would be null and void.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
And the gay pianist will then take the church that doesn't hire him to court. And on it will go.
57Brave
Well-known member
In 1976, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church declared that “homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church" (1976-A069 (link is external)). Since then, faithful Episcopalians have been working toward a greater understanding and radical inclusion of all of God’s children.
Along the way, The Episcopal Church has garnered a lot of attention, but with the help of organizations such as Integrity USA, the church has continued its work toward full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Episcopalians. In 2003, the first openly gay bishop was consecrated; in 2009, General Convention resolved that God’s call is open to all; and in 2012, a provisional rite of blessing for same-gender relationships was authorized, and discrimination against transgender persons in the ordination process was officially prohibited.
To our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender brothers and sisters: “The Episcopal Church welcomes you!”
......
Is a Christian that denies service to a person based on sexual orientation more Christian than one who doesn't ?
Where in the texts is it written one sect of Christianity gets to speak for all others ??
I honestly don't know the answer to this question and willing to listen to anyone willing to give it a shot
To my mind, this seems tobe an inter faith squabble with the sectarian population caught in the cross fire
Along the way, The Episcopal Church has garnered a lot of attention, but with the help of organizations such as Integrity USA, the church has continued its work toward full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Episcopalians. In 2003, the first openly gay bishop was consecrated; in 2009, General Convention resolved that God’s call is open to all; and in 2012, a provisional rite of blessing for same-gender relationships was authorized, and discrimination against transgender persons in the ordination process was officially prohibited.
To our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender brothers and sisters: “The Episcopal Church welcomes you!”
......
Is a Christian that denies service to a person based on sexual orientation more Christian than one who doesn't ?
Where in the texts is it written one sect of Christianity gets to speak for all others ??
I honestly don't know the answer to this question and willing to listen to anyone willing to give it a shot
To my mind, this seems tobe an inter faith squabble with the sectarian population caught in the cross fire
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I know it's not part of the civil rights act. I mentioned it in the first post about it. Why I chose to use it was to point out that it was necessary for the government to intervene on the federal level to protect the rights of citizens, and one of the key components of it was stopping business owners from discriminating someone based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. I think there will be an update that includes sexual orientation and gender identity. My point of using CRA was to point out to sturg there is already precedent that's been backed by the courts to say you can't refuse service to someone based on certain prejudicial factors.