Court cases already being impacted by Hobby Lobby ruling

[Halftime Hope]

 Yet most also agree that your rights stop at the point that they infringe on someone else's rights.

 

 

 

So how come a gay person has the right to put a bakery out of business (effectively, if not directly) if the bakery owner doesn't wish to make a cake for the celebration.  At what point should he or she consider that his rights to have a cake *from that business* should not infringe on the baker's not to be a part of his/her celebration?

 

I wish I remembered the exact details, but the way one bakery case was going, the business owner was having to shut down, because he was not going to be allowed not to make cakes for gay couples.  It wasn't just that people would boycott him, it was that the laws or ordinances were going to apply in such a way that to hold his convictions, he would have serve any client who came through his door.

 

In that case, the gay couple's "rights" were most certainly trumping the bakery owner's.   The rights did NOT end where they might infringe on someone else's, although there were certainly other place they could have gotten a cake.

[Halftime Hope]

And just when humour was winning the day...

 

I'm sorry, Sadie, if you were referring to my post.   It was in response to a post from several dozens of posts back, and I just now caught up with the recent humorous posts.  C'est la vie (spelling??) with threads, thus the quote feature.

[SemiSweet]

So how come a gay person has the right to put a bakery out of business (effectively, if not directly) if the bakery owner doesn't wish to make a cake for the celebration. At what point should he or she consider that his rights to have a cake *from that business* should not infringe on the baker's not to be a part of his/her celebration?

 

I wish I remembered the exact details, but the way one bakery case was going, the business owner was having to shut down, because he was not going to be allowed not to make cakes for gay couples. It wasn't just that people would boycott him, it was that the laws or ordinances were going to apply in such a way that to hold his convictions, he would have serve any client who came through his door.

 

In that case, the gay couple's "rights" were most certainly trumping the bakery owner's. The rights did NOT end where they might infringe on someone else's, although there were certainly other place they could have gotten a cake.

He wouldn't have to serve *anyone* who walks through his door but if he lives in a state where sexual orientation is protected from discrimination then he would be unable to discriminate against them, same with other races, gender, disabilities, etc. His choices are to get over it, close, or move to a state where homosexuality isn't protected, although that's probably a losing game. Really if people don't want to serve others, I think they probably shouldn't be in a service industry. I just can't work up a lot of compassion for people that lament their inability to discriminate. :/

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So how come a gay person has the right to put a bakery out of business (effectively, if not directly) if the bakery owner doesn't wish to make a cake for the celebration.  At what point should he or she consider that his rights to have a cake *from that business* should not infringe on the baker's not to be a part of his/her celebration?

 

I wish I remembered the exact details, but the way one bakery case was going, the business owner was having to shut down, because he was not going to be allowed not to make cakes for gay couples.  It wasn't just that people would boycott him, it was that the laws or ordinances were going to apply in such a way that to hold his convictions, he would have serve any client who came through his door.

 

In that case, the gay couple's "rights" were most certainly trumping the bakery owner's.   The rights did NOT end where they might infringe on someone else's, although there were certainly other place they could have gotten a cake.

 

There is no right to discriminate.  I am sure some restaurant owners in the south felt their rights were violated when they had to serve all customers equally. However, when you choose to open a punlic accomodation you are agreeing to a social contract where you will not discriminate based on gender, race, religion, and in some states, sexual orientation.

[Guest submarines]

I just want to say how great and educational it is to read a civil discussion on a controversial subject matter. I'm a political weakling, with my weak and vague views all over the place, and as I read the thread I found myself liking opposing views, because they were interesting and, at the moment of reading, convincing.

 

:D

 

 

 

 

 

[Caroline]

Discrimination is not a right for a business.

 

So how come a gay person has the right to put a bakery out of business (effectively, if not directly) if the bakery owner doesn't wish to make a cake for the celebration. At what point should he or she consider that his rights to have a cake *from that business* should not infringe on the baker's not to be a part of his/her celebration?

 

I wish I remembered the exact details, but the way one bakery case was going, the business owner was having to shut down, because he was not going to be allowed not to make cakes for gay couples. It wasn't just that people would boycott him, it was that the laws or ordinances were going to apply in such a way that to hold his convictions, he would have serve any client who came through his door.

 

In that case, the gay couple's "rights" were most certainly trumping the bakery owner's. The rights did NOT end where they might infringe on someone else's, although there were certainly other place they could have gotten a cake.

[AmandaVT]

So how come a gay person has the right to put a bakery out of business (effectively, if not directly) if the bakery owner doesn't wish to make a cake for the celebration.  At what point should he or she consider that his rights to have a cake *from that business* should not infringe on the baker's not to be a part of his/her celebration?

 

I wish I remembered the exact details, but the way one bakery case was going, the business owner was having to shut down, because he was not going to be allowed not to make cakes for gay couples.  It wasn't just that people would boycott him, it was that the laws or ordinances were going to apply in such a way that to hold his convictions, he would have serve any client who came through his door.

 

In that case, the gay couple's "rights" were most certainly trumping the bakery owner's.   The rights did NOT end where they might infringe on someone else's, although there were certainly other place they could have gotten a cake.

 

Substitute "disabled" or "black" or "women" or "Christian" and then see how your words read:

 

"So how come a disabled person has the right to put a bakery out of business (effectively, if not directly) if the bakery owner doesn't wish to make a cake for the celebration.  At what point should he or she consider that his rights to have a cake *from that business* should not infringe on the baker's not to be a part of his/her celebration?

 

I wish I remembered the exact details, but the way one bakery case was going, the business owner was having to shut down, because he was not going to be allowed not to make cakes for disabled couples.  It wasn't just that people would boycott him, it was that the laws or ordinances were going to apply in such a way that to hold his convictions, he would have serve any client who came through his door.

 

In that case, the disabled couple's "rights" were most certainly trumping the bakery owner's.   The rights did NOT end where they might infringe on someone else's, although there were certainly other place they could have gotten a cake."

[flyingiguana]

Discrimination is not a right for a business.

Except that now it is -- following the Hobby Lobby decision. A company can discriminate against women in their health care choices.

 

It's not a valid argument that because health insurers once used to discriminate against women, it must be ok now. The ACA was trying to fix that -- ie, make things more, shall we say, Constitutional. Hobby Lobby (and their unnamed corporate overlords) didn't like the govt getting too uppity. They chose to further discriminate against women because they could get away with it -- and get plenty of folks to rally behind the concept. I don't know that the overlords (whoever they are) particularly care whether women get discriminated against, or even if babies are getting aborted (which these contraceptives don't do most of the time). The important thing was that they could get enough people behind them, even if their arguments and science were faulty. Even if they are promoting ideas that trash a more modern reading of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (as that "all men are created equal" phrase is now understood to apply to all humans).

 

Does anyone know who funded the Hobby Lobby court cases? I would suspect Hobby Lobby didn't pay for this all themselves. It would be interesting to find who the backers are. I googled and found nothing. Wrong search terms, or it's very well hidden. Unless Hobby Lobby really was willing to sink huge amounts of money into this? If so, I question their business sense.

 

When it comes to finances, btw, they're perfectly happy to invest in the contraceptives they claim to hate: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

"Hobby Lobby's Hypocrisy: The Company's Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers

When Hobby Lobby filed its case against Obamacare's contraception mandate, its retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in funds with stakes in contraception makers."

[SadieMarie]

So how come a gay person has the right to put a bakery out of business (effectively, if not directly) if the bakery owner doesn't wish to make a cake for the celebration. At what point should he or she consider that his rights to have a cake *from that business* should not infringe on the baker's not to be a part of his/her celebration?

 

I wish I remembered the exact details, but the way one bakery case was going, the business owner was having to shut down, because he was not going to be allowed not to make cakes for gay couples. It wasn't just that people would boycott him, it was that the laws or ordinances were going to apply in such a way that to hold his convictions, he would have serve any client who came through his door.

 

In that case, the gay couple's "rights" were most certainly trumping the bakery owner's. The rights did NOT end where they might infringe on someone else's, although there were certainly other place they could have gotten a cake.

Was the bakery owner being forced to be a witness at the wedding, join in the first dance and then bake a cake for free? That is how some people are making this sound. You run a business in a state that says if you are selling goods or services to the public you can't discriminate. If that is too much to take then close down by all means but if you do it is YOUR choice. I see no poor little victim here, just someone too hateful to bake and sell a fricking cake to a customer of whom he disapproves. Maybe he should move to Uganda and bake cakes. He could even bake execution cakes.

[flyingiguana]

I wish I remembered the exact details, but the way one bakery case was going, the business owner was having to shut down...

The "exact details" are likely all over the web, if they really happened -- and even if they didn't. If you do a search, you should be able to come up with them. Then we can read the actual facts -- or at least be able to refute the false facts -- instead of arguing over things that may not have happened.

[goldberry]

So how come a gay person has the right to put a bakery out of business (effectively, if not directly) if the bakery owner doesn't wish to make a cake for the celebration.  At what point should he or she consider that his rights to have a cake *from that business* should not infringe on the baker's not to be a part of his/her celebration?

 

In that case, the gay couple's "rights" were most certainly trumping the bakery owner's.   The rights did NOT end where they might infringe on someone else's, although there were certainly other place they could have gotten a cake.

 

I don't think you read my entire post. 

 

The bakery owner as an individual has the right to not make cakes for anyone.  Once he became a business owner, however, he volunatarily took a position of providing cakes to the public.  At that point, the public, in a general sense, has rights also at that point.  He, again voluntarily, gave up some of his rights by subjecting himself to the laws of business and non-discrimination.

 

This is the case because, as previously discussed, business owners have power to influence large groups of society and thus it is in the national interest to regulate the behavior of business owners to prevent worker abuse or public discrimination. 

 

If you want to discriminate (against whoever, race, sexuality, religion, whatever) you are perfectly welcome to do so as an individual and that is within your rights.  As a business owner, your rights are limited by the laws of the land, because it is in the national interest to not allow discrimination by businesses to entire groups of people. 

[Tanaqui]

So how come a gay person has the right to put a bakery out of business (effectively, if not directly) if the bakery owner doesn't wish to make a cake for the celebration.  At what point should he or she consider that his rights to have a cake *from that business* should not infringe on the baker's not to be a part of his/her celebration?

 

I wish I remembered the exact details, but the way one bakery case was going, the business owner was having to shut down, because he was not going to be allowed not to make cakes for gay couples.  It wasn't just that people would boycott him, it was that the laws or ordinances were going to apply in such a way that to hold his convictions, he would have serve any client who came through his door.

 

In that case, the gay couple's "rights" were most certainly trumping the bakery owner's.   The rights did NOT end where they might infringe on someone else's, although there were certainly other place they could have gotten a cake.

 

You know, just a few years ago there was a judge in Louisiana who refused to marry an interracial couple because he felt it was a bad thing for their hypothetical future kids to be born biracial.

 

I don't know if religion entered into his decision, but I assure you, in the past there have absolutely been people who used religion to justify bigotry against interracial couples or against non-whites in general. Heck, I say "in the past", but I'm sure there are still some fringe elements out there.

 

Does a baker have a right to refuse service to an interracial couple? What if she's the only baker in town? Should they just suck it up and go without a cake?

 

The analogy about a disabled couple was just right. There have absolutely been people who believed disabled individuals shouldn't reproduce and, ergo, shouldn't get married. Do you have a right to just refuse service to disabled individuals on eugenics grounds?

 

What if the couple hadn't been gay, what if they were each heading on their second marriage after a separation from their previous spouses? Can you refuse service because your religion doesn't recognize divorce? Should I check to make sure my baker or wedding photographer isn't a Catholic?

 

What if they were just atheists, or Hindus, or Muslim, and the baker didn't want to support their solemnization of their marriage using anything other than  Christian ceremony? Or what if they *were* Christian, but the baker disagrees with their particular denomination on several key points and thinks they aren't Christian enough?

 

What if they just kinda smelled bad, and the baker didn't want to be associated with stinky people?

 

The last isn't actually any more ridiculous than the first several. When you own and operate a public business, you are expected to be open to the public. Baking a cake for a wedding is not at all tantamount to participating in the wedding, and if you think it is, the simple solution is to no longer do weddings, because there might be hundreds of customers lined up who you, personally, don't think should be allowed to get married.

[TechWife]

Except that now it is -- following the Hobby Lobby decision. A company can discriminate against women in their health care choices.

 

It's not an argument that health insurers used to discriminate against women so it must be ok. The ACA was trying to fix that -- ie, make things more, shall we say, Constitutional. Hobby Lobby (and their unnamed corporate overlords) didn't like the govt getting too uppity.

 

One more time - the women employed by HL have just as many choices available to them as they did before the ruling.There is no way that the decision can be construed to show that their choices have been taken away. No one is taking any choices away. Period. 

 

Like all employers, HL is choosing what to cover and what not to cover. These insurance contracts are always negotiated down to the very last detail.

 

Perhaps some examples will clarify things. 

 

Example 1: My health insurance prescription coverage has a list of medications (a formulary) that they will cover. If my doctor prescribes a medication that is not on the list, then I have to pay full price for that medication. No one is telling me that I can't choose to go off of the list, they are simply telling me that it will cost me more out of pocket when I do. 

 

Example 2: My health insurance covers prescriptions filled at a particular pharmacy. They don't cover prescriptions filled at other pharmacies. I can still choose to have my prescriptions filled at any pharmacy I wish to use. 

 

Example 3: My health insurance has a long list of treatments and procedures for which they require pre-authorization. No one is telling me that I can't choose to have treatments and procedures without getting them pre-authorized, they are simply telling me that they won't pay for them unless I have them preauthorized. 

 

Example 4: My health insurance has a list of preferred providers for which they reimburse me at a higher rate. If I choose to go to a doctor off of this list (and I do), I am reimbursed at a significantly lower rate. No one has taken the choice away from me, they have only determined how much they will pay for such a service. 

 

Example 5: My health insurance doesn't cover elective surgeries. No one is telling me I can't choose to get an elective surgery (such as plastic surgery for purely cosmetic reasons), they are simply telling me they won't pay for it. No one is taking my choice away. 

 

I imagine that my future participation on this thread will be limited at this point. The discussion seems to have run it's course. 

[AmandaVT]

One more time - the women employed by HL have just as many choices available to them as they did before the ruling.There is no way that the decision can be construed to show that their choices have been taken away. No one is taking any choices away. Period. 

 

Like all employers, HL is choosing what to cover and what not to cover. These insurance contracts are always negotiated down to the very last detail.

 

Perhaps some examples will clarify things. 

 

Example 1: My health insurance prescription coverage has a list of medications (a formulary) that they will cover. If my doctor prescribes a medication that is not on the list, then I have to pay full price for that medication. No one is telling me that I can't choose to go off of the list, they are simply telling me that it will cost me more out of pocket when I do. 

 

Example 2: My health insurance covers prescriptions filled at a particular pharmacy. They don't cover prescriptions filled at other pharmacies. I can still choose to have my prescriptions filled at any pharmacy I wish to use. 

 

Example 3: My health insurance has a long list of treatments and procedures for which they require pre-authorization. No one is telling me that I can't choose to have treatments and procedures without getting them pre-authorized, they are simply telling me that they won't pay for them unless I have them preauthorized. 

 

Example 4: My health insurance has a list of preferred providers for which they reimburse me at a higher rate. If I choose to go to a doctor off of this list (and I do), I am reimbursed at a significantly lower rate. No one has taken the choice away from me, they have only determined how much they will pay for such a service. 

 

Example 5: My health insurance doesn't cover elective surgeries. No one is telling me I can't choose to get an elective surgery (such as plastic surgery for purely cosmetic reasons), they are simply telling me they won't pay for it. No one is taking my choice away. 

 

I imagine that my future participation on this thread will be limited at this point. The discussion seems to have run it's course. 

 

 

It's not just about HL. Can you not see how the door has now been opened? What happens when a company owned by Jehovah's Witnesses decides that it wants to exclude blood transfusions from their employees medical coverage? What happens when a company owned by Scientologists decides that it wants to exclude Mental Health coverage? 

[ktgrok]

One more time - the women employed by HL have just as many choices available to them as they did before the ruling.There is no way that the decision can be construed to show that their choices have been taken away. No one is taking any choices away. Period. 

 

Like all employers, HL is choosing what to cover and what not to cover. These insurance contracts are always negotiated down to the very last detail.

 

Perhaps some examples will clarify things. 

 

Example 1: My health insurance prescription coverage has a list of medications (a formulary) that they will cover. If my doctor prescribes a medication that is not on the list, then I have to pay full price for that medication. No one is telling me that I can't choose to go off of the list, they are simply telling me that it will cost me more out of pocket when I do. 

 

Example 2: My health insurance covers prescriptions filled at a particular pharmacy. They don't cover prescriptions filled at other pharmacies. I can still choose to have my prescriptions filled at any pharmacy I wish to use. 

 

Example 3: My health insurance has a long list of treatments and procedures for which they require pre-authorization. No one is telling me that I can't choose to have treatments and procedures without getting them pre-authorized, they are simply telling me that they won't pay for them unless I have them preauthorized. 

 

Example 4: My health insurance has a list of preferred providers for which they reimburse me at a higher rate. If I choose to go to a doctor off of this list (and I do), I am reimbursed at a significantly lower rate. No one has taken the choice away from me, they have only determined how much they will pay for such a service. 

 

Example 5: My health insurance doesn't cover elective surgeries. No one is telling me I can't choose to get an elective surgery (such as plastic surgery for purely cosmetic reasons), they are simply telling me they won't pay for it. No one is taking my choice away. 

 

I imagine that my future participation on this thread will be limited at this point. The discussion seems to have run it's course. 

 

The difference is there are not laws about those things. There is a law, voted on by Congress, passed by both chambers, and tested by the Supreme court, saying that certain basics are mandatory, such as vaccines, well visits, mammograms, and birth control. It is s about following the law. If Hobby Lobby can deny birth control forms than another company can deny coverage for vaccines.

[bettyandbob]

In the bakery case, I believe the owner stated exactly why he was refusing to make the cake. In his jurisdiction his reason for refusing qualified as discrimination.

 

If he wanted to discriminate he could refuse to make the cake and say "we are booked for making cakes that week." If he is subtle he can get away with it. However, over time one might be able to show a pattern that bakery was always booked on dates requested by people of a protected class (sex, race, religion, disability, sexuality, etc). These patterns are what civil rights attorneys have used to deal with discrimination in housing, hiring, stores, everything.

 

Hobby Lobby is a different issue. I do see insurance as part of a person's pay, so I disagree that an employer should be able to dictate how the insurance is used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Halftime Hope]

The "exact details" are likely all over the web, if they really happened -- and even if they didn't. If you do a search, you should be able to come up with them. Then we can read the actual facts -- or at least be able to refute the false facts -- instead of arguing over things that may not have happened.

 

 

The "exact details" are likely all over the web, if they really happened -- and even if they didn't. If you do a search, you should be able to come up with them. Then we can read the actual facts -- or at least be able to refute the false facts -- instead of arguing over things that may not have happened.

 

Flyingiguana, in the late night moment that I was making a point, was I going to go and do "incident research" to find I an incident that I can barely remember other than the general gist? (yes, it has been that kind of a year.) No, not any more research than you did when telling me the that "details were probably out there."

 

I do remember the business owner's husband, saying that he had no recourse to help his wife defend her business choices, because as they understood the law, they would have to close their business, rather than have the freedom to choose action (or non-action) that is in concord with their religious tenets. 

 

(The rest of this response is for everyone, not just Flying iguana. ;-) )

 

Frankly, I was horrified at the story upthread in which the grandmother called and, effectively, got someone discharged from the military because of his sexual orientation.  He was not able to make a living or practice the profession of his choice because of something that defines him.  As near as I can extrapolate from what you all are saying, because of the baker's family's religious beliefs, which also define them/are an inseparable part of them, they will never be able to own a business of their own that directly serves the public. 

 

I'm still thinking through and working out my theology on this one, but you all are saying, and in some places the law stipulates that IF I or anyone else owns a business and practices our religious beliefs in the same way, it would be incompatible with business ownership in certain service industries.  So then, at what point does/should religious freedom and practice become a protected category?  Oh wait, it already is. It is enumerated as the first freedom in the Bill of Rights, and historically, it was the freedom to practice religion, not just the freedom to believe.    

 

BTW, this "bakery thing" is not an isolated incident.  In Houston, there are currently city ordinances in the works, perhaps already enacted--I have not followed the news in the last few weeks--that will substantially change the landscape for anyone that has any kind of public presence.  If these were things that were being taken to a public vote, I would be less concerned, because civil public debate tends to lead to the outworking of moderate, common sense solutions.

 

[Saddlemomma]

Nobody is asking to you to lose their faith.

You are being asked to not inflict it on others.

If someone ever tries to force you to have an abortion you don't want, enter a same sex marriage you don't want, or even force your church to recognize same sex marriage if it doesn't want to do so, I would be standing by your side ready to fight for your rights.

 

Just like I am standing by the side of people who don't want your "morals" dictating aspects of their lives that have NOTHING to do with you.  If that disheartens you, then so be it.  Now you know how others have felt for generations, except they weren't forcing their beliefs on anyone else then or now.

 

 

Absolutely not true.  I don't believe in abortion, but my tax dollars go towards funding abortions and there's nothing I can do about it.  That is forcing me to endorse abortions against my faith.

 

I don't believe in same sex marriage, but my husband, as a photographer, can no longer do weddings in our state because we would be sued for not providing that service to a practice our faith is explicitly against.  That's forcing us to either give up part of our business, the whole business or our faith.

 

We are just two people, not a corporation, but we would be targeted.  We can't even state that we are a Christian studio.  That would draw some same sex couples just so they could sue us and make an example of us. Think what you like, deny it all you like, but Christian businesses are targeted for litigation in order to eradicate them in the pursuit of tolerance. Oh the irony!   The word tolerance today means the exact opposite of the original.

 

We live our faith.  It's not a buffet we can pick and choose from. It's a blueprint for life.  Remove the foundation, and the rest crumbles to the ground. I'm sure many other non-Christian people of other faiths feel the same way. It's not your faith, and no one is asking you to live the way we do.  Call me whatever you want....bigot...racist...who cares, sticks and stones and all that.  No big deal to me because I don't answer to you. However, forcing me to provide personal funds through taxes to pay for practices against everything I believe in, or giving up business because of those practices I don't believe in is FORCING me to choose either my faith or abandon it completely.  It's an either / or proposition.  I will not abandon my faith.

 

In the end, you should be able to choose the way you want to live and the things you want to support in order to be able to live that life, and I should be able to do the same without either of us having to force the other to do what is unthinkable through the use of threats, name-calling, and litigation.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Absolutely not true.  I don't believe in abortion, but my tax dollars go towards funding abortions and there's nothing I can do about it.  That is forcing me to endorse abortions against my faith.

 

I don't believe in same sex marriage, but my husband, as a photographer, can no longer do weddings in our state because we would be sued for not providing that service to a practice our faith is explicitly against.  That's forcing us to either give up part of our business, the whole business or our faith.

 

We are just two people, not a corporation, but we would be targeted.  We can't even state that we are a Christian studio.  That would draw some same sex couples just so they could sue us and make an example of us. Think what you like, deny it all you like, but Christian businesses are targeted for litigation in order to eradicate them in the pursuit of tolerance. Oh the irony!   The word tolerance today means the exact opposite of the original.

 

We live our faith.  It's not a buffet we can pick and choose from. It's a blueprint for life.  Remove the foundation, and the rest crumbles to the ground. I'm sure many other non-Christian people of other faiths feel the same way. It's not your faith, and no one is asking you to live the way we do.  Call me whatever you want....bigot...racist...who cares, sticks and stones and all that.  No big deal to me because I don't answer to you. However, forcing me to provide personal funds through taxes to pay for practices against everything I believe in, or giving up business because of those practices I don't believe in is FORCING me to choose either my faith or abandon it completely.  It's an either / or proposition.  I will not abandon my faith.

 

In the end, you should be able to choose the way you want to live and the things you want to support in order to be able to live that life, and I should be able to do the same without either of us having to force the other to do what is unthinkable through the use of threats, name-calling, and litigation.

 

1.) Public funds for abortion are only used to pay for abortions in the case of rape or the health of the mother is endangered, as per the Hyde Amendment.  You are not being treated any differently than vegans, pacificists, those against vaccines for religious reasons, Jews who are asked to suppport non-Kosher indsustries...shall I go on?

 

2.) Your husband is not being forced to give up his business. He is being forced to treat all customers equally.  When I got married, our photographer didn't participate in the ceremony.  I find it odd if your husband is.

 

 

[Halftime Hope]

Employer based insurance services do not provide free services. Insurance is part of a benefits package; paid for directly by the labor of the employee.

 

Therefore HL is telling employees exactly how to spend/utilize their compensation. Absurd.

 

Following this logic then, I should be able to pick as many alternative care providers as I want; it is my family's money, so we should get to pick and choose any way we want to spend it on healthcare.  Even if I limit it to alternative healthcare that has research proving its effectiveness, I should still have a heck of a lot more choices than I have. 

 

Good luck to me with that argument.  I'll start by asking our insurance to fund the $3k plus to have two alternative therapies (he is in the limited patient population that shows a marked statistical benefit) instead of undergoing big $$ ticker surgery that costs exponentially more.  Guess which one they will fund.

 

Please do not quote what I wrote in the paragraph above.  I don't want it accessible for long.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Flyingiguana, in the late night moment that I was making a point, was I going to go and do "incident research" to find I an incident that I can barely remember other than the general gist? (yes, it has been that kind of a year.) No, not any more research than you did when telling me the that "details were probably out there."

 

I do remember the business owner's husband, saying that he had no recourse to help his wife defend her business choices, because as they understood the law, they would have to close their business, rather than have the freedom to choose action (or non-action) that is in concord with their religious tenets. 

 

(The rest of this response is for everyone, not just Flying iguana. ;-) )

 

Frankly, I was horrified at the story upthread in which the grandmother called and, effectively, got someone discharged from the military because of his sexual orientation.  He was not able to make a living or practice the profession of his choice because of something that defines him.  As near as I can extrapolate from what you all are saying, because of the baker's family's religious beliefs, which also define them/are an inseparable part of them, they will never be able to own a business of their own that directly serves the public. 

 

I'm still thinking through and working out my theology on this one, but you all are saying, and in some places the law stipulates that IF I or anyone else owns a business and practices our religious beliefs in the same way, it would be incompatible with business ownership in certain service industries.  So then, at what point does/should religious freedom and practice become a protected category?  Oh wait, it already is. It is enumerated as the first freedom in the Bill of Rights, and historically, it was the freedom to practice religion, not just the freedom to believe.    

 

BTW, this "bakery thing" is not an isolated incident.  In Houston, there are currently city ordinances in the works, perhaps already enacted--I have not followed the news in the last few weeks--that will substantially change the landscape for anyone that has any kind of public presence.  If these were things that were being taken to a public vote, I would be less concerned, because civil public debate tends to lead to the outworking of moderate, common sense solutions.

 

 

Just curious, but what faith requires its members deny all services to homosexuals?

[elegantlion]

 

 

I'm still thinking through and working out my theology on this one, but you all are saying, and in some places the law stipulates that IF I or anyone else owns a business and practices our religious beliefs in the same way, it would be incompatible with business ownership in certain service industries.  So then, at what point does/should religious freedom and practice become a protected category?  Oh wait, it already is. It is enumerated as the first freedom in the Bill of Rights, and historically, it was the freedom to practice religion, not just the freedom to believe.    

 

 

 

Freedom to practice, not freedom to discriminate because someone else does not practice your form of religion. 

 

As to the bolded, one must always consider their ideology when taking a job or opening a business. I worked in insurance underwriting for many years. I hated the job of placing individuals into neat little statistical categories. I worked there 5 years and left when the opportunity presented itself. 

 

Having been a business owner and an employee in previous "lives", you can't go into any business thinking you will only serve those just like you. The world is diverse and if you only want to serve those that match your criteria of "worthy" then don't open a storefront, website, or advertise. That makes it a public

business. 

[ktgrok]

 

I don't believe in same sex marriage, but my husband, as a photographer, can no longer do weddings in our state because we would be sued for not providing that service to a practice our faith is explicitly against.  That's forcing us to either give up part of our business, the whole business or our faith.

 

 

 

You have the right to practice religion. You do NOT have a "right" to own a business, or to do wedding photography. If you choose your faith over your business that is fine. But that's your choice. Saying it is ok to discriminate because you really really mean it doesn't make it ok. Anymore than it would be OK to not take photos of jewish weddings if you were an anti semite, or to not take pictures of African American weddings. As a society laws were passed because we felt discrimination was wrong. If you don't agree, you don't have to have a business. 

[Caroline]

Following this logic then, I should be able to pick as many alternative care providers as I want; it is my family's money, so we should get to pick and choose any way we want to spend it on healthcare.

 

Please do not quote what I wrote in the paragraph above. I don't want it accessible for long.

 

The difference is that the law requires coverage of these forms of birth control. The Supreme Court has now said that Hobby Lobby can pick and choose which parts of the law it wants to follow. The care you want is not required by the law. So they aren't picking a certain part of the law they don't want to follow.

 

Please let me know if I didn't delete the parts you wanted deleted.

[idnib]

Interesting how little of this conversation has been about Eden. I guess it's easier to discuss bakeries, Hobby Lobby, and abortion. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Interesting how little of this conversation has been about Eden. I guess it's easier to discuss bakeries, Hobby Lobby, and abortion. 

 

I think the conversation about them will heat up as the case winds its way back through the courts.

[flyingiguana]

You have the right to practice religion. You do NOT have a "right" to own a business, or to do wedding photography. If you choose your faith over your business that is fine. But that's your choice. Saying it is ok to discriminate because you really really mean it doesn't make it ok. Anymore than it would be OK to not take photos of jewish weddings if you were an anti semite, or to not take pictures of African American weddings. As a society laws were passed because we felt discrimination was wrong. If you don't agree, you don't have to have a business. 

 

But, I'm going to repeat this -- the Hobby Lobby decision makes it ok for a business to discriminate.

 

I just want that to be clear.  The ruling does allow a corporation to now use a religious belief to justify discrimination.  The Hobby Lobby case may look small now (a couple of drugs, and it only inconveniences those slutty women who actually have sex), but it could snowball.

 

Yes, the distinction should be that only people can hold religious beliefs and that only people can discriminate (based on those beliefs or whatever else they feel like), but this ruling and the Citizens United ruling are chipping away at that.

 

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

I would add to this quote -- "first they came for the women I perceived to be sluts and kept them from using one or 2 types of birth control that I had erroneously been told caused abortions, I thought that was a good thing ...."

 

It starts small.  Very small.  And it starts by going after people most of us don't care about -- or people we WANT to punish.

 

And next thing you know, all *our* rights are gone too.

 

Many will laugh at this, but this -- along with granting corporations personhood -- is the real effect of this ruling.  That's why it's a big deal.

[flyingiguana]

Interesting how little of this conversation has been about Eden. I guess it's easier to discuss bakeries, Hobby Lobby, and abortion. 

 

Yeah, well, I've already started boycotting them.  I figure it's at least something I can DO.  So I'm not inclined to discuss it much, except to mention again that I'm not buying their stuff. 

[idnib]

I think the conversation about them will heat up as the case winds its way back through the courts.

 

I understand. I was implying that the other things are more defensible and easier to focus on. Perhaps the least defensible is Wheaton College not filling out the form. The conversation keeps turning (being turned?) to things that are more defensible. Even if I don't personally agree with them, people can at least argue the point. Eden is more difficult to defend and Wheaton is just...I don't know.

[flyingiguana]

http://www.ny1.com/content/news/109168/gadget-retailer-faces-discrimination-suit

http://nypost.com/2009/11/19/famed-photo-shop-bias-suit/

 

 

This case accusing B&H Photo and Video is pertinent -- We don't know the details (ie, whether this really was religious based discrimination) because it was settled out of court.

 

So it's perfectly ok for B&H to be closed on Saturday for religious reasons, but it would not be ok for them to keep certain classes of people from being hired or promoted due to religious reasons.

 

Although, following this Hobby Lobby decision, one has to wonder if B&H figures if they'd taken things to the Supreme Court they might have won.

 

Except that they're not Christian-based.

[AmandaVT]

Just curious, but what faith requires its members deny all services to homosexuals?

 

I'm assuming one that does not involve Jesus since he was big on treating everyone with love and kindness....

[flyingiguana]

Flyingiguana, in the late night moment that I was making a point, was I going to go and do "incident research" to find I an incident that I can barely remember other than the general gist? (yes, it has been that kind of a year.) No, not any more research than you did when telling me the that "details were probably out there."

 

I did not do your research for you because it was not my point that I was trying to support.

 

This does not stop you from doing the research.  It only points out that your vague statement doesn't support your argument.

[flyingiguana]

I'm assuming one that does not involve Jesus since he was big on treating everyone with love and kindness....

 

I sense sarcasm.....

 

[flyingiguana]

One more time - the women employed by HL have just as many choices available to them as they did before the ruling.There is no way that the decision can be construed to show that their choices have been taken away. No one is taking any choices away. Period. 

 

Like all employers, HL is choosing what to cover and what not to cover. These insurance contracts are always negotiated down to the very last detail.

 

  Point 1 -- no, they don't.  These things cost money.  The women are already paying health insurance.  They should not have to pay in addition to that.  In particular, paying for an IUD is so much that it would effectively keep most women from being able to use that option -- particularly if they are working at low wage employment (let's not bring up Hobby Lobby's wages again -- it's still not a lot of money, even if it is above minimum wage.  And the next corporation that follows suit likely won't even pay that much)

 

Point 2 -- insurance contracts can choose to some extent what to cover, but there are now some "firm" rules laid down in ACA about not being able to discriminate based on gender.  This falls under that.

 

And just because insurance companies were once allowed to discriminate based on gender EVEN IF IT WAS LAST YEAR does not mean they should be allowed to continue that.

 

It was wrong and unconstitutional before.  Just because it was accepted practice last year doesn't mean it was right.

 

I also sense that people are saying "oh, but it's such a little thing -- they just can't get IUDs". 

 

It's not only the principle.  It's the precedent.  And in law, everything is precedence.  We now have a precedent that it's ok to discriminate against women.

 

That could be used for, well, just about anything.

 

Including discriminating against you, and every one of us.

 

 

[flyingiguana]

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/263915901.html

Posting this because it is an interesting case where it may turn out that discrimination is acceptable.

 

"Jacob and Calena Lingle signed up for parent-child swim classes at the Hastings YMCA last summer and asked for a sign language interpreter. The Hastings couple, both deaf since birth, would be accompanying their daughter to class. Aria, whose first language was American Sign Language (ASL), is not hearing-impaired.

The YMCA, citing the cost, repeatedly said no, even after the couple pointed to state and federal laws requiring their disability be accommodated."

 

My take on it is that the cost of providing an interpreter would keep the YMCA from providing services to other people who are just as deserving.  At that point, the cost of avoiding discrimination for one person may discriminate against so many others that the state may have an interest in allowing the discrimination.

 

There are probably better work arounds than the either-or presented in the article, though.  One would hope that something would come through for this family that would not involve the Y having to spend that much money.  (Like someone could just "volunteer" --However, interpreters need to earn a living too.)

 

Personally, though, I find this particular case to be a lot more ethically  ambiguous than the Hobby Lobby case.  To me, Hobby Lobby just follows the law as written and it's really no skin off their back.  Ethical and religious concerns?  Pfft -- they obviously don't have that or they wouldn't be investing in the corporations that make these drugs.  For me, that would have been an easy case to decide  -- and it sure wouldn't have gone Hobby Lobby's way.

[sunflowerlady]

Wow, I didn't know the IUD cost so much. Did someone say it was $1000.00? Given that it works for several years , it is probably comparable with other methods over a period of time cost wise .Still a thousand bucks is an awful lot to come up with a all at once , especially on retail wages. And this would be in addition to premiums already paid by the employee that go toward a policy that was supposed to cover it at no additional cost.

 

Wonder if Hobby Lobby will lower the amount they expect employees to contribute since they essentially are only offering partial benefits? Yeah, I know it isn't going to happen.

[poppy]

What does it mean to "not believe in same sex marriages?" They exist . I think what PP meant was "I think they same sex couples should be forbidden from marrying".

[elegantlion]

 

 

That could be used for, well, just about anything.

 

Including discriminating against you, and every one of us.

 

While I worked at the above mentioned insurance company, I was diagnosed with cancer. My physician recommended one course of tx. A relative who worked in the medical field pulled strings to get me an "outside the HMO" second opinion. That physician recommended a different course of tx. I opted to go with that course of tx, one which probably is the reason ds is here today. At no time during the course of tx, did I meet with an HR person to discuss the particulars of my individual health choices, including the decision to opt for tx recommended by a physician not within my provider list. My primary physician agreed to go with the tx. The choice was between me and my physician. 

 

Had the insurance company decided they didn't want to pay for x treatment, only the y suggested by my HMO physician, I would have had no choice because is no way I could have afforded the 2nd course of tx on my own dime. I also most likely wouldn't be a parent, I might also be dealing with loads of other health issues from the radiation tx. 

 

The bottom line is I was able to survive and bear a child because my employer didn't try to play God or doctor. They allowed me and my physician (the expert) to decide the best course of tx. They let me use my benefits as I saw fit, not them. 

[Caroline]

Wow, I didn't know the IUD cost so much. Did someone say it was $1000.00? Given that it works for several years , it is probably comparable with other methods over a period of time cost wise .Still a thousand bucks is an awful lot to come up with a all at once , especially on retail wages. And this would be in addition to premiums already paid by the employee that go toward a policy that was supposed to cover it at no additional cost.

 

Wonder if Hobby Lobby will lower the amount they expect employees to contribute since they essentially are only offering partial benefits? Yeah, I know it isn't going to happen.

I wonder if the insurance company is charging Hobby Lobby the same as when these things were covered. It could be that they are charging more now in anticipation of a higher pregnancy rate.

[SadieMarie]

I'm assuming one that does not involve Jesus since he was big on treating everyone with love and kindness....

I am by no means an expert, but if memory serves, didn't Jesus prefer to hang with the groups everyone at the time hated/stigmatized? I recall some references to prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, Samaritans. What was the deal with the Samaritans? Geez, off too google when I should be cleaning.

[kiana]

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/263915901.html

Posting this because it is an interesting case where it may turn out that discrimination is acceptable.

 

"Jacob and Calena Lingle signed up for parent-child swim classes at the Hastings YMCA last summer and asked for a sign language interpreter. The Hastings couple, both deaf since birth, would be accompanying their daughter to class. Aria, whose first language was American Sign Language (ASL), is not hearing-impaired.

The YMCA, citing the cost, repeatedly said no, even after the couple pointed to state and federal laws requiring their disability be accommodated."

 

My take on it is that the cost of providing an interpreter would keep the YMCA from providing services to other people who are just as deserving.  At that point, the cost of avoiding discrimination for one person may discriminate against so many others that the state may have an interest in allowing the discrimination.

 

Y'know, I had a deaf student in my class. She had an ASL interpreter, but when she came to office hours, her interpreter wasn't available. We were able to communicate just fine using paper, pencil, and writing.

 

I wonder if something could have been worked out with speech-to-text so they could see what the other parents were asking?

 

This is the sort of thing that I'm a lot more torn about, because it *is* a significant additional expense. At the same time, I would like everyone to feel welcome and learn to swim.

 

I would definitely consider "you can't come into swim class at all" to be discrimination, but "how much accommodation is reasonable" is a reasonable question.

 

 

[fraidycat]

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/263915901.html

Posting this because it is an interesting case where it may turn out that discrimination is acceptable.

 

"Jacob and Calena Lingle signed up for parent-child swim classes at the Hastings YMCA last summer and asked for a sign language interpreter. The Hastings couple, both deaf since birth, would be accompanying their daughter to class. Aria, whose first language was American Sign Language (ASL), is not hearing-impaired.

The YMCA, citing the cost, repeatedly said no, even after the couple pointed to state and federal laws requiring their disability be accommodated."

 

My take on it is that the cost of providing an interpreter would keep the YMCA from providing services to other people who are just as deserving. At that point, the cost of avoiding discrimination for one person may discriminate against so many others that the state may have an interest in allowing the discrimination.

 

There are probably better work arounds than the either-or presented in the article, though. One would hope that something would come through for this family that would not involve the Y having to spend that much money. (Like someone could just "volunteer" --However, interpreters need to earn a living too.)

 

Personally, though, I find this particular case to be a lot more ethically ambiguous than the Hobby Lobby case. To me, Hobby Lobby just follows the law as written and it's really no skin off their back. Ethical and religious concerns? Pfft -- they obviously don't have that or they wouldn't be investing in the corporations that make these drugs. For me, that would have been an easy case to decide -- and it sure wouldn't have gone Hobby Lobby's way.

The daughter was the one in the class. She was NOT impaired, so did not require accomodations, so the Y did nothing wrong.

[Saddlemomma]

1.) Public funds for abortion are only used to pay for abortions in the case of rape or the health of the mother is endangered, as per the Hyde Amendment.  You are not being treated any differently than vegans, pacificists, those against vaccines for religious reasons, Jews who are asked to suppport non-Kosher indsustries...shall I go on?

 

2.) Your husband is not being forced to give up his business. He is being forced to treat all customers equally.  When I got married, our photographer didn't participate in the ceremony.  I find it odd if your husband is.

 

No.  You don't understand Christianity nor do you want to or care to.  Which is fine for you and fine by me.  You just want your view pushed onto everyone who doesn't agree with you.  It has nothing at all to do with equality.  It has everything to do with you demanding that Christians abandon their faith to endorse your lifestyle regardless of how we feel.  It's the exact same thing you accuse Christians of doing to you.  The other side of the same coin.

 

Why can't we both agree to disagree. What's wrong with saying, "Hey they're a Christian studio.  Let's bypass them and choose another photographer who will appreciate our union."  Instead of: "Hey, they're a Christian studio.  Let's sue them so they go out of business because they don't agree with us." 

 

Neither my dh or I have any problem photographing homosexuals.  Birthday party?  No problem.  Portraits?  No problem.  Family gathering?  No problem.  Marriage?  No way!

 

According to Christians, marriage is a celebration of what Jesus meant when He said one man and one woman becoming one flesh. By photographing a same-sex marriage we would be endorsing a practice in direct opposition to that Christian doctrine and celebrating what, according to Christianity, is sin.  That is going against our faith.

 

It doesn't matter to me what you think marriage is.  To me and my family it only matters what Jesus thinks.

 

Since you don't endorse Christianity, have absolutely no empathy for those who do, and can't see the enormous repercussions for Christians who bow to the pressure to conform, I'll leave you with non-Biblical reasons why the claim of equality is erroneous.  The following comes from http://www.str.org:

 

Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights

 

"We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination."

There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don't have the same legal liberties

heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don't have the same legal benefits as

married couples.

 

The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and

receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot

marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.

I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate

one, nonetheless.

 

Let me illustrate. Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens.

Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial

to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, "Smith gets to vote [in

California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a

right I don’t have." No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal

inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.

 

The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly

alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do:

wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection

clause.

 

The second complaint is more substantial. It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the

same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care,

hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between

individuals--non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers--share

those benefits, either. Why should they?

 

If homosexual couples face "unequal protection" in this area, so does every other pair of

unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get

preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?

 

The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not

because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s

because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families

eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique

relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for

kids, she--and they--are still covered).

 

These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a

rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human

coupling the same entitlements simply to "stabilize" the relationship. The unique benefits of

marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates

or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.

 

Marriage begins a family. The purpose of family is to produce the next generation. Therefore,

family is designed by nature for children. This description alone is consistent with our deepest

intuitions, which is why every culture since the birth of time has recognized this. No other

characterization fits what societies have been doing for millennia.

 

Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about

children, nonetheless. That’s why marriages have always been between men and women; they

are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids.

 

Government has no interest in affirming any other kind of relationship. It privileges and sustains

marriage in order to protect the future of civilization.   Until now.

[Wheres Toto]

 

 

According to Christians, marriage is a celebration of what Jesus meant when He said one man and one woman becoming one flesh. By photographing a same-sex marriage we would be endorsing a practice in direct opposition to that Christian doctrine and celebrating what, according to Christianity, is sin.  That is going against our faith.

 

It doesn't matter to me what you think marriage is.  To me and my family it only matters what Jesus thinks.

 

 

 

So, do you only photograph marriages for Christians who have weddings in a church that believes the same way you do about it?  No secular weddings at the town hall, no Jewish weddings, no liberal denominations, etc.?

 

I'm wondering if it's that important to you, can you avoid advertising to the general public and just offer your services to those you know agree with you, such as the members of your church?

[Caroline]

I just don't think the photographer at my wedding in any way endorsed my marriage. At all.

[Tanaqui]

It doesn't matter to me what you think marriage is.  To me and my family it only matters what Jesus thinks.

 

What does Jesus think about bearing false witness? Because upthread I see you claimed, with no backing, that gays are out to get Christians by deliberately targeting Christian businesses and throwing tantrums when they refuse to cater to their weddings. And I can't help but think that if you don't have any proof then this is pretty much baseless slander.

 

I mean, I don't care. But Jesus might. I don't mean to tell you how to practice your own religion, so I'm sure you have a reason for prioritizing "no photography of gay marriage" over "no bearing false witness" or "no failing to do unto others".

 

[elegantlion]

 

 

If homosexual couples face "unequal protection" in this area, so does every other pair of

unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get

preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?

 

The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not

because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s

because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families

eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique

relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for

kids, she--and they--are still covered).

 

 

 

In the cases above, committed opposite sex partners make a choice to not get married. Same sex couples are not afforded the choice in many states. 

 

Please don't assume everyone that believes in the rights of same sex marriage does not understand christianity. Many of us are christians, yet we've come to a different conclusion that what your particular denomination believes. 

[Tanaqui]

The daughter was the one in the class. She was NOT impaired, so did not require accomodations, so the Y did nothing wrong.

 

But it's a parent-child class. The daughter couldn't be there without the parents, and the parents can't follow the instructions if they can't understand them.

[Halftime Hope]

Someone asked about religions that "promote denial of service" as in the cake example and the photography for weddings example.  The short answer is that I don't think Christianity does explicitly, and I cannot speak for the rest.

 

So how do some Christians get to that choice? I'll give this a try, but perhaps Saddlemomma or someone who has had to walk this path can chime in.  

 

In six or seven different places in the Bible, same sex relations are forbidden/condemned/ listed as the reason for the destruction of ancient cities, etc.  It is pretty clear with a plain reading that same sex relations are not what God intended for his pattern for families and for marriage.  (Yes, I know ALL sins separate every one of us--all of us sinners--from a holy, sinless God *to the same degree*, that is that we are entirely separate from God, we are utterly, hopelessly lost and unable to redeem ourselves. I am that kind of a sinner even though I've never done this, that, or the other thing because I've been prideful, I've been selfish, and foremost because I inherit a sinful nature.  I also know that the list of seven sins God hates (in Proverbs) does not include any kind of sexual sin, neither same or opposite sex.  So for those who are truly inquiring in order to understand, that is the context:  if same sex relations are sin, this sin is not worse than any other, and I have been a sinner from the moment I was conceived, and I will be until I die.

 

The reason this is one of the hot button topics that is getting a lot of press in our generation is that people who are "other" in their sexuality--it is not neatly categorized--no longer want to be seen as sinful due to being part of that "other" category. They want it to be perfectly socially acceptable.  Shoot, I would like that for them, AND I would love it for me and all my sins, too.  But God and His word say otherwise.  That very fact keeps me watchful for the sins that I know I am prone to, keeps me on guard not to cheapen God's grace and mercy, and keeps me frequently before God asking for forgiveness, asking for His power to help me grow out of my sinful tendencies.  He says that I am a new creature, and that He is able to complete the work He has started in me, and present me blameless before God the Father when I die.

 

And that leaves me and everyone else scratching our heads, wonderinghow do we live in this new reality where the world around us (popular opinion and practice) are at odds with what God has said.  We know what Jesus did: He looked at *every* person living in sin, touched their lives, healed their illnesses, forgave their sins (He knew which ones wanted forgiveness and which ones did not), and then in many cases told them to go and stop sinning.  He did not do that with the Pharisees:  one assumes they had no desire for forgiveness and considered themselves righteous in their own works.  He did not just gloss over sin and tell people to carry on doing whatever it was they were doing.

 

So here is the rub, and again not every Christian sees it this way. (Hat tip to Andy Stanley on cakes.)  Many of us have been raised thinking that when we enable/condone/contribute to/pay for something that violates Scriptural principles or ethics or is incongruous with God's nature (his attributes), that makes us complicit in the sin as well.   This is the exact rationale behind HL, Wheaton, and the multitude of other institutions who are co-litigants on some of these cases.  It is why Catholic charities have preferred to close than to perform abortions or place children with same-sex couples.  In their thinking, f either HL or Wheaton supplies, provides, or pays for drugs or devices that keep a developing life from continuing its normal development by inhibiting implantation, thus effectively causing the embryo to die, it is sin.  If I were a baker, florist, photographer, or decorator, I might think that I wanted the labor of my hands to go only to couples who were joining together in one man, one woman marriage as specified in the pattern set out for mankind in the first chapters of Genesis.  (I'm sure someone in such a business would be able to much more clearly and eloquently state their case.)

 

Here's the thing, for the Christians I know--and I've been in Christian circles all my life--it is not about the desire to belittle, to discriminate, to treat badly, to control, to limit, to play God, as many have painfully suggested.  (BTW, those who were impugning Wheaton College (IL) know nothing about Wheaton, its 150 year track record, and the values it is built on.  You might go read a Wikipedia article for a start, although there are plenty of books on Wheaton's history.) 

 

Rather, our motive is to live lives aligned with God's values and to honor Him in the pattern that He established when he created mankind--since He created us, and since He redeemed us, our primary allegiance is to Him. The apostle John wrote to the church that "the world" will not understand the values that are our priorities.

 

Jesus, the apostles, and the early church were champions for equality: for women, for outcasts, for slaves, for non-Jews (Gentiles), for the needy, for widows and orphans, for all those groups that have traditionally have been disenfranchised.   Aside from the Pauline verses on women in the church, which are understood well when one considers that he was creating a new pattern and distinguishing the behavior of women in the nascent church from the prevalence of women as priestesses/oracles/sex workers in the religions in those Eurasian cities, both the New and Old Testaments are full of honorable mention and appreciation for women who served, slaves who served, and of not preferring the rich and the powerful, since all are equal and needed in God's economy.  The tough part is that many "Christians" have used their own beliefs and misused and twisted scripture to promote racism. (And on the other side, it has been Christians who have led the great anti-slavery and abolition movements and who have led every possible kind of social justice organization since that kind of institution first began.) Neither God nor the Bible itself does not promote or condone racism, rather aliens are to be treated well, slaves are to freed and debts forgiven in the year of Jubilee, etc.

 

So, I don't know if that helps answer your question about which religion promotes "denial of services." Christianity does not, although it might seem like it does when people like Saddlemomma and like my nephew, the art curator, walk away from part of their work in quiet refusal to participate. (In my nephew's case, he refused to work on an art show that was pornographic and resigned his job the day it was assigned. He continues to work in the arts, to create work that is shown and juried, and to curate other art shows.  And I have a vague idea what these terms mean, since it isn't my field, so forgive me if I have misused the terminology.)  Again, I can't speak for Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion.

[poppy]

 

According to Christians, marriage is a celebration of what Jesus meant when He said one man and one woman becoming one flesh. By photographing a same-sex marriage we would be endorsing a practice in direct opposition to that Christian doctrine and celebrating what, according to Christianity, is sin.  That is going against our faith.

 

It doesn't matter to me what you think marriage is.  To me and my family it only matters what Jesus thinks.

 

 

Please don't presume to speak for all Christians.