Rachel Held Evans sets the World Straight

[William Thornton]

[Dave Roberts]

William, without delving into all of that, to me the Hobby Lobby decision was a bad decision in that it, rather than clarifying the status of corporations, muddied the waters as to what could be considered required and not required under the law. Some of it didn't even take into account the best science in connection with home some of the birth control drugs to which they objected work. It just muddied things more rather than clarifying them. I see ten years of litigation at least seeking to apply the decision.

[William Thornton]

Ed said: "Thank you William, for a well thought out contribution to this discussion. I do think however that Some venues that are occasional used for weddings but in which weddings are ancillary rather than being a primary business could make a case for refusing same sex weddings, if they indeed serve "who so ever" in the primary business. I am thinking of places like a Bowling ally or skating rink that is open to any one for bowling or skating but where the owners set limits on it use for private parties."

Churches, church camps, church retreat property, etc. are almost certainly protected here.

Private businesses that do occasional weddings (skating rink, bowling alley, baseball stadium) will almost certainly be compelled to serve all types of couples. While there aren't specific gay, non-discrimination laws in many areas, I'm guessing that in time there will be (and the route to that may be judicial not legislative). This will be seen same as racial discrimination. These will probably have to choose between doing ANY wedding or doing NO weddings, rather than picking and choosing based on the genders involved.

Dedicated wedding venues, a growing market in my area, that do primarily weddings will be same as the private business that does occasional weddings.

Litigation on this will outlive both of us.

[William Thornton]

[Tim Bonney]

William,

I'm not a lawyer and I don't think you are either, unless you have been holding out on me.

There is nothing anti-corporation in what I said previously. I'm all for corporations that treat people fairly. I don't do business with Hobby Lobby because of their views. But I do business with organizations that tell me that they don't discriminate.

I agree with David, I see the Hobby Lobby decision as a bad decision and I'd not be surprised if it isn't over turned some day.

What I get a whiff of from you is that idea the corporations are people. I'm not anti corporation. I'm just pro the rights of individual people. It is a bizarre twist of the idea of religious rights to claim that someone else getting married against my views of marriage then allows me under religious rights to deny them public services.

The fact that we in the US all live in the society together and can walk into the same business, sit in the same restaurant, and work at the same companies is part of what allows us to have freedom of religion and religious pluralism. Once we start treating companies as if they have the rights of people or even the rights of a Church we have actually made the rights of religious bodies mean less.

I know someone won't like the racial comparison. But if you replaced the entire discussion with serving couples who were getting married and one was white and the other black and a florist or a baker was going to deny them service because their religion forbid mixed race marriages I think the discussion would likely go differently.

Both anti-mixed race marriage and anti-same sex marriage can be religious views. Will we be a society where religious freedom means freedom to tell someone else how they have to live? I hope not. Because ultimately if someone isn't free to be wrong and only free to agree with you or me then we really aren't free.

[William Thornton]

I'm not a lawyer but I read what lawyers write on this stuff. You are sub-informed on this...but then, a lot has happened lately. I'm not arguing with you or anyone here about gay marriage. My viewpoint lost. I've moved on considerably beyond you in looking at the ramifications.

You are just all mixed up on the corporate/individual stuff. If the cake baker was an unincorporated, single proprietor she would be within her rights? Nonsense.

The gay lobby has moved on (some still in the victory lap phase) to (a) fighting the RFRAs in the various states, and (b) pushing for anti-discrimination statutes. There is no state wide law in GA.

Informed commentators (like BJCPA, ERLC, and some of the lawyer/judicial watch type groups, con and lib) are saying that IF the courts begin applying the gay stuff in the same manner as racial stuff, then the outcomes will be similar. This is far from settled in that regard.

My view is that those who have businesses open to the public should prepare to serve whomever. In fact, many cons say they personally would bake the gay wedding cake but that others should have the right to refuse.

We will have fun with all this for years to come, long after you are in your comfortable and secure retirement sipping alcoholic beverages on some beach somewhere.

[Stephen Fox]

did a great job on all this several months ago. I hope some of you would search out their analysis in Report from the Capitol

See my report on James Dunn funeral today in the History section

[KeithE]

The legalities of all this will simmer out eventually not to some grand principle of justice but in the court of public attitudes and will continue to evolve with time just like bi-racial marriage has done (as Timothy pointed out).

In terms of ethics (faith and practice - this forum; and conservative christian’s persecution complex - the subject of this thread) much more needs to be said.

To same-sex couples
If a baker won’t make you a cake, you have many options:
- go somewhere else near your home town
- order your cake at a market
- get a friend to make one
- make it yourself
- do without a cake.

If a photographer wont do it, you also have many options:
- go somewhere else near your home town
- enlist a camera-savvy friend
- have the attenders use their cell phones.

etc. for other wedding services.

If quality is compromised, LIVE WITH IT. Do not complain and certainly do not sue. It trivializes true persecution (imprisonment, physical harm, taking of money/property/kids), to proclaim “I’ve been wronged”.

To businesses or individuals whose religious sensibilities are piqued:
The baker should recognize that many if not most other products are used for the sin of gluttony (that is actually listed as a sin in the bible whereas same-sex marriage is arguably not).

Bakers, photographers, florists, wedding coordinators, musicians, ministers should realize that Jesus worked among the sinners of His day while saying "Woe to you Teachers of the Law” who show judgmental attitudes towards adulterers and other sinners. True Jesus did not promote adultery (or any sin) but he called out the Pharisaic attitudes in stronger terms.

So, consider making that cake, do that ceremony, get over your squirminess and take those pictures and be quiet and LIVE WITH IT. You may even have a positive effect on the couple. Again, do not complain and certainly do not sue. It trivializes true persecution (imprisonment, physical harm, taking of money/property/kids), to proclaim “I’ve been wronged”. Christians in particular should heed Paul's practice of accepting persecution with grace, James's advice to “count it all joy” and Jesus’s taking it to the cross when He was truly persecuted. Thus is how far down the persecution threshold some Christian have come.

--------

Of all the issues in today’s world, these rare conflicts over same-sex marriage services (compared to constant poverty, hunger, threat of serious climate disruptions, murder, theft, rape .........), it is really only of academic issue to argue this out into a public or ecclesiastical policy.

But the most important (imo) aspect in these conflicts within an eternal perspective is that of Pharisaism which really ticked Jesus off. I fear for a whole generation of modern-day Pharisees.

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Michael Wrenn]