Refusing service

[Judith]

I have a question. I am assuming that most are aware of the cases around the US where homosexual couples want a service from a business that is owned by a Christian and the owner refuses to serve them. One was a woman who had a photography service and did weddings and the homosexual couple wanted her to do the photos of their wedding. She refused and they sued and won. She was fined and I think went out of business. Another was a baker and a homosexual couple wanted a cake for their wedding and they refused and sued. There are also others.


My question is should we accommodate these people or are we within our rights and responsibilities as Christians to refuse? Does God expect us to refuse them service in such cases? Scripture reference please.

 

[convicted1]

In the secular world, we have NO rights...


Jumping off the democrat runaway jaloppy asap....either IND or REP....not sure which...

 

[convicted1]

I have a question. I am assuming that most are aware of the cases around the US where homosexual couples want a service from a business that is owned by a Christian and the owner refuses to serve them. One was a woman who had a photography service and did weddings and the homosexual couple wanted her to do the photos of their wedding. She refused and they sued and won. She was fined and I think went out of business. Another was a baker and a homosexual couple wanted a cake for their wedding and they refused and sued. There are also others.


My question is should we accommodate these people or are we within our rights and responsibilities as Christians to refuse? Does God expect us to refuse them service in such cases? Scripture reference please.

Now to answer the OP as best as I can...

In the secular world, we don't have a leg to stand on. When reprobates take us before a reprobate judge, we've lost before the word "guilty" is uttered.

However, we are no longer of the world. We're in the world, but no longer of the world. This is fulfilling Christ's words when He said we'd "be persecuted for His name's sake", "they hated Me w/o a cause, and they'll hate you without a cause", "the world loves it's own", &c...

 

[jaigner]

Nobody threatened their life, safety, or right to worship. They are not being persecuted. Whether they should have to serve is another story, but let's not suggest persecution is happening here. That is flatly wrong and, frankly, insulting to those around the world that are being persecuted for their faith.

 

[SolaSaint]

The immoral have an axe to grind. This is obvious since the services refused could be rendered at another business fairly easily. That is what we would all do if we were refused service; just go to the next business down the street. Instead the gays make it an public issue to beat down the Christian.

Remember about 50 years ago the gays were in the closet and now they are out and proud. That is the key word "PROUD" and I don't think it will go away until we are in the closet. But in a sense we are in a closet. We only speak out against homosexuality from within the church walls, so what the gays are doing is horrible. They will not be happy until we are silent or done away with. I do think this is the persecution Jesus spoke about. It is fairly easy to see.

 

[padredurand]

Wedding pictures and wedding cake. Seems like a silly hill to die on.

 

[JonC]

I wonder if Paul was so selective in mending tents (not saying he wasn’t, just wondering). Anyway, a friend and I stopped by a country store for lunch about 10 years ago (yep, after 2001). They wouldn’t serve him because he was black. I am not sure where we can draw a line on service when we cater to the public. Would the woman take pictures at a Mormon wedding? Or could a Jehovah’s Witness buy bread at that particular bakery? I don’t have an answer, but only wanted to say that when we stand by our convictions we should accept the consequences of that stand gracefully. My opinion is that if you rely on the public to maintain your business, then you accept the public as consumers.

 

[Salty]

Wedding pictures and wedding cake. Seems like a silly hill to die on.

But where will it end?


Ok, so I am a baker - and I drive up to a hom0sexual "wedding" (not I refuse to use the PC "gay") location
in my company truck with my logo of "Saltys Cakes"
Now underneath in rather large letters, It also states "Homosexulaty is an abomination" "Today is the Day of Salvation"

Would they want my truck in the parking lot? Hmmmm

 

[Aaron]

Wedding pictures and wedding cake. Seems like a silly hill to die on.

But die you will.

 

[Judith]

To be honest I was up in arms over these Christian business being "persecuted" for their faith. Someone here said it correctly. This is hardly persecution.
However after weighing the situation in the Lord I do not think the "Christian business" has a leg to stand on either under the law or before the Lord. He ate with sinners so my take now is bake the cake and take the pictures and witness to them if they will listen and enjoy the blessing of their business.

 

[padredurand]

But die you will.

I'm thinking if the baker and photographer want to make a moral stand they should refuse to participate in weddings involving adultery. You might as well be consistent.

 

[Judith]

I'm thinking if the baker and photographer want to make a moral stand they should refuse to participate in weddings involving adultery. You might as well be consistent.

Or better yet refuse everyone as all are sinners.

 

[Reformed]

I believe one of these cases will find its way into the Supreme Court. It is only a matter of time. I am not sure how the court will rule, but I wonder whether they will see a difference between a retail/transactional business and professional services. Coffee shops, retail bakeries, restaurants, convenience stores, department stores et. al are examples of retail/transactional businesses. The customer orders a product/service and pays for it, thereby concluding the transaction. If a person walks into a local coffee house the issue of their sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether they want a medium vanilla latte. A homosexual couple that goes to a family owned hardware store and purchases three bags of ice melt is not asking the store owner to validate or celebrate their same-sex relationship. There are some gray areas. What of the restaurant owner who offers a private banquet room for meetings and wedding receptions? Refusing to rent the room to a homosexual couple would be discriminatory. The only way to avoid the possibility of discrimination charges would be not to rent it for any wedding reception.

Professional services would be businesses such as an attorney, photographer, accountant, baker et. al. These businesses provide a personal service to their customers that is not typically transactional in nature. Take for example the homosexual couple that wants an attorney to draft a pre-nuptial agreement. Such a service requires investing time with a client. A photographer, like a baker, has to use their artistic talent to create the finished product. The Christian accountant could possibly market his practice as, "A CPA who provides tax and financial planning for the Christian community", but that is no guarantee against a lawsuit. Also, businesses that market themselves as specializing in serving the Christian community could be narrowing their potential customer base to such an extent that they will no longer be able to make a profit.

padredurand wrote:

Wedding pictures and wedding cake. Seems like a silly hill to die on.

On the surface it does seem like a silly thing, doesn't it? But what of the homosexual couple that sues a local church for not allowing them to rent their church sanctuary and/or hall for their wedding? What of the conscience of the Christian photographer who would have to invest hours of his time planning the photo shoot with the homosexual couple, attend the wedding, take the pictures of the wedding/reception, and then spend time editing the final product?

This whole issue is certainly a sticky wicket.

 

[Reformed]

Oh, padredurand, I was not picking on you. You actually made a very good point. On the surface it seems like a trivial thing. Why make such an issue out of it? IMHO it comes down to a matter of conscience. I hearken back to what Martin Luther told his inquisitor at Worms, "To go against conscience is neither right nor safe."

 

[HAMel]

Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”

He was right.

In the aftermath of the Arizona religious freedom skirmish, I have a few questions for those who would presume to compel religious business owners, under penalty of law, to “provide goods and services” to homosexuals in a way that violates that business owner’s conscience.

To wit:
Should a homosexual baker be forced to make a “God Hates Fags” cake for Westboro Baptist Church, simply because its members claim to be Christian?

Should a black printer be forced to develop and print thousands of “White Power!” flyers for a skinhead rally just because the potential customer is white?

Should a Christian florist be compelled to create and provide black floral arrangements to a hell-bound customer for her upcoming Satanist ritual?

Should a “progressive,” environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming Is a Farce” signs for a tea party rally?

Should a Muslim photographer, commissioned by San Francisco’s “Folsom Street Fair,” be forced to document that vile event* rife with nudity and public sex simply because the customers identify as “gay”?

Should a “gay married” lesbian hotel owner * a card-carrying member of GLAAD be required, under threat of incarceration, to host and cater a fundraiser for the “National Organization for Marriage,” a group that opposes so-called “marriage equality”?

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

http://www.rense.com/general96/absolute.html

 

[Reformed]

Just one last point. I think Christians need to recognize that acting according to conscience could cause them to suffer loss in this life. They could lose their business or have them greatly curtailed. They could lose their job or be demoted. Churches may face lawsuits and financial judgments. As our post-Christian society dives deeper into godlessness pastors and Christian leaders could face personal civil penalties or even incarceration. The freedoms American Christians have experienced in the past few centuries has blinded us to the persecution the Church has regularly faced for most of its existence. It may be time for God to purify His Church.

 

[Rhys]

The Arizona bill may well have passed had it not been worded so poorly. Protecting the right to discriminate on specific grounds places an undue burden of proof on the judicial system.

Let's say a pair of sodomites attempt to contract a bakery to provide them a "wedding" cake, and the bakery refuses on religious grounds thinking that the bill would protect them. What happens if groom & groom, out of spite and looking for a payday, sue on grounds of, say, age discrimination and allege that the bakery used the religious freedom bill as cover because they didn't approve of the age difference between the prospective customers.

There's just no way to prove intent. There would have to be some kind of registration system, otherwise each case would have to be decided individually and there could be no working precedent.

Ideally, we would revert to the notion of private business as a self-regulating enterprise; the penalty for discrimination need not be administered from without, after all - a baker doesn't get paid for not baking a cake. Principles cost, too - and a Christian businessman who knows this should certainly be allowed to reserve the right to refuse service. But, as others have said, Christians have no reasonable expectation of civil rights in a secular society - especially not one so far gone.

 

[annsni]

Well, here is a bit of a twist:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...t-opposes-same-sex-marriage-article-1.1027072

 

[JonC]

Well, here is a bit of a twist:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...t-opposes-same-sex-marriage-article-1.1027072

I can see that this could be a problem. Christians, if allowed to discriminate regarding those they serve in a public establishment would probably see it as a mild persecution if the tables were turned. There is always another side (for example, we want prayer in school…like the good old days. But what happens when the teacher is Muslim - it ain't the "good old days" - and leads our children in prayer?). We “won” the war over “In God We Trust,” but it was not a victory as the decision made the words “ceremonial deism” - words without meaning. My opinion is that we need to live our faith, but expect the world to be the world.

 

[Aaron]

I'm thinking if the baker and photographer want to make a moral stand they should refuse to participate in weddings involving adultery. You might as well be consistent.

Judge it all you want. The point is what the butcher, baker and candlestick maker are forced to do.