Posted on 10/12/2014 11:02:27 AM PDT by B4Ranch
This has been an interesting week for me. I have been discussing with numerous Christian lawyers and judges in three states, a possible solution to the lawsuits LGBT clientele bring forth against Christian Small Business Owners for having strong religious beliefs.
We are all familiar with the lawsuit against the Colorado family-owned Christian bakery that eventually lost their business due to their refusal to bake a wedding cake for two same sex clients.
Then there's the the New Mexico photographer who got sued after declining to photograph a lesbian couple's wedding, citing religious objections.
Or the florist who allegedly refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding because of her religious beliefs is now being sued by the Washington State attorney general.
On and on it goes. These people think they can force us to accept their sexual deviance as being normal behavior. I'm sorry, I can't do that.
When a Christian Small Business Owner hangs a sign in his place of business that reads, "Occasionally, we sub-contract work to other local businesses that meet our standards of quality" hopefully this will protect him from these LGBT clientele who think the world works best when a liberal judge oversees it.
What you are saying with your sign is that you will sub-contract work to others when any of theses situations exist: due to work overload, lack of needed supplies on hand, shortage of personnel when someone is on vacation or off sick or the job is so disgusting that you would prefer someone else do it.
You are not required to announce your religious beliefs to the LGBT client who enter your place of business. You are not refusing the LGBT customer request that he or she employ your company to do work that you advertise you are willing to do. You ask the LGBT client all the normal questions that you would any client. Then you call another Small Business Owner whose religious beliefs are such that they do not interfere with them doing the work under a sub-contract for your LGBT client. You get a bid from the other SBO and relay the cost to your LGBT client. They will then either accept or refuse the bid. In which case they are free to search for another SBO to do their work.
Should they accept your bid, you then call the sub contractor and tell him to proceed with the job as you have outlined it in your previous phone call. He does the work, delivers the product to you, you call the LGBT client and tell them to come in, settle the bill and collect the finished product.
The result is a happy LGBT client who has no reason to bring a lawsuit against you or your firm for refusal of service. You didn't have to handle any offensive material and hopefully your religious beliefs were not too harmed that a few prayers won't mend them.
In the event of this being a photography proposal, the same situation exists. You accept the job, explain what you will need. Then tell the client your price which you will have agreed to ahead of time with another photographer who is not so easily offended. When the job comes up and the other photographer shows up at the site for the job, he only has to say that you are coming down with a cold and didn't want to expose the wedding guests to a possible infection so he is the alternate cameraman. The client will accept or deny entrance to the alternate cameraman, in which case you will return whatever percentage of his deposit that you feel is fair.
Numerous judges and lawyers believe this is a workable solution to the current situation. Please verify this with your company attorney and if it requires any tweaks to fit your state laws don't hold them to yourself. Share the information on how we can protect our businesses!
If you know any Christian business owners please copy this text and email it to them. Perhaps send the URL so they can read any comments that FR members post on the subject.
We own a photography studio and we don’t do weddings, period. Weddings are the job from h—l, I don’t care who it is getting married. So we should not have the sodomite problem. We will photograph their dogs etc.
This is a mushy work-around that does nothing to combat the evil of forcing individuals to violate their conscience. It is preferable that the courts be overwhelmed with cases where Christians refuse to participate in a sinful ceremony. The courts should be made to understand that forcing individuals to violate their conscience is an evil that free societies must resist.
Sounds good to me
Here might be a better idea.
Legally, churches cannot (yet) be compelled to marry those who are not compliant with their religious doctrines.
So what a small business owner can do is make exclusive contracts with a group of conservative churches, to only make wedding cakes, for example, for couples who are being married in those churches.
Importantly, the exclusivity is only one-way, in that the couples and churches are not obligated to get their cakes from that baker. But the baker is “obligated” to only make wedding cakes for marriages in those churches.
To be legal, the contract must include “consideration”, which is an exchange of value. In this case, the baker offers a small discount on wedding cakes, and the church provides “advertising” of the baker as a good place, but not obligatory, to get a wedding cake, for couples who are getting married.
This avoids the pitfall of providing a product or service to “the public”. It is a private contract.
The baker cannot be accused of discrimination for not making wedding cakes for anyone else, be it a homosexual couple, or a heterosexual couple who are having a secular wedding.
It is the churches that are “discriminating”, but with legal discrimination, for refusing to sanction an illegitimate coupling.
So when the irate LGBT & whatevers enter the bakery hoping to sue them for refusing to make a wedding cake, the baker can shrug and say they do not make wedding cakes for “the public”, but only via an existing contract for cakes with churches.
Then they can even suggest that they get married in one of these churches. Of course, after they leave, he can call that church to give them a heads up to a couple of LGBTs want to get married there, so may try and pretend they are not LGBTs.
In any event, every Christian business associated with weddings can make a contract of this sort with say eight or ten churches, they would still get their normal amount of business, but would not have to fret over lawsuits by deviants.
Here's a solution - resistance!!! Refuse. If courts rule against you, ignore them. If they bring force against you, their blood is on their own heads. Be sure that if this issue did come to blows, it would launch the long-overdue revolution. You'd be surprised at the number of patriots who would emerge from the woodwork on your side. We haven't been buying up ammo for several years just for target practice.
Pussy-footing around the issue with legal scapegoating only prolongs our captivity.
I didn’t see anybody rushing to defend the Colorado bakery owners.
That battle didn’t come to blows, now did it?
Masterpiece Cakes tacitly bowed to their punishment. Now, they will not make wedding cakes, unarguably the bread and butter of most cake bakeries. They are cowards in a sense. They will pay by going out of business now.
Everyone is forgetting the easiest way to get rid of the LGBWT creeps and pervs - bid high!
If the going rate for a cake is $500, then bid $1,000.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.