Posted on 02/28/2014 4:18:16 AM PST by Kaslin
In December of 1865, the several American states ratified the 13th amendment, constitutionally ending involuntary servitude in the United States. In the 21st century, Americans are coming full circle. In a number of states, a black man can again be forced by the government to work involuntarily for a white man.
Not since the nation eliminated Jim Crow laws during the civil rights era have we seen such a bizarre conundrum. But if the black man is a Christian and the white man is gay, a court can forcibly order the black man to serve the white man or drive the black man from business. A number of states have been working to pass laws to prevent this weird conundrum, but in an irony that knows no bounds, gay-rights activists are comparing these religious freedom laws to Jim Crow.
The issue boils down to one question -- should a Christian who believes a wedding can only be between a man and a woman be forced to provide goods and services to a gay wedding? Despite the histrionics of some, no one suggests that anyone be allowed to simply deny service to any class of people, be they black or white or gay or straight. The issue only arises in the context of gay weddings.
Gay rights activists have lately claimed that Jesus would bake the cake for the gay wedding, so Christian bakers should. Jesus, of course, affirmed in the Gospel of Matthew that marriage is between one man and one woman. He also told the various sinners he encountered to "sin no more." So it becomes highly dubious that Christ would bake a cake for a gay wedding, and he most certainly would not preside over the service.
Therein lies the problem. One side is arguing that Christ would not do this so they should not have to do this. The other side is arguing that not only would Christ do this, but the government should be able to force Christians to do it. Gone are the days of turning the other cheek and going to another baker.
In one real world case, a florist had a long-time relationship with a gay couple. She had sold them flowers on multiple occasions. She knew they were gay. She gladly served them. When they asked her to provide flowers for their gay wedding, she declined because of her faith. She assumed they were friends. They sued her business for discrimination.
She did not take the position that she should be allowed to deny gays any good or service. She only objected to participating in a gay wedding. Committed Christians believe in a doctrine of vocation. They believe that their work is a form of ministry. Through their work, they can share the gospel and glorify God. Because committed Christians believe marriage is a relationship created and ordained by God Himself to be between a man and woman, they believe they cannot provide goods and services to a marital union that would run counter to that which God ordains. Christian merchants do not see themselves as passive participants in a transaction, but active in a ministry. Their work cannot be separated from their faith.
The government saw it otherwise and forced the florist to perform the work or be punished.
Similar situations have come up in Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico and other states with florists, photographers, bakers and others. None of them denied all goods and services to gay. They just declined to provide them with goods and services for a gay wedding because of their faith.
A number of states have sought to ensure Christians cannot be compelled by the state to violate their consciences. The laws are being badly mischaracterized as anti-gay. Christians are being compared to Bull Connor for trying to honor their God. The state is picking sides in matters of conscience. Instead of living and letting others live, tolerance has become a one-way street. Those who seek to dissent or opt out are made to care whether they want to or not.
Wjen government becomes a religion it requires its constituency to follow its dectates of conscience.
Our national religion is state-sponsored secularism. And yes, it's every bit as "religious" as Christianity, Islam or Judaism when it comes to worshipping a "deity," establishing and enforcing a moral code, and everything else that comes with religious practice.
Dectates? Don’t you mean dictates? BTW I am overlooking the j when because you made a typo. Spell checker really does work
Its simple gay wedding are like food they are not Christian kosher. so we don’t serve thing not Christian kosher..we keep a Christian kosher kitchen...gay weddings are the equal of mixing meat and dairy in a kosher restaurant
big diff: the ‘black’ man got paid, the slave didn’t.
This issue has the potential to be the game changer that breaks the hold democrats have on the black vote.
But only if republicans have the guts to resist pandering to the homosexuals.
Blacks are already upset that homosexuals and liberals equate a preference for sodomy to having a black skin.
But my guess is that republicans will miss this chance to cultivate the black religious voters and instead will side with the liberals and homos.
I have said it before and I will say it again, all I want is the same rights as a bearded Imam.
“They are not unsure. They are clueless”
Depends on what you mean by payment. Payment can be food and a roof over your head. Doesn’t mean I condone any form of slavery, but there are other means of payment for services such as bartering.
Excellent point.
Stop speculating
my point is that the analogy between this and slavery is flawed. personally i don’t think that people should be forced to sell to whomever they don’t want to, but that road has been crossed a long time ago. we decided a long time ago that a free and open business cannot refuse service based upon the bias of the owner. for good or ill. if you don’t want to be forced to take someone’s money for a service, you can become a private club.
i sympathize with the shopowner, but that argument was lost quite some time ago
I think you are on a wrong thread with this. :)
Just taking a guess based on recent history.
“big diff: the ‘black’ man got paid, the slave didn’t.”
True. Plus the commerce clause in the Constitution has been interpreted to allow government to regulate transactions in the economy. Therefore the sale of a product or service in a public market can be regulated. Government has the power to set health and safety standards for products, license marketplaces, and apply other standards to transactions. If you sell to the general public, you are subject to government regulations which state you must serve anyone.
One way for bakers, florists, photographers and others who produce custom products to get engage in public commerce and choose their customers is to not post or advertise prices for products or services. If the business owner quotes prices for each individual transaction, he/she can price the transaction at whatever level he/she wishes. If the owner doesn’t want to bake a cake for the customer quote a price of $1 million for the cake.
Another way to avoid the transaction is to refuse based on the complexity of the service requested or due to insufficient time. “I’m too busy to take on this job” is an acceptable response to a request to produce a good or service.
It is unfortunate the founders did not specifically define property rights in the Constitution. If the founders had specifically guaranteed an exclusive right to the fruit of one’s labor into the Constitution, the government would be restricted from regulating transactions involving transfers of property or services.
It is well past time for a Constitutional Amendment to more tightly define the commerce clause and right to property. The socialist party will never propose limiting a clause liberal judges have interpreted as allowing government to interfere in the workings of the free market. The “conservative” GOP as the advocate of big corporations will not propose an amendment that would restrict the power of the state over individuals. Thus, status quo.
Just like I said stop speculating. :)
When government becomes a religion as God - never needing to ask help from anything higher than itself, or expressed gratitude to the same - it presumes its laws are the supreme ultimate authority, supplanting the Scriptures, the proven transcendent standard for morality and spiritual wisdom.
I have posted this before, but i hope lawyers would employ this argument, esp. as related to: We Still Stand by What We Believe’: Bakers Who Refused to Make a Gay Wedding Cake Double Down
Fact. The States own constitution (rightly) discriminates against homosexuals by refusing to recognize gay marriage, which is what the baker refused to do. The judge thus indicted the States constitution as violating the law, because a subsequent law added sexual orientation (south) to the an nondiscrimination law.
Fact: The baker offered to sell them other things but not a custom work of art specifically celebrating a moral abomination.
Fact: If a black baker, sign-maker or artist refused to make a custom sign celebrating a KKK convention;
or a Muslim for the birth of Israel, or refused to make hot dog rolls;
or a liberal music artist refused to license music a Ted Cruz convention? (Romney was threatened with legal action even for using music he had a license for, not that i support such music)
or a homosexual sign maker refused to make and sell a custom made sign for a AFA event;
or just maybe an Orthodox Jewish baker refused to make a custom cake to celebrate a holocaust deniers convention;
then it is very unlikely the bakers/sign makers/artists would be found guilty.
Fact: The homosexual lobby has duped the willing into believing the same rights as belong to non moral aspects race and skin color are given also belongs to a behavior have.
“but that argument was lost quite some time ago”
Well, yes and no. When the Civil Rights Fair Housing Law was passed it exempted landladies with 6 rental units or less.
The law has always been spotty giving more leeway and freedom to the small business owner.
Now Farrakhan wants his own water fountain and Spike Lee wants white guys out of his neighborhood. San Francisco finally kicked out the nudists from the restaurants. Do you have to give a homeless guy a bath and a cup of coffee in your cafe?
Right of refusal still exists . . . for some.
I believe property rights is our most basic freedom; second even to freedom of speech.
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.