Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

5 Reasons Christian Businesses Shouldn't Be Legally Forced To Support Gay Weddings
Townhall.com ^ | March 1, 2014 | John Hawkins

Posted on 03/01/2014 5:42:50 AM PST by Kaslin

For a free society to function, a wide range of speech and behavior has to be tolerated, but that doesn't mean everyone has to approve of it. So, for example, although I don't drink, I have many friends who do. While I think Justin Bieber's music is appalling, I don't think it should be illegal. While I would like to see abortion banned except in the case of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother, I have friends who've admitted to me that they've had abortions.

Unfortunately, when it comes to gay marriage, we have people who seem to be unable to tell the difference between tolerance and approval. It's not enough that gay marriage is legal in 17 states. As a practical matter, that means every gay American in the country can get married if he or she wants to do so while those who don't want gay marriage also have the option to live in states where the practice isn't legal. Although some Americans would like gay marriage to be legal everywhere and others, like myself, would like it to be illegal everywhere, there's something to be said for leaving the matter to each state.

This is still not enough for many liberals who've insisted on going further and actually persecuting Christian businesses who oppose gay marriage. Christians who don't want to sanction gay marriage are being sued, prosecuted and driven out of business for doing nothing more than living up to their Christian beliefs, which are incompatible with condoning gay marriage. In Oregon, Sweet Cakes by Melissa faced fines from the state and eventually lost its business because the owners declined to bake a cake for a gay wedding. In Washington State, florist Barronelle Stutzman has been sued for refusing to provide flowers for a gay wedding. The Wildflower Inn in Vermont was sued for refusing to host a gay couple’s wedding reception. Christian photographer Elane Huguenin in New Mexico was told she wasn't allowed to decline to participate in a gay marriage commitment ceremony. In New Jersey a seaside retreat, which is a United Methodist Church Christian facility, was told it wasn’t allowed to refuse a civil union ceremony.

Whether you believe as I do that all of those businesses made the right choice when they refused to sanction gay marriage, you should at least believe that they have the right to make their own decisions. Here's why....

1) Businesses should generally have the right to refuse customers: Because of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and the other abominations Democrats forced on America, we did choose as a nation to treat race differently than most other issues. So, we do not allow businesses to discriminate based on race -- and that's a good thing. However, businesses can and do turn away customers for almost every other reason imaginable. Shouldn't they be able to do that?

Shouldn't the Super Bowl be allowed to decline an advertisement from a porn website? Shouldn't the NAACP be able to turn away KKK members from a speech? Shouldn't a movie theater be allowed to tell people who insist on using cell phones in the theater that they're not welcome? Shouldn't Wal-Mart be allowed to refuse to carry pornography in its stores? Shouldn't a nightclub be allowed to tell people wearing gang colors that they’re not welcome? Shouldn't the Democratic Party be allowed to decline ads on its website from the Republican Party? On a personal note, at my website Right Wing News I've declined advertisements from porn websites, a dating service for "sugar daddies," a dating service for people who are married, and even a t-shirt seller I considered to be homophobic. If the Westboro Baptist Church wants to sell "God h*tes F***" t-shirts on my website, should I be forced to sell it ad space even though I consider its beliefs to be repugnant and incompatible with my faith? For every American with rudimentary common sense, these questions answer themselves.

2) It violates the First Amendment: Per the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Supporting gay marriage is incompatible with Christianity. Baking a cake for a gay marriage, renting out a building for it, taking the pictures, etc., etc. could very fairly be considered sanctioning the marriage. To force a Christian to do that violates the First Amendment. This entire column could consist of that one point and it should be sufficient, but let's do continue on.

3) It's a misguided attempt to legally force people to accept gay marriage: In a very real sense, the gay marriage fight isn't about gay marriage. Civil unions confer all the same rights as marriage and the biggest point of contention on civil unions has become that they're being used as a stepping stone to gay marriage. If that wasn't an issue, civil unions would have overwhelming support and then everybody would be happy, right? Wrong. Because again, gay marriage isn't really about that.

At its core, gay marriage is really about acceptance.

A lot of gay Americans have made the mistake of centering their whole existence on their sexual orientation and so they almost see it as an insult if everything "gay" isn't treated as wonderful and fantastic. Except it's not. Everything heterosexual certainly isn't wonderful and fantastic either; so how could everything homosexual be wonderful and fantastic? Do you think these Christian bakers would bake a cake for an orgy? Would the photographer shoot naked pictures of Miley Cyrus? Would a Christian church host an S&M convention? It's highly doubtful.

The Left loves to encourage gay Americans to define their life by their sexual orientation, which cruelly sets people up for disappointment. It's now common to hear liberals say things like, "Oh well, in 20 years everybody will approve of gay weddings." Of course, liberals were saying the same thing about abortion after Roe v. Wade and how did that work out? Oh...right.

The truth is nobody gets universal acceptance. There are people who don't like me because I'm a white, conservative, Christian, male Tea Partier. I know this because I get emails and Facebook messages from them telling me so almost every day. There are a lot of terrific human beings out there who are gay, but if they make the mistake of demanding universal acceptance of everything about their sexual orientation a condition of being content, they're likely to have long, unhappy lives.

4) It's anti-Christian: There's an intense dislike of Christianity on the Left and it's an order of magnitude more intense for gay liberals for obvious reasons. Although as Billy Graham has said, "God will not judge a Christian guilty for his or her involuntary feelings," Christianity doesn't condone homosexual behavior. Under the best of circumstances, few people want to hear that they're doing something immoral. It's even worse when people feel as if they're being judged for something they believe would be difficult or even impossible to change. So, some of the people who are put in that position love getting an opportunity to victimize some poor Christian baker or florist because it allows them to lash out at Christianity by proxy. Since these Christians are paying a big price for standing up for our faith, they deserve our support.

5) It's involuntary servitude: It's highly ironic that liberals have compared a baker choosing not to bake a cake for a gay wedding to slavery and Jim Crow laws. After all, the Christian businesses are the ones that are being forced into involuntary servitude for ungrateful, vicious masters. Ask yourself why anyone with good motives would want to FORCE an unwilling person to bake his or her wedding cake or take pictures at his or her wedding? What's next? Will people who don't respond to invitations to gay weddings be charged with a hate crime?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: business; christianity; civilrights; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; nuclearfamily; sexpositiveagenda; smashthepatriarchy; waronmarriage

1 posted on 03/01/2014 5:42:50 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A restaurant ought to be able to refuse customers who cannot distinguish one orifice from another.


2 posted on 03/01/2014 5:49:23 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Liberals always want to have their cake and eat it too. they want to be able to discriminate against businesses, such as Rush Limbaugh’s sponsors, and Chick fil a. But they don’t want those businesses to be able to discriminate. Commerce is a two way street.

In the bad old segregation days, Democrat government did not tell businesses that they were allowed to discriminate. They told them that they must discriminate against paying customers because of their race, and could be punished if they did not.

Likewise, Nazi Germany told business owners that they MUST discriminate against Jewish customers, and German customers that they MUST discriminate against Jewish businesses.

There’s a big difference between legally required discrimination, and legally permitted discrimination.


3 posted on 03/01/2014 5:51:17 AM PST by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Democrats supported slavery and segregation. Why wouldn’t they support involuntary servitude?


4 posted on 03/01/2014 5:53:20 AM PST by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Beiber’s “music” SHOULD be outlawed, LOL.

(That being said, I was a General Business Solo Musician in MA for nearly 30 years. I lived in DREAD of being asked to perform a service for something I didn’t believe in. Once, I was hired to sing at a funeral, and was handed the JW hymnal and a song which had huge doctrinal errors. I told the guy I couldn’t do the song, and could I please substitute “Amazing Grace”? He liked the idea and we went with it. However, it COULD have gone differently, and I could have lost everything by refusing to do the song.)


5 posted on 03/01/2014 5:53:27 AM PST by left that other site
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Wedding Cake? what wedding cake?....... you didn’t order any wedding cake! Show me your deposit receipt.”


6 posted on 03/01/2014 5:54:11 AM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... History is a process, not an event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

No wedding cakes baked here. We only bake children’s birthday cakes, hence our name: Kiddie Kakes.

Let them get their fornication cakes from Walmart.


7 posted on 03/01/2014 6:02:53 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This whole thing smacks of community organizers. The vicious Left is agitating the differences in our society along moral lines. Divide and conquer.

As long as the Left has victims to protect and support and has victimizers to fight and blame and ridicule, they will have power. The nightmare situation for the left is a complete reconciling of the two sides.


8 posted on 03/01/2014 6:11:28 AM PST by VRW Conspirator ( 2+2 = V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

I don’t think our Walmart or any other bakery would bake cakes for homos or lesbians here.


9 posted on 03/01/2014 6:16:26 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
"For a free society to function..."

The Left does not want a free society.

The words "liberal" and "liberalism", which Leftists apply to themselves and their agenda, are Orwellian newspeak. They mean the opposite: like "Love is hate!" "Freedom is slavery!" "War is peace!"

10 posted on 03/01/2014 6:26:51 AM PST by Savage Beast (Hubris and denial overwhelm Western Civilization. Nemesis and tragedy always follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

Wait until you get asked to bake a cake for a five year-olds coming out party (pushed by the ultra-liberal parents, of course.)


11 posted on 03/01/2014 6:30:09 AM PST by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is a great article. I’ve been looking for someone to put it all together like this.


12 posted on 03/01/2014 6:30:39 AM PST by ne1410s (2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Excellent article. Sent it to my email address book.


13 posted on 03/01/2014 6:41:47 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Whatever happened to”We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” and “No shoes, no shirt, no service”?


14 posted on 03/01/2014 6:52:20 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
1) Businesses should generally have the right to refuse customers: Because of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and the other abominations Democrats forced on America, we did choose as a nation to treat race differently than most other issues. So, we do not allow businesses to discriminate based on race -- and that's a good thing.

This is an important point that segregation was tyrannically imposed on the people by the government with the full support of the democratic party. Businesses could be fined for not enforcing segregation. Whites opposed were silenced and many left. The ones who remained were exposed to government propaganda justifying this racism.

Finally Federal Civil Rights became a legislative issue. Passing laws that prevented state governments from restricting voting rights and Jim Crow laws had wide support. However, the laws that regulated discrimination with businesses barely passed. Many who abhorred racism equally were concerned on an over reaching federal government and the "slippery slope" of the over reach of the Commerce Clause .

The courts agreed with this thinking that since the government had tyrannically imposed racism on the people, the thinking was we will allow this overreach for now, but congress, don't used the Commerce Clause to overreach again!

So Congress did what congress does and proceeded over the next 20 years to overreach with the Commerce Clause. Then in the mid 1980 until now the Court pushed back on Congress. Recall the Justice Roberts did NOT used the Commerce Clause to declare ObamaCare Constitutional.

Now fast forward and the Gay Community is pushing for the same overreach which invariably violates people's FIRST AMMENDMENT rights. This is the slippery slope warned of in the 1960's made reality by a radical Gay community. This is why the black community is critical of analogizing Gay rights with the Civil Rights movement. They do not want to open this Pandora's Box and reverses 50 years of Civil Rights.

15 posted on 03/01/2014 6:57:55 AM PST by 11th Commandment ("THOSE WHO TIRE LOSE")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I like the saying that Andrew Wilkow has and it is perfect for this debate...

“Your right to be you...INCLUDES my right to be free FROM you”

And that the end of the story... If someone who owns a business does not want to provide services for a gay, Christian, Muslim etc...wedding or function they shouldn’t be made too....


16 posted on 03/01/2014 7:00:52 AM PST by polishprince
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
Whatever happened to”We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” and “No shoes, no shirt, no service”?

From the article:

So, we do not allow businesses to discriminate based on race -- and that's a good thing.

Even that, (and that's a good thing), is a matter of opinion. If a business wants to discriminate based on race, they probably won't be in business very long any way because the majority of the country is not racist. Only liberals of all races.

17 posted on 03/01/2014 7:29:18 AM PST by Graybeard58 (God is not the author of confusion. 1 Cor 13: 33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The more they push this issue, the madder I get at all of them.

Bad enough that they defy the laws of human reproduction & the laws of almost every religion on earth.

It is disgusting that I should have to support them in their freak life style.

This may all come to a bad ending for them.


18 posted on 03/01/2014 7:55:00 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Simply raise the price of a homo cake so high they won’t want to buy one!


19 posted on 03/01/2014 8:06:12 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Put together a group to go to a black owned business and request a KKK themed cake, flower arrangement, something like that. I’m sure they would be refused and then sue them over it and expose this for what it is. It’s time to use their tactics on them. They set their precedent and they should be confronted with it.


20 posted on 03/01/2014 8:08:27 AM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950

Same idea. Go to a muzzie caterer and request he cater a dog show and serve barbeque and pulled pork sandwiches. When he refuses take him to a court who has ruled against one of the christian businesses and see how quickly the definition of freedom of religious thought changes. We have to start fighting back using their tactics or its all over folks. We can longer just shrug and say oh well.


21 posted on 03/01/2014 8:21:42 AM PST by redangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

A business owner should reserve the right to kick out any male patron who feels that he can wear a dress and thus is entitled to enter the women’s restroom. The same owner should be able to kick out any male patron who attempt to solicit sex from a member of the same sex in the men’s restroom.

GLAD thinks differently on these issues. They want public washroom sex to be decriminalized since it “unfairly” exposes the homosexual community to scandal.


22 posted on 03/01/2014 9:24:55 AM PST by a fool in paradise (The Texas judge's decision was to pave the way for same sex divorce for two Massachusetts women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail little jeremiah or Responsibility2nd to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don’t ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

It's more than "acceptance". It's jack booted thuggism - taking away our Constitutional freedoms of speech, privacy, religion - and they want OUR children. It nothing but death and dominance.

23 posted on 03/01/2014 1:23:05 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

I would raise the regular price of cakes by 10 times and then give a 90% discount to straight couples.


24 posted on 03/01/2014 2:01:19 PM PST by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950
Put together a group to go to a black owned business and request a KKK themed cake, flower arrangement, something like that. I’m sure they would be refused and then sue them over it and expose this for what it is. It’s time to use their tactics on them. They set their precedent and they should be confronted with it.

This is a tempting tactic, sadly. Order pork barbecue from the kosher butcher, pork sausage from the halal grocery, a Confederate flag cake from a black baker, and then press suit when they refuse. It gets down to whether Christians would be conscientiously able to inflict "two wrongs that don't make a right" situation on innocent people in order to force a show trial. We are in an advanced psy-ops phase of our "cold civil war" that has been going on since the 60s. So are these tactics acceptable in war?

I read somewhere that in the Texas case that ended up with the SCOTUS overturning legal prohibition of homosexual behavior, the two homosexuals caught "in the act" actually staged the situation to get arrested for the express purpose of making a show trial.

25 posted on 03/01/2014 2:34:50 PM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I vigorously disagree with John about anti-discrmination based on race being good. It is still a violation of freedom; involuntary servitude.

People fail to understand that Jim Crow laws were government mandates on who private businesses could serve and how. The civil rights movement went to the opposite, just as perverse, extreme.

26 posted on 03/01/2014 2:37:47 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
Simply raise the price of a homo cake so high they won’t want to buy one!

Not a solution, because it would give the "reproductively-challenged" couples grounds to sue for discrimination if they could show that heterosexual couples received their cakes for less.

27 posted on 03/01/2014 2:44:05 PM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Charge the going price, but tell them you’re donating the entire proceeds to a pro-traditional-marriage/pro-traditional-morality organization of your choice. In their names. They may be able to tell you to make the cake. They have no right whatsoever to tell you what to do with your money.


28 posted on 03/01/2014 2:49:58 PM PST by RichInOC ("ARMAGEDDON!!!" *BOOM!* "And the rodents' red glare...gerbils bursting in air...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; All

So the 85% of the population who take their religious rights seriously should lose them to satisfy 1.2% of the population that is homosexual?

What is fair about that?


29 posted on 03/02/2014 7:48:26 AM PST by The Bat Lady (Primary Cornyn out! Go Dwyane Stovall!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is quite simply the result of the change in the definition of private property. It used to be that the privately owned business was considered strictly private property, then the “war on tobacco” changed it for businesses that offer access to the public. Now it is not strictly private, because they offer public access.

Dear FReepers that celebrated the victories that resulted from the tobacco wars, how does it feel now that the tyranny is advancing? You were warned.....


30 posted on 03/03/2014 8:54:22 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson