Forcing Christians to Supply Arranged Wedding Flowers for Homosexual Weddings or Go Out of Business

This is almost correct.

Isn't this like separate lunch counters for blacks and whites during segregation?

No. This case illustrates the difference between discriminating based on sexual preference and making decisions based on your beliefs about marriage. A policy refusing to serve gay people under any circumstances would be discrimination based on sexual preference. That would also be like segregated lunch counters. In this case, however, Arlene's Flowers had no such policy refusing to do business with gay people. In fact, they have employed gay people and had happily and knowingly served gay people for years without any claim of discrimination or hostility. However, this particular event was something they did not want to lend their artistic, professional services to because of their beliefs about what marriage is. You cannot have a policy refusing service to all Mexicans or Japanese people, but you cannot be compelled to do something you don't wish to do simply because the person asking is Mexican or Japanese.

Family Policy Institute of Washington - Washington's Voice for Families - Team Arlene's

Tom1

Tom Usher

What's wrong with that statement is equating homosexuality with race or ethnicity. Race and ethnicity are not choices. Someday maybe they will be, but right now, they're not. Homosexuality is a choice. It is not genetic very much if at all. It is certainly a choice at least for the vast, vast majority.

It has been elevated to a protected class based upon falsehoods spread about it by its adherents and those who were duped by them.

It is not a benign thing. It is fraught with risks that many have been masking, censoring, downplaying, etc. On the other hand, race and ethnicity are benign. There is nothing inborn in an entire race, nation, tribe, or clan of people making them (all their members) inherently worthy of racial or ethnic discrimination against their members.

Am I advocating for abusing, starving, etc., homosexuals? No, not at all. I am opposed to homosexual marriage and for a whole host of reasons. That said, I do my best not to coerce others. I simply try to say what I say, write what I write, and leave it to those who will hear and read to either grasp, or not, what I've said or written.

Before I leave this subject, let me make clear that I understand that the context of the linked material is the secular law. The secular law within certain jurisdictions, such as the State of Washington, is equating homosexuality with race or ethnicity. I'm not faulting the author of the linked material for that. I agree with the author's statement above provided what else I've written here is understood. I have qualified my agreement.

Let me also add that religious discrimination, per se, is also not genetically based. People do choose to be Christians or not. The reason religion is the first protected class in the US Constitution is a major historical story beyond the scope of this quick post.

Were homosexuality not so inherently dangerous and very often quite harmful, my views would be somewhat different. As I've mentioned before, it is amazing to me that humanity is devolving to the position that males sodomizing each other is viewed as wholesome and to be celebrated rather than roundly condemned, as it once was in the not too-distant past.

The religious aren't allowed to do just anything they want in the name of religious freedom. Rights are balanced. Homosexuality certainly should not automatically trump Christianity. That's been the current bad pattern of the secular governments and the new, but not finalized, worldview of so many people.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

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.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.