A Story of Courage: a Grandmother Who May Lose Her Home and Business for Not Serving a Gay Wedding

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
The government doesn’t get to define someone’s religion or what their religion requires of them. That was at issue in the Hosanna-Tabor case, wherein the government tried to define who could be a minister. The court ruled that it was not the government’s place to make that determination.

Now, in this case, the woman has not discriminated in providing services on the basis of sexual orientation. She has provided florist services to the men in question for a long time. What she objected to was providing her services for a same sex wedding–an event in which she cannot participate or accomodate according to her own religious beliefs. Up until 2012 she was free to act on her religious beliefs. But now the state says that same sex couples can act on their beliefs, but she cannot act on hers.
Click to expand...
I understand you, but the argument is not sound as it stands. What crosses the threshold of “religious belief”? Is it any belief, or must religious fact be in evidence? Can any religious belief (even religious fact) trump any legal restriction? Or will the state decide what is acceptable?

As to the the 2nd para, if she has not broken the law, there is not a problem.
 
Rau said:
I understand you, but the argument is not sound as it stands. What crosses the threshold of “religious belief”? Is it any belief, or must religious fact be in evidence? Can any religious belief (even religious fact) trump any legal restriction? Or will the state decide what is acceptable?.
Click to expand...
How would you decide that? By vote? Or does one choose what one believes?
 
Rau said:
But you realise that reasoning could be used to justify any and all otherwise unacceptable behavior?
Click to expand...
She isn’t demanding to kill him or castrate him. She just wants to be able to freely refuse the business. That’s obviously too much for you.
 
Brandall said:
She isn’t demanding to kill him or castrate him. She just wants to be able to freely refuse the business. That’s obviously too much for you.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. The basis of refusal could be arbitrary choice, or it can be codified in some reasonable way. Pure “belief” risks being indistinguishable from arbitrary. Would arbitrary be OK in your view?
 
Havard said:
Yes, it does. I don’t know her specific denomination, but she’s Christian. Tradition and scripture aren’t fuzzy about this.
Click to expand...
They are not fuzzy on the question of same sex marriage and sexual relations.

But what of the supply of hire cars, flowers etc by a business at such an event.
 
Rau said:
Is one free to believe anything, and have that as an unassailable defence before the law for one’s actions or inactions?
Click to expand...
Not selling flowers, that can be bought elsewhere is no harm and there is no damage other than hurt feelings.

My Church has been clear about what Jesus has defined as a valid marriage. Choosing not to be involved in that, even if it is selling the flowers, should be a protected right.

Though that might be hard to tell from the attitudes and opinions of those that are Catholic. The biggest enemy of the Church is within the Church.
 
Rau said:
No, it’s not. The basis of refusal could be arbitrary choice, or it can be codified in some reasonable way. Pure “belief” risks being indistinguishable from arbitrary. Would arbitrary be OK in your view?
Click to expand...
If it was against the law to provide flowers and she did it anyway because she thought that was the Christian thing to do, would that be a defense? Are all laws black-and-white and trump any religious rights?

Yes, indeed, arbitrary would be fine with me. If a Gay florist refused to provide flowers for a Catholic wedding, it wouldn’t bother me in the least. That should be their right. Particularly when the Catholic wedding would have other choices. We’re not talking about medical treatment where it is a life or death situation. We aren’t talking about products that can’t be procured otherwise. There is no reason someone should be legally compelled to provide this service or face the brunt force of law and the Gay community.

btw, if it was a white straight male being refused service, would anyone care?
 
Brandall said:
Not selling flowers, that can be bought elsewhere is no harm and there is no damage other than hurt feelings.
Click to expand...
Would you have been one of those in the 50’s and 60’s that said restaurant owners should be able to refuse service to blacks? After all, they could go elsewhere too.

Those restaurant owners ended up being coerced by government to go against their beliefs just as much the bakers and florists of today.

The Civil Rights Act and other legislation took away the right in most cases to discriminate based on race. Now the law is evolving to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I guess it all comes down to what discrimination you feel is justified.
 
Rau said:
They are not fuzzy on the question of same sex marriage and sexual relations.

But what of the supply of hire cars, flowers etc by a business at such an event.
Click to expand...
Some might suggest that whether or not to provide those items, for fee, would be up to the provider and others would say that would be up to the government. Since government does nothing well, it doesn’t seem a good idea to give it more power.
 
cycleman said:
Would you have been one of those in the 50’s and 60’s that said restaurant owners should be able to refuse service to blacks? After all, they could go elsewhere too.

Those restaurant owners ended up being coerced by government to go against their beliefs just as much the bakers and florists of today.

The Civil Rights Act and other legislation took away the right in most cases to discriminate based on race. Now the law is evolving to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I guess it all comes down to what discrimination you feel is justified.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to engage in a conversation that attempts to equate gay marriage with the civil rights of blacks.
 
Brandall said:
Not selling flowers, that can be bought elsewhere is no harm and there is no damage other than hurt feelings.
Click to expand...
I broadly agree.
My Church has been clear about what my Jesus has defined as a valid marriage. Choosing not to be involved in that, even if it is selling the flowers, should be a protected right.
Click to expand...
This introduces some religious fact into the basis of refusal.

The State created a bind for itself when it decided to endorse same sex marriage, when it decided that opposition to same sex marriage was akin to racial discrimination, that is, an act counter to “civil rights”, (even human rights according to some), an act of bigotry. Given the path the State chose to tread (which was a failure to recognise and adhere to reality), how could it explain a decision to protect an interracial couple from discrimination but not a same sex couple? Protected rights on religious grounds is a reasonable provision of the law, but I think there needs to be religious fact in evidence.
 
Brandall said:
I’m not going to engage in a conversation that attempts to equate gay marriage with the civil rights of blacks.
Click to expand...
Why not? It’s not an issue of racism vs. homophobia, it’s an issue of what power the government should have to demand equal treatment for a class of people.
 
Brandall said:
Yes, indeed, arbitrary [ie. An arbitrary basis to refuse service] would be fine with me.
Click to expand...
The problem with “arbitrary” reasons is that it legally gives permission to deny service to anyone who fits into any of the other categories named in anti-discrimination law. So to implement your “arbitrary right” (rather than a bona-fide religious protection), you need to repeal all the anti-discrimination protections (ie. Racial, religious, etc, etc.) Your post suggests that would be OK with you - that would be consistent with giving the individual the greatest freedom with minimum governmemt interference.
 
Sunbreak said:
I think there’s some sort of protection needed so that discrimination doesn’t refer to things such as this. In other words, there needs to be a distinction in the law between refusing to do any business with gay people as opposed to refusing to participate in gay weddings. In this woman’s case, she did not discriminate against the person based on him being gay as he was a long time customer, but only didn’t want to participate in a gay wedding which was against her beliefs.
Click to expand...
Yes. If the government were using any logic or common sense with regard to these cases, this would be a very sensible distinction to make.
JimG said:
That’s exactly the point. She never discriminated against him because of his sexual orientation. But she did object to being involved in a same sex marriage because it went against her religious views.

To give an extreme example, she might have provided flowers for some man that she knew had racist views. But if he asked her to prepare flowers for a KKK rally, she would surely decline.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It boggles the mind that people cannot (or will not) see the difference between discriminating against someone because of their “sexual orientation” and declining to provide services for an event that goes against their beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top