Excluding Farmer's Market Vendor for Refusing to Host Same-Sex Weddings

[stevil]

And that is the point. Don't force your beliefs upon me or my church. Go get married elsewhere.

No one is forcing any religious organisation to perform their organisation's rituals on anyone. Most people don't care about these rituals, they are unnecessary for a wedding.

But we aren't talking about a religious organisation here. We are talking about a citizen offering a service to the general public.

 

[Hank77]

Do an internet search "christians deny gays bed and breakfast"

Thanks, I Googled this but I didn't find anything more recent than 2018/19.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed a defeat on Monday to a bed and breakfast owner in Hawaii who turned away a lesbian couple due to her Christian beliefs,

U.S. top court hands defeat to Hawaii B&B that spurned lesbian couple

The U.S. Supreme Court handed a defeat on Monday to a bed and breakfast owner in Hawaii who turned away a lesbian couple due to her Christian beliefs, but it could soon take up another major case on the conflict between gay and religious rights.

www.reuters.com

 

[Pommer]

The confusion lies with the church which no longer teaches the cross through symbols.

Have you considered that Jesus said not to take vows, yet in marriage they take a vow? It is because originally, they were not taking a vow. They were on stage playing the role of Christ and the church. It was preaching the cross through symbols. Christ gave himself for his bride, the church, and his bride obeys and learns from Christ.

A male-male marriage declares men to be equal to God.
A female-female marriage signified that Christ was just a man.

I am happy to perform gay weddings: We are gathered here together to celebrate that these two are in complete rebellion against God according to the ancient symbols of marriage. A proper marriage declares that Christ died for the church who is now bound to him in one flesh. They are fruitful by the fruit of the Spirit and multiplying by teaching. This is at least the second time they have preached the cross through symbols, the first being their baptisms where they declared that they have submitted to the Word of God represented by water and put to death their old natures, and are now living in a new life in the Spirit, having been raised into the air. These have chosen to declare good and evil for themselves, making themselves to be false gods. Let's have cake.

Asking a business to do things that they oppose is asking them to paint a pentagram on their door. Marriage is not just a churchy sentimentality. It is the preaching of the cross, which is the heart of the church.

But it is not hate. When you ask me what is 2+2, I cannot say 5. The haters want to force us to say things that are not true. I will not come into your temple and force you to have a Christian marriage. Nor will I ask that you put symbols of my faith in your business. It is called simple courtesy.

Thank you, I enjoyed reading this.

I think that the imposition of wedging the Christ motif into a wedding (though an ancient teaching) misguides us as to what we see “marriage” as in the here-and-now.

Christianity, (or any other system of belief that has real-world implications for otherwise separate and secular functions), is going to impose its theological “truths” upon adherents, without those tenets being foisted upon non adherents.

I would not therefore, expect a Christian church to be made to do marriages that fall outside the scope of how that church defines and condones “marriage”.

 

[shadowhunter]

No one is forcing any religious organisation to perform their organisation's rituals on anyone. Most people don't care about these rituals, they are unnecessary for a wedding.

But we aren't talking about a religious organisation here. We are talking about a citizen offering a service to the general public.

I may offer to pump your septic tank... But if your religious cult expects me to do it naked at your nudist camp, I will refuse. In any offer of service there is an inherent right to refuse service, particularly if it offends your own sensibilities.

Now many want to say that I am guilty of something if I say something, even with no malice intended, that offends someone else. The offended person has become an 'ex post facto' law, defining a crime after it happened.

Your request for whatever, if it offends me, breaks the law according to that standard. Which way do you want it? The freedom for me to simply refuse service, or should I press charges that you have offended me in the request?

An organization is a collection of individuals. The tactic is divide and conquer. You get no traction there.

 

[stevil]

Which way do you want it? The freedom for me to simply refuse service, or should I press charges that you have offended me in the request?

I want anti-discrimination laws. So that a person, not matter what age, what religion or non religion, what race, what culture, what skin colour, what gender, what sexual orientation, what wealth status etc are allowed to purchase goods and services that are publicly offered.

 

[Pommer]

I want anti-discrimination laws. So that a person, not matter what age, what religion or non religion, what race, what culture, what skin colour, what gender, what sexual orientation, what wealth status etc are allowed to purchase goods and services that are publicly offered.

You (as a Kiwi) have to remember that the good ol’ USA has that pesky 1st Amendment that allows for the “free-exercise” of religion within the public-sphere, which seems to have been the basis for the instant ruling.
While I find myself morally at odds with the ruling I can see the validity of it legally.

Discordant public/private policies are to be expected and lived with.
C’est la vie, and like that.

 

[stevil]

You (as a Kiwi) have to remember that the good ol’ USA has that pesky 1st Amendment that allows for the “free-exercise” of religion within the public-sphere, which seems to have been the basis for the instant ruling.
While I find myself morally at odds with the ruling I can see the validity of it legally.

Discordant public/private policies are to be expected and lived with.
C’est la vie, and like that.

In NZ we also support freedom of autonomy. We just don't go to the extremes USA does to try and pretend they are the only country that promotes autonomy of citizenry. In fact we are often ahead of USA in terms of providing our citizens freedoms.

In NZ we don't force religious organisations to perform their organisations rituals on anyone.
But we have laws such that citizens should be free from discrimination in the public sphere.

 

[RileyG]

People, especially people who don't believe in your religion, don't want salvation, and don't want your blessing or approval.
But if you are offering a service to the general public, they might want to pay you for that service.

You're absolutely right. Likewise, religious people don't want secularism forced upon them.

Religion is not about rules. It's about a relationship that affects our entire lives. They have a right to say no.

 

[RileyG]

There absolutely is hate. Describing trans people as "groomers" is hate. The derision and contempt directed towards trans people, including by long-time members and staff of this board, is hateful.

Nope. There is no hate. Just because someone doesn't accept trans ideology does not make one hateful. Period.

 

[stevil]

You're absolutely right. Likewise, religious people don't want secularism forced upon them.

Religion is not about rules. It's about a relationship that affects our entire lives. They have a right to say no.

Religious people don't have to attend weddings as guests, they don't have to buy the wedding couple a gift or say congratulations, they don't have to be themselves married into a Same Sex marriage and they don't have to have their church perform Same Sex Marriages. They don't have to proclaim that Same Sex Marriage is OK.

But if they are offering services to the public, like creating and selling wedding cakes, or providing a wedding venue then they aren't allowed to discriminate. (or at least, they shouldn't be allowed to)

An alternative (if they must discriminate) would be for them to work for a religious organisation and only provide the service for members of their exclusive organisation.

 

[RileyG]

Religious people don't have to attend weddings as guests, they don't have to buy the wedding couple a gift or say congratulations, they don't have to be themselves married into a Same Sex marriage and they don't have to have their church perform Same Sex Marriages. They don't have to proclaim that Same Sex Marriage is OK.

But if they are offering services to the public, like creating and selling wedding cakes, or providing a wedding venue then they aren't allowed to discriminate.

An alternative (if they must discriminate) would be for them to work for a religious organisation and only provide the service for members of their exclusive organisation.

Nope. Businesses have a right to refuse to anyone. Anyone. No questions asked. Period.

 

[RileyG]

The owner of the vendor is a Christian. They do not agree with same-sex weddings. It's THEIR right to say no and follow their conscience. Period.

 

[stevil]

Nope. Businesses have a right to refuse to anyone. Anyone. No questions asked. Period.

No, there are such things as anti-discrimination laws

 

[RileyG]

No, there are such things as anti-discrimination laws

Not agreeing with an event and refusing to host an event is not discrimination.

 

[Hank77]

But if they are offering services to the public, like creating and selling wedding cakes, or providing a wedding venue then they aren't allowed to discriminate. (or at least, they shouldn't be allowed to)

Less than 1/2 of the states have public accommodation laws for sexual orientation or gender identity and there isn't any federal law either.

Alaska had them but conservatives changed that.

https://www.lgbtmap.org/img/maps/citations-nondisc-public-accom.pdf

How often have you heard about any of this in red states?

 

[stevil]

Not agreeing with an event and refusing to host an event is not discrimination.

Refusing to host weddings for gay people is discrimination.

 

[RileyG]

Refusing to host weddings for gay people is discrimination.

Not because they were gay, because the vendor doesn't agree with the event that occurs. It's their right.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The owner of the vendor is a Christian. They do not agree with same-sex weddings. It's THEIR right to say no and follow their conscience. Period.

And if someone has a religious basis for calling non-whites sub-human, is it ok that they deny blacks services? Is it ok to refuse to host interracial marriages?

No, you don't have a right to refuse anyone for any reason. The courts in the US have found (until they decide to invalidate their own previous rulings) that you don't have this right.

You may think that this ought to be a right. But rights are only that which society grants. And society has not, as yet, granted the right to discriminate for any and all possible reasons.

 

[stevil]

Not because they were gay, because the vendor doesn't agree with the event that occurs. It's their right.

Not if they are selling hosting functions to the public. Hosting weddings.

 

[Pommer]

Not because they were gay, because the vendor doesn't agree with the event that occurs. It's their right.

Whether I forget my umbrella or whether I get weather on me because I couldn’t get my bumpershoot to open, I’ll be wet.

The person that is seeking to hold the event that the other person won’t host, is still looking for a venue to hold it.