Social foo:Musing on wedding cakes and Christian ethics

[stryck]

I suspect that just about anybody who might read this is already familiar with the people forced to bake cakes and take pictures for gay marriages, and the bills in Kansas and Arkansas designed to prevent that kind of coercion in those states

Comments

[prester_scott]

I think the "live and let live" advice needs to be tempered by the fact that these gay marriage fights frequently are purposely picked by those with an activist, revolutionary mindset. They do not want to coexist; they want to subjugate all opposition, and will employ any means they dare, including the power of the state. That is a very different situation than Christians eating meat that just happens to be sacrificed to dumb idols. It is closer to Christians being compelled to offer a pinch of incense to Divus Caesar. Such assaults should be resisted by all lawful, ethical and effective means.

Just to be clear, Christians are not called to adopt such revolutionary tactics themselves. You are not loving your neighbor very well if you persecute him for believing differently than you but otherwise minding his own business. But there are not a whole lot of Christians doing that these days.

[stryck]

True. This whole musing is more theoretical than practical, I'm afraid. The practical matter is that progressivism is a jealous creed, so giving an inch may mean losing much more than that.

I am mindful that we do not suffer as much here in the United States as the martyrs in Syria and Egypt do, but the struggle is still a real one.

[stryck]

Thinking a bit more, the LGBT causes were originally sold as "we want to be able to do our own thing without being arrested or beaten by thugs for it," which is reasonable enough. The problem is that now, any balking at their agenda is treated as endorsement for arrests and beatings.

For a while, I had someone on my twitter feed who is a very strong liberal but seemed pretty reasonable in discussion about most things. But every once in a while, they'd link to an article talking about how many transexual/gay/etc people have been killed, and how shocking that is, when, statistically, it looked like it fell within a normal bell curve. The articles sold it as "killed because they were queer!" without the evidence to back it up. I can't help but sigh over that, because it means that discussions come down to "but people who don't like us want to KILL us."

And once they had to gall to tell me that grumping because some people dislike me for being Christian (and against gay marriage) was insensitive because gays are a persecuted group.

[fatcook]

Common sense and logic are rarely, if ever used in these situations. I hold up Arizona SB1062, which even now is headed for the governor. It is one of the most insane things to come out of our Ledg in YEARS. And yes, I hold it up against 1070 and ... whatever the thing was when they tried to outlaw California.

[stryck]

Text of the Arizona bill: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.htm

I.. really don't see the problem. It says that government zoning and tax regulations can't impose an undue burden to the exercise of religion, and that if government regulation is necessary, it should be kept to the least restrictive standard.

[fatcook]

That's not how it's being read.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140224brewer-pressed-veto-sb.html

[stryck]

Well, no, it's not. According to the article you linked, even, the backtracking isn't because they changed their minds. It's because so many people kicked up a fuss over such a minor change. Religious protection is already Arizona law.

I notice that that article doesn't say what the bill does, only that a lot of people don't like it. I'm willing to bet most of the people angrily talking about it haven't read the text of the bill themselves and are relying on other people's interpretations of it.

It reminds me of the Focus on the Family Superbowl commercial controversy a couple years back. A week of outrage leading up to.. a thoroughly bland, kind of goofy message. None of the sources I could find condemning the commercial had actually seen it, while the TV execs who said it was fine had. The TV execs were right.

[aefenglommung]

The issue I wrestle with is, to what extent can anyone offering goods and services for sale refuse someone else's business, and for what reasons?

It seems to me that selling things cannot depend upon whether I like you or your views or whatever. If I'm selling baked goods, I can't refuse to sell you some. If I'm selling food in a restaurant, I can't refuse to serve you, so long as you're dressed decently (shoes, shirts, etc.) and not making a ruckus. Being "open for business" means being open to everyone

[stryck]

If we were all interested in just getting along, the best thing would be to say, "Sorry, just can't do it, but I know another person who can," and recommend another shop. The reason why wouldn't particularly matter.

Sadly, the reason why matters to some people, and matters enough to not just sue in civil court, but to seek criminal penalty for it. That's what's so bizarre about all of this.