A timid court, and an uncertain future for religious freedom (pt. 1)When you open a business you have to take care of every customer. Period. If they don’t want to do that then they shouldn’t be in business. Would it be okay to refuse a black person because the Bible says it is okay? Would it be okay to refuse a Muslim or a Jew? Why do they think that they can pick and chose which customer to serve?
The Christian Post
By Rick Plasterer, CP Op-Ed Contributor
July 15, 2021
The loss of the long-running case involving Barronnelle Stutzman of Washington State, a great-grandmother and proprietor of Arlene’s Flowers, should be cause for both alarm and resolve among committed Christians. In 2014 she declined to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding involving a long-time friend and customer.
Without an initial compliant, the Attorney General of Washington and later the ACLU sued both her business and also Stutzman in her personal capacity. Despite two appeals to the Supreme Court, each after a loss in the Washington State Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court finally declined to take her case on July 2. This leaves her with attorney’s fees for the other side which could close her business and take her personal assets.
Cases involving the clash of religious freedom and the sexual revolution, in which Christians are required to facilitate sinful behavior or express ideas that they believe are wrong have gone from uniform losses when they first appeared early in this century to mixed results in the late 2010s. A rapid review of important cases and decisions follows in this article, and assessment of the proper response to the current situation in the next.
One of the commenters hit the nail right on its head…
Baronelle Stutzman's legal team, the Alliance Defending Freedom, advocates for criminalizing homosexuality in the United States. They've provided free legal support to anti-gay groups seeking the same in Jamaica, Belize, and Brazil.What will happen if they violate someone else’s religious beliefs? Who beliefs win out? Do you need to be a member of an organized religion or can it be just your own beliefs?
This was never about flowers.
Picture this scenario…
You see a homeless people in the park and you offer to buy them Happy Meals from McDonald’s, then you get arrested for feeding the homeless people in the park because there is a city ordinance against feeding homeless people there. You plea not guilty because it violates you deeply held moral beliefs that no one should go hungry. You are not a religious person but you belief that it is morally wrong to let anyone starve. Does the Religious Freedom Act protect you from arrest?
Then Fox News had this to say,
SCOTUS decision on refusing service to same-sex couple was 'devastating,' Christian florist saysOkay lets stop for awhile and look what she said, “Amid the adverse ruling, the 76-year-old grandmother is standing by her convictions and faith in God.” The ruling didn’t go the way that the Christians wanted, they wanted to be able to discriminate against people but the court said that is wrong. Did they ever stop and think maybe God wanted that ruling because God is telling them that it is wrong to discriminate against people?
Barronelle Stutzman stands by her strong faith in God despite setback
By Sam Dorman
July 15, 2021
Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman is encouraging others to maintain their faith in God as she deals with the fallout of what she described as a "devastating" decision by the Supreme Court.
[…]
Amid the adverse ruling, the 76-year-old grandmother is standing by her convictions and faith in God.
"Sure, I want to win, and yes, I want everything to go smooth, but He doesn’t promise that," she said. "He just says be obedient and be faithful, and that’s what we’re supposed to do. I mean, it’s just a trust level all the way around. If you don’t trust in God’s word, then you don’t have anything to trust in."
The courts are opening a big, big can-of-worms when they delve into religion and the First Amendment. One nation, one law.
Diana,
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the religious argument goes deeper than what is discussed in the various public forums. A strict reading of the Bible says that two people of the same sex should not have intimate relations. (The bible doesn't speak to actually being homosexual as being sinful.) Jesus on several occasions says we should not judge others unless we are without sin (which we aren't). The problem comes about for these people who refuse service because they first must judge the couple to be committing the sin of having sex with each other. While it may be true in most cases, one cannot assume that it is and doing so is unchristian. So in claiming that serving is a violation of their religious beliefs, their Bible instructs them that to do so is to violate another (more fundamental?) belief. For that reason, their claims should not hold up in a court of law should they decide to bring it there.
Leann