No it wouldn’t…
You are saying that only painters, sculptors and musician types have this issue?
On the contrary. Most of the time the ACLU defends citizens to protect their First Amendment rights.
Or forcing a customer to bend to her way of thinking?
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” seems to be Christ’s guidelines.
Oh, you can have a plain white undecorated cake for your wedding; I’ll do that much. But I won’t use any artistic talent or deliver it in any way.
What exactly is the message here?
I will give you my opinion,
I am starting to believe that discrimination (of any kind) is a tool used by Satan to keep peoples divided and fighting. He utilizes weak, vulnerable, sometimes sick minds to do his job. He knows that if people remain disunited it will have “grave consequences,” and he will actually be the winner!
It appears that some people have no problem working for the “other kingdom.” They may be in collusion" with the enemy - kind of a popular thing nowadays…
WOW! This is news to me! May I ask you where did you get the facts about this?
Why not? Their religious beliefs include not working with people with other skin colors. Since they believe that people of different races should be segregated, due to their inherent unchangeable differences, and so for example selling a home to a black person in a white neighborhood would be morally wrong, then it’s all fine, right?
So when you go to a restaurant and the chef looks you over and finds out you’re [gay, promiscuous, Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, Communist, a killer, or whatever: fill in the blank] and says he can’t cook you a meal, his art, because he disagrees with your lifestyle that thinks you’re immoral, that’s OK right? I mean, after all, you can always eat somewhere else.
The San Francisco Symphony’s head conductor for many years was an Adventist. For some reason, he never asked gay people to not attend his performances, even though presumably he didn’t approve of their relationships. That, to me, seems perfectly normal and correct and outside of the context of this discussion not even worth a mention.
These episodes where Christians refuse to offer services to gay people make Christians look small minded and petty - because they are being small minded and petty.
If their belief system really does support their behavior then their belief system is small minded and petty and not worth adherence.
I recognize that they have provided a very valuable service to Americans. But, in this case I think they have over-reached in the area of a person’s right to not be forced to compromise their religeous conscience (as in the case of the baker and the florist). In those two cases I see a clear hostility (offensive position) toward a person’s religious rights.
There has to be an equitable solution where everyone wins. The challenge is to find it.
Please don’t be alarmed George. I haven’t fallen off the deep end (yet) .
You and Harrpa were right to call me out and I appreciate it. I shouldn’t have made such a broad brush statement. Yes, it was a little over the top. Okay, maybe a lot. Like I said to Harrpa, I was thinking more in terms of the seeming hostility to a person’s religeous convictions as referenced in the Seattle times article. I realize the argument from the other side then becomes, “what about the seeming hostility toward the gay couple”. There has to be an equitable answer (should we call Trump?). I’m all for finding a gray solution that we can all live with, black and white doesn’t seem to be working.
Seattle Times Article: "But they did find that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was hostile to the baker’s religion in that instance.
Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom, who’s representing Stutzman, said Washington’s government has been openly hostile to her client’s religious beliefs and the Colorado decision shows there’s no place for that in society.
“We are asking the Washington Supreme Court to affirm that in this case,” she said in a statement.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is representing the couple Stutzman refused."
There is no gray solution! No Biblical support. The Golden Rule is not gray, do you want to be discriminated against when you seek discrimination against others.
It’s just that a majority of society have been hostile to the personhood of Stultzman’s customers for decades. This was just one more instance.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God."
I feel you are correct. In recent years ACLU has primarily acted against traditional conservative views.
A challenge might be to name how many conservative religious or other conservative causes ACLU has defended in the last 5 yrs.
The only equitable position/solution is to name the religious rights under the 1st amendment that are protected under a bill like HR5. So they dont create a litigation nightmare profitible only to attorneys.
The issue also is not what some feel this individual should do or not do but what she is comfortable with regarding her religious beliefs. There definitely are other florist and bakers.
This depends how you define “conservative Christian” views.
Do a Google search with “ACLU” and “Adventist” and see the cases of Adventists, including students, whose cases the ACLU has defended in court.
How about Baptist, Presbyterians and other Christians?
If the help 7th day keepers all is well in the world.
Check it out! If they are having issues with the First Amendment, no doubt the ACLU could be defending them in court.
The marriage of a man and woman is a sacred institution. It received it’s magnified and enhanced meaning from the scriptures. It’s a picture of the marriage between Christ and His Church and between the Lamb and the Heavenly Jerusalem. Eve (not Steve) was created from Adam and the two became one flesh.
Therein lies the rub. If you can’t see where the other side (biblical view) is coming from there will never be a solution.
Houston, we have an impasse!!!
Consider the conservative pac’s that were denied “tax exemption” due to their political and religious views. Were they never correct and worthy of protection? Wonder how many amicus briefs they filed?