Many Christians think they can bring their faith into their business to the point of refusing to serve certain groups of people they disagree with morally. There have been a flurry of lawsuits against; bakers, photographers, bed ‘n breakfasts, wedding consultants by homosexuals pleading their case they are being discriminated against. In a sense, I agree with the homosexuals that they are being discriminated against. But, many questions are begged by these scenarios: 1. “Do we have to actually participate in ceremonies, or rituals that violate our conscience as Christians? 2. “Do Christians that serve the public in general with a money making business, expect all the public to be holy as they are holy?” If not, why do they only choose to not serve the homosexual couple who is getting married? 3. What about the heterosexual couple who has been fornicating and decides it’s time to marry because they are pregnant? Do the bakery owners say, wait a minute, I can’t in good conscience serve you because you are pregnant out of wedlock, we don’t serve fornicators. 4. Are the business owners that agree with the homosexual lifestyle or actually homosexuals just as willing to serve customers who are not in agreement? 5. When did judging or discriminating against immoral practices become a crime in America? 6. Are there any limits to discrimination against discrimination? 7. Who has the moral high ground to make determinations what is right or wrong?
In this article, I would like to look at some differing perspectives and ask ourselves would we actually expect them morally or logically to ‘serve’ the customer.
The first example I’d like to give is a Gentile who desires to have smoked pulled pork served at his wedding gathering of 500 family and friends. He goes to the local Jewish Kosher meat market and attempts to place his order. The owner of the business looks at him in horror and exclaims, “Sir, we are a kosher market. Our religion forbids us to even touch swine, much less cook it and serve it to you.” The enraged customer curses the shop owner, finds a lawyer, and begins the effort to bring that business to it’s financial ruin because of it’s refusal to serve swine at his very important event. The Jewish religion for thousands of years has taught against the handling of pork, bat, ostrich, and other forms of meat which they will not even touch. How can they be forced to process something that so intrinsically goes against their faith?
The next scenario is a professing Christian woman who goes into an Islamic burka market. She would like a nice pink polka dotted bikini for her trip to Panama City Beach for spring break. When she gets into the store she notices that there are very few colors of anything and there are just no bikinis stocked anywhere. All she sees are rows and rows of very neatly ironed burkas in three differing colors. She seeks help from the woman at the counter as to why the store doesn’t stock two piece bikinis. The burka clad woman isn’t able to express her facial expression of disgust to the bikini seeker. Her religion requires her to cover even her face as an expression of her modesty toward Allah, all the adherents of her religion, and an example even to the infidel. The lady at the counter begins to explain, “We don’t sell bikinis here as we believe them to be immodest and not what god(allah) wants us to do. “Really!!! You have got to be kidding me!”, retorts the infuriated woman. She is red faced, embarrassed, and in her heart is desiring to seek vengeance against the shop owner. As the professor of Christ runs out of the store she begins to formulate her strategy. “I will get a good ‘Christian’ lawyer. We will sue the burkas off the business owners who are so judgmental and discriminatory against me!” In a country that professes to have freedom of religion, why is the Muslim woman possibly forced to stock and sell something to a customer who they are not even in the market for.
In another setting, we have an American patriot who owns a gun store where he legally trades in guns and ammunition even carrying assault rifles which can be modified to make them fully automatic which is perfectly legal under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He has grown up in his community all of his life and is an upstanding lawful citizen of that community. Recently a group of anarchists have moved into the county doing weapons training openly and recruiting people to their cause. They approach him to sell them weapons which he understands would lead them to greater fire power. This according to their own literature will lead to the eventual overthrow of the government. Of course, he refuses to sell them the weapons and he is quickly served a subpoena to appear in civil court on charges of judging and discriminating against the group being a hateful gun shop owner who will not distribute weapons to a professed group of anti government rebels. The judge carefully considers the matter and rules in the anarchist’s favor ignoring all the warnings of the preponderance of the evidence in support of the gun shop owner.
Lastly, in the not too distant future there was a strong Christian family of nine who loved the Lord Jesus Christ and sought to serve Him in every way. The lived their lives in peace with all men as much as possible with them. They paid their taxes and obeyed all the laws of the land. They home schooled their families primarily because the Holy Bible teaches that the parents are responsible to train up the children in the way they should go. They also understood the propensity in the public school environment of all the violence, poor instructional standards, bullying, drugs, and teen sexual pressures from which they were interested in protecting their children. In the course of time, a known pedophile moves into the area. He approaches the family to provide tutelage and child care services to the couple. The mother and father are immediately alarmed by the known history of the sexual predator and politely refuse his ‘service’ citing his criminal history. He is quickly offended saying he has been reformed by the penal system which he was just released from. “Why won’t you give me a chance with your children!”, he screams running out of their home. He threatens to sue the family for personal damages discriminating and judging him which is causing him harm, preventing current and future employment.
Are businesses that serve the general public required to give services to anyone no matter what their behaviors or lifestyles? What would you do in these scenarios? These are moral dilemma’s for the business owners and parents that they should not be forced to submit their businesses or families to choose between. The problem of course is the root of it all which is sin. The homosexuals as a group decry intolerance and yet are very intolerant of true Christian worldviews which expose their sexual immorality as sin. Thus, they intolerantly pursue legal claims in order to force the owners of the businesses to do their will when they very well could go to dozens or scores of other businesses which even desire to serve that group of clientele. We as Christians must let the world know regularly that the God of the Bible condemns all sins including this most flagrant one of homosexuality.
I want to for a moment be an advocate for the homosexual views in this matter. If you desire to make a standard of not serving people because they are in homosexuality, then you must recognize that most everyone coming into your shop is in some kind of sin. To be consistent we would have to refuse service to most people. First question when a customer enters the door, “Good morning, are you in any kind of sin? We don’t serve sinners here.” In fact, most ‘Christians’ I speak with will say illogical things like, “We are all sinners, we sin everyday.” If that is the case then we couldn’t serve most ‘believers’ in America today. If we want to be consistent with the ‘Serve No Sinner’ business policy we must turn away most of our customers. I think many well meaning Christian business owners make this poorly judged mistake of discriminating against one particular group of homosexual sinners because we know it is a very serious sin.
I would like to offer what is a consistent Christians strategy to help these business owners and all true Christians who are obviously being targeted by the homosexual agenda. My suggestions are to serve the homosexuals in regards to cakes, photography, bed & breakfast, wedding planning, etc. But, at every opportunity share your faith with them, call them to repentance of their wickedness including homosexuality, faith in Christ, and be born again of the Holy Spirit. Leave Gospel tracts everywhere you go when you are serving them. Here are some of my favorites. Good Gospel Tracts Ensure that every opportunity is given as a chance to glorify Jesus.
Instead of saying,” I am sorry I can’t serve you because you are homosexual.” Say, “I am willing to serve you but to be fair to you I am a very out of the closet Christian, who shares my faith calling people to repent from sin and trust Jesus. Do you know that homosexuals as well as all other sinners will end up in a lake of fire and torment as Jesus Christ taught? Do you know that God is an equal opportunity condemner and an equal opportunity forgiver?” Make sure you record any and all interactions at least with audio that no false accusations may be made against you. If you actually make it to the ‘gay-la’ event it would be a great opportunity to open air preach to the whole lot of the homosexual supporters to include the happy couple. I know this sounds pretty radical, but to be salt and light in this wicked generation it will take some seriously radical saints of the Most High God. I doubt that your services would be desired even after the first communication/correspondence. But, even if you had to go all the way through the process, you are blameless as you have done it to glorify Jesus. I know that if Christians would just stand up for the truth of Jesus Christ and actually speak those truths, the Lord will protect and bless you. However, even if your bold faith costs you everything in this life to include your business, your customers, your friends, your family, and dare I say it, even your life, isn’t He worthy of it? The world and the devils want you to compromise your faith even to the point that you even deny Jesus Christ, Himself. Who will you serve, God or money? Would you sacrifice your business, your customers, your friends, your family, and even your life on the altar of the Father’s business? Will you seek and save that which is lost by telling them to turn from their sin and surrender to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?
Christian man denied service by a series of pro homosexual bakeries who will not bake a pro traditional marriage cake. CAUTION: Explicit language due to hard condition of the sinner’s hearts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJaroR_qTNs
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLWvoaHMMRY]
PLEASE SHARE ON SOCIAL MEDIAS AND ENCOURAGE COMMENTING ON THE BLOG. THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND FEEDBACK.
I have often wondered what happened to the signs that say, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”? Or one about the signs that say, “No shirt, no shoes, no service.”? Does a business owner actually have no rights on determining whom they will and will not serve?
This is a great article, brother, and I believe the strategy that you have laid out is by far the most effective, certainly more so then denying service in terms of reaching loss sinners. I’m just curious as to what the legal grounds are that judges are using to override the business owners rights to refuse service.
I believe it has started legally with the grounds of refusing service in public accommodations due to race or creed. Because the homosexual activists have targeted this area of law we now see all areas of commerce and culture being influenced politically and legally. Here is part of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Now we see ‘sexual orientation or preference’ being added into corporate business ethics training albeit I am unsure if the federal code is saying this yet. It seems they are attacking the issue from the ground up so that everyone is asking the question, ‘Why don’t we have federal statutes to protect our homosexual friends and family members.’ I will look more into that area and let you know soonest the history I can find out. Blessings to you both. Thanks for commenting. Please share far and wide.
Very good article, as this country slips more and more into sinfulness, we as true Christians must take a stand against ALL sin, so many want to be selective in what sins they call out, while living in a different type of sin. The fact is this, when the “Pastors” in the “Church” are forced to perform homosexual marriages what will they do, and how will they stand against one sin and and NOT take a stand against other sins.?
I think the difference in my opinion comes because to most Christians homosexuality is a challenge to the standard of marriage and family that has been intact in most areas of our country. Not a Christian standard or a requirement or a moral ‘agenda’ just this is how it’s always been done sort of thing. Living together out of wedlock, having a baby without being married, and other such things have been mostly normalized without a great deal of public outcry because they were not trying to push for anything from the rest of society. It has just came alongside traditional marriage as an option. The LGBT (etc) community has pushed to be recognized and equal and to be accepted etc. secular sources in very recent years put the actual number of this community at only 3% of US citizens, I am sure there are far more than that in unmarried unions or having kids outside of marriage.
I agree with your premise. Sin is sin, one should not bash gay folk than go stuff themselves at a buffet or stare lustfully at ladies in the gym or on a beach. I am just stating why I think most ‘Christian’ businesses are more anti-gay than say anti-single teen mom for example. Both are a choice but the girl with a baby and no ring probably will not have a bumper sticker etc about it.
I do know several believers who do take these other groups to task though. For example landlords who rent only to couples that are married and so on. Yes they will one day be challenged in court, they know that but continue following their conscience. It is the day we live in and we must stand for what we believe in every aspect of our life. The Muslim shopkeeper has his prayer rug there for all to see, the Buddhist restaurant owner has a little shrine with candles and food, and we too must stand firm irregardless of who we offend.
Really great points James! Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Thanks for your thoughts James! I appreciate your time to write them. May the Lord bless you!
Your problem with this article, John, is that your examples are 100% incorrect. You can’t sue a company that doesn’t sell what you want. That’s not how the laws of commerce work, which you obviously don’t have a grasp on.
It would be like a Japanese man suing Long John Silvers for not serving sushi.
Your missed my real argument because of my hyperbolic arguments. My real argument is that Christians should serve the homosexuals, did you miss that part of the article? I also point out the hypocrisy of the same people who will serve sexually active heterosexuals who are known as fornicators in the Bible. They should have the same treatment the homosexual community is receiving IF they were consistent to their ideology. My secondary argument is that IF Christians would not be ashamed of Jesus’ doctrines and actually preached and shared them with the customers they had then the homosexuals, fornicators, drunkards, etc may repent. However, there is certainly a business cost to the truths they may share with these customers. Which would be my last and tertiary point.
If you would like to be taken seriously outside of your own circle of believers, you might consider developing a set of examples that can’t be so easily dismissed as rhetorically unsound and irrelevant (not to mention transparently disingenuous) analogies.
In the “pulled pork” and the “bikini” examples, there is simply no case to be made. A business owner can’t be sued to force them to make something they don’t normally make in the course of their business, nor can they be (successfully) sued for declining to provide a product they find offensive (and would therefore not otherwise produce in the normal course of business), as with the attempted cake “gotcha” example. What the law says is that you cannot refuse to provide services that you normally provide in the course of business based on someone’s membership in an otherwise protected class. Thus, the “Gentile” could not legally be refused service for any of the meat products the butcher normally carries, nor could the “Christian woman” legally be refused service to purchase as many burkas as she can carry out of the store.
If your first two examples are mistaken, the second two are frankly ignorant of current law or established jurisprudence. In the first case, a lawful firearms dealer would risk losing their FFL at least, and would probably face steep criminal sanctions for selling a firearm of any sort (whether “assault rifles” or even just a pistol) to someone they know is engaged in or planning illegal activity. Meanwhile, there are federal and, in many jurisdictions, state laws which make it illegal to hire convicted sex offenders to work with children in any capacity, and individuals who attempt to or assist others in circumventing these laws can face both civil and criminal penalties.
When your entire argument can be dismissed so neatly and easily without even briefly touching on the issues you’d so very much like to address, how do you hope to convince, or even reach, anyone who does not already agree with you?
Would you want to offer the rulings that defend your positions? You seem to have knowledge of the law most laymen don’t.
The case of all of these business people is that they offer services for what they genuinely believe to be marriage according to their tradition and religious beliefs. Holy Matrimony is between one man and one woman as Jesus Christ and the Bible teaches. So, your assumption that homosexuals are a protected class within the realm of the Christians worldview is unsound. How does one newly ‘protected class’ get to infringe on the rights of another traditionally and historically protected class that is religious Christians?
Your missed my real argument because of my hyperbolic arguments. My real argument is that Christians should serve the homosexuals, did you miss that part of the article? I also point out the hypocrisy of the same people who will serve sexually active heterosexuals who are known as fornicators in the Bible. They should have the same treatment the homosexual community is receiving IF they were consistent to their ideology. My secondary argument is that IF Christians would not be ashamed of Jesus’ doctrines and actually preached and shared them with the customers they had then the homosexuals, fornicators, drunkards, etc may repent. However, there is certainly a business cost to the truths they may share with these customers. Which would be my last and tertiary point.
I didn’t miss anything. Your “real” argument is easily dismissed because it is preceded by and founded on nonsense.
Your hyperbole was offered, in what you admit is ignorance of the law, to construct a fiction wherein Christians are being persecuted. While this may be true in other parts of the world, in the United States, the law, by statute, protects the rights of Christians equally (which was my point about your first two ‘conjectures’). Actually, in the US, the law tends to a de facto stance of privileging Christians, but that is a much longer discussion than can be had here.
I’d be happy to, if you’d be a bit more specific about what it is you are questioning. In the meantime, this may help. The law is not in fact some esoteric, arcane knowledge that only a select few have access to or permission to read. Yes, the language is challenging, but it is available for any citizen who chooses to be informed about it.
In this case, however, “worldview” is irrelevant, the concept of “protected class” is a legal concept, not a rhetorical one. Under the law that applies equally to all, no one can be targeted for discrimination based on their membership in a protected class (race, color, creed, national origin, sex, etc.). The relevant issue here is that all of these business people seek to offer their services TO THE PUBLIC. The mistake so many seem to make is in believing that they can engage in the public realm with all of the rights it provides but none of the responsibilities. The law doesn’t reach into private conduct, so if a hypothetical baker only wants to make cakes for people whose unions she approves of, she is free to do so privately and to refuse any request that doesn’t meet her exacting standards. Once she engages in commerce, however, she moves out into the realm of Caesar, and her conduct will be subject to his laws, which regulate her desire (no matter it’s foundation) to infringe on the rights of others. You want to sell to the public, you sell to all the public.
I don’t actually have a problem with your point about rejecting the hypocrisy at play in these situations. And frankly, If you want to lecture to everyone who walks in the door, you do have that freedom, so long as you do it equally (indeed, one company I know of gets at this nicely by filling all the space around the legally mandated information about contents, etc. on their packaging with scripture, which is a First Amendment protected option available to anyone). Yes, this may have a consequence for sales, but I suppose the onus would then be on the baker to make cakes so good that people will endure any lecture to obtain them.
However, do be aware that the impression gained by many who have observed the above hypocrisy in action will likely be that this lecturing will not in fact be ‘equal-opportunity’, but will be used more to encourage a kind of religious ‘self-deportation’ of any customers who do not share your “worldview”.
No Diane, try again. I did not found my argument on hyperbole. Certainly you seem well educated enough to understand literary devices, eh?
NO! You are making a big mistake! You are giving in to an argument that is is fallacious! There is an important distinction, although it may not be a legal one, from a moral standpoint. It is a huge mistake to say that a Christian cannot distinguish between providing services for a homosexual “wedding” and providing services to any other sinner! Refusing to provide service for a gay “wedding” does NOT discriminate (from a moral , not legal) against a gay person because he is a sinner. I am assuming in all other situations, you would agree that a Christian should provide their services to a homosexual, to an adulterer, to a thief, etc. should they enter a place of business. If we refused to serve every sinner there would be NO business! But this is not what is happening when a homosexual demands service for a gay “wedding”! As a Christian, we are NOT refusing service because the gay person requesting service is gay. We are refusing service because we believe the event is sinful and against our beliefs. The very event we are providing a service for is contributing to something against our religious convictions. When a homosexual comes in to my bakery for a cup cake, I am serving them because eating a cup cake is NOT sinful! But my contribution to a gay wedding is wrong! These court cases are forcing us to participate in an event which we should be opposed to. We are not being forced to serve a homosexual! Undoubtedly, the defendant served homosexuals many the time prior to this court ruling. It was only when service was requested for a gay “wedding” was there an issue. Service was not predicated on anyone being gay. Refusal was predicated on the concept of a change in the redefinition of marriage. If a man came into my bakery and insisted I bake a cake for his wedding to his 21 daughter, or his horse, I would refuse to bake for him too! So my refusal is ENTIRELY based on being consistent with what my religion informs me is the meaning of marriage. If these court cases are left to stand by the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court would have to agree that when I refuse to bake the wedding cake for the mans wedding to his daughter or horse, I am therefore discriminating against fathers, daughters , and horses! Its absurd! These cases are absurd! And its a shame when Christians concede their religious convictions on the flimsy moral and legal arguments being presented by the LGBT advocates. Shame on you. Youve either caved in on your convictions or have fallen victim to the LGBT weak mushy headed argumentation!
Robert, I have not caved in on my convictions at all. Did you carefully read the whole article? If not, I would ask that you do so and find out what I propose every Christian do in his business that would not violate the conscience and would actually help to curb this nonsense that the homosexuals are pulling to persecute Christians. For example, if a homosexual wanted me to bake him a cupcake and deliver it to his ‘wedding’ I am not approving of that at all. In fact, when I get there I will hand out all manner of Christian Gospel tracts exposing what they are doing is wrong! Then I would witness to them one2one or in small groups and before they kicked me out I would preach to the whole lot of them to repent of their wicked sin. But, I would do the same thing for a pregnant ‘Christian’ couple who has been shacking up for months fornicating as well. That would be equal opportunity judgment and condemnation for both sets of sinners. Do the hetero’s deserve any less rebuke than the homosexuals?
No, you founded your assertions on nonsense. I understand quite well what you are trying to do, you aren’t clever enough for your rhetoric to rise to the level of ‘literary’. But you don’t have an actual answer that would persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree with you, and so you have no choice but to rely on misdirection.
Bald assertions that my assertions are nonsense instead of literary devices as I intended only reveals your prejudice against my worldview. Certainly you must realize bald assertions prove nothing don’t you?
Then you make the claim to omniscience that I don’t have an answer that would persuade ANYONE who doesn’t already agree with me. How do you know that? Have you now become God? Well, maybe so in your finite mind you think you are that smart. But, you don’t fool Jesus Christ young lady, you are guilty as sin.
1 Cor 1:20-25
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.