![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alpharaposaI 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.
I find it sad that our country has come to this. Several of the colonies that later became the United States were started by religious folk who wanted to practice their religion without dealing with the (rather strict) rules governing it in Great Britain at the time.
The political part aside, though, there is a theological issue to consider. Would it be sinful to perform your calling in service to an event like a gay wedding ceremony? Is it participation? Endorsement? This is a different question from whether secular law requires it or not.
Today, it occurred to me that there may be a Biblical answer to that question.
One of the questions the Corinthians had for Paul concerned "meat sacrificed to idols" (1 Corinthians, Chapter 8). Was it okay to eat? To even buy?
To understand this question, you have to know a bit about the culture. We're not talking about going to a pagan sacrifice and eating at the potluck afterwards. Idols were everywhere in the Roman Empire, including in the butcher shops. All the meat was "sacrificed" to the local idol before it was sold. So, if you wanted meat that wasn't, you had to do the butchering yourself, or get it from a friend, or find somebody who could do it kosher. Not always doable in a place like Corinth. Meat slaughtered to an idol was part of the "price of citizenship" there.
So, the question was, would eating that meat, or even touching it, mean you endorsed the practice? That you were participating in the worship of the idol? Was it sinful? Given that Paul took time to address the question, we can assume it was very important to some of the people in the church. Given that it's coupled with a note that being clever can make you think a little too much of yourself, I'll bet some people were holding forth VERY strong opinions on the matter and using it as a way to prove how virtuous they were.
And Paul's answer is? The idols aren't real, so it doesn't matter so far as sin goes, and he isn't bothered by the idea of eating meat. BUT, some people aren't so sure about how meaningless the idols are, and if going without meat would reassure them, then Paul would eat vegetarian while he visited. What was important was that people who were shaky and insecure needed to be given room to feel comfortable and not pushed to a level they're not ready for.
So, I doubt that it's sinful to bake a cake for a gay couple's ceremony, though if you explained that it's okay because their event is a meaningless gesture, you may lose the business anyway. That said, it takes a lot of conviction to not be bothered by participating in such things, and not everybody is that certain. Heck, I'm not sure of my reasoning here, I just see some parallels.
That also means that the question of "endorsement" is also legitimate. If somebody assumes that your participation makes it "legitimate" in some way that would damage their understanding of their faith, well, then refusing to do so also makes sense. In today's world where Bishops defy their churches and dare their denomination to throw them out, an otherwise innocent gesture can become a talking point.
Gay marriage opponents sometimes get taunted that their faith must not be all that strong, to be bothered by these things. You know what? Sometimes it isn't. Few people just spring up completely sure and direct their whole lives in absolute certainty from then on. Faith is hard. When you're sure, saying that grace freed us from the Law is wonderful. When you're unsure, clinging to Law and duty can tide you through a rough patch to the other side.
I read an article today where someone counted the numbers and found that banning the Islamic headscarves paradoxically led to more radical cultures, while allowing them led to decreased tensions and more liberalization (in the good way). Why? If headscarves were banned in schools, then Islamic girls didn't go. If given the choice to wear them or not, they attended. Some eventually gave them up. Others didn't. But to bridge the cultural gap, it was necessary to give them the emotional space to be who they were, to cling to their rules as they stepped into an unknown culture.
The melting pot that is America operates on that virtue when it works at its best. You get to keep your traditions, and we show you ours. After a while, maybe you give some of them up. Maybe you keep them long after your home country gives them up.
The point is, we all need to give each other room to be who we are, so that we can be comfortable enough to actually listen to others. That laws are being drafted just to give some people breathing space is really sad. It shouldn't be necessary, but here we are.
I find it sad that our country has come to this. Several of the colonies that later became the United States were started by religious folk who wanted to practice their religion without dealing with the (rather strict) rules governing it in Great Britain at the time.
The political part aside, though, there is a theological issue to consider. Would it be sinful to perform your calling in service to an event like a gay wedding ceremony? Is it participation? Endorsement? This is a different question from whether secular law requires it or not.
Today, it occurred to me that there may be a Biblical answer to that question.
One of the questions the Corinthians had for Paul concerned "meat sacrificed to idols" (1 Corinthians, Chapter 8). Was it okay to eat? To even buy?
To understand this question, you have to know a bit about the culture. We're not talking about going to a pagan sacrifice and eating at the potluck afterwards. Idols were everywhere in the Roman Empire, including in the butcher shops. All the meat was "sacrificed" to the local idol before it was sold. So, if you wanted meat that wasn't, you had to do the butchering yourself, or get it from a friend, or find somebody who could do it kosher. Not always doable in a place like Corinth. Meat slaughtered to an idol was part of the "price of citizenship" there.
So, the question was, would eating that meat, or even touching it, mean you endorsed the practice? That you were participating in the worship of the idol? Was it sinful? Given that Paul took time to address the question, we can assume it was very important to some of the people in the church. Given that it's coupled with a note that being clever can make you think a little too much of yourself, I'll bet some people were holding forth VERY strong opinions on the matter and using it as a way to prove how virtuous they were.
And Paul's answer is? The idols aren't real, so it doesn't matter so far as sin goes, and he isn't bothered by the idea of eating meat. BUT, some people aren't so sure about how meaningless the idols are, and if going without meat would reassure them, then Paul would eat vegetarian while he visited. What was important was that people who were shaky and insecure needed to be given room to feel comfortable and not pushed to a level they're not ready for.
So, I doubt that it's sinful to bake a cake for a gay couple's ceremony, though if you explained that it's okay because their event is a meaningless gesture, you may lose the business anyway. That said, it takes a lot of conviction to not be bothered by participating in such things, and not everybody is that certain. Heck, I'm not sure of my reasoning here, I just see some parallels.
That also means that the question of "endorsement" is also legitimate. If somebody assumes that your participation makes it "legitimate" in some way that would damage their understanding of their faith, well, then refusing to do so also makes sense. In today's world where Bishops defy their churches and dare their denomination to throw them out, an otherwise innocent gesture can become a talking point.
Gay marriage opponents sometimes get taunted that their faith must not be all that strong, to be bothered by these things. You know what? Sometimes it isn't. Few people just spring up completely sure and direct their whole lives in absolute certainty from then on. Faith is hard. When you're sure, saying that grace freed us from the Law is wonderful. When you're unsure, clinging to Law and duty can tide you through a rough patch to the other side.
I read an article today where someone counted the numbers and found that banning the Islamic headscarves paradoxically led to more radical cultures, while allowing them led to decreased tensions and more liberalization (in the good way). Why? If headscarves were banned in schools, then Islamic girls didn't go. If given the choice to wear them or not, they attended. Some eventually gave them up. Others didn't. But to bridge the cultural gap, it was necessary to give them the emotional space to be who they were, to cling to their rules as they stepped into an unknown culture.
The melting pot that is America operates on that virtue when it works at its best. You get to keep your traditions, and we show you ours. After a while, maybe you give some of them up. Maybe you keep them long after your home country gives them up.
The point is, we all need to give each other room to be who we are, so that we can be comfortable enough to actually listen to others. That laws are being drafted just to give some people breathing space is really sad. It shouldn't be necessary, but here we are.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-02-25 07:52 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-25 08:13 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-25 09:01 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-25 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-25 09:16 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-25 09:21 pm (UTC)http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140224brewer-pressed-veto-sb.html
no subject
Date: 2014-02-25 09:37 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-25 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-25 09:43 pm (UTC)Most people don't actually read things they reshare/retweet.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-26 02:01 pm (UTC)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.
But offering professional services is a little different category from offering goods for sale. May I refuse a commission to paint a picture or book a photo shoot or cater an event because I just feel too busy? Because I disagree with the viewpoint of those asking me to do it? Because I think you're obnoxious?
Newspapers can refuse to accept advertising for any reason they like, including that they don't approve of the products sold or political views expressed by the advertiser. That's called freedom of the press. But freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom to practice one's religion are all grouped together in the First Amendment's protections.
And where do you draw the line?
EXAMPLE 1.
A guy comes into your photography studio and asks you to take a passport photo. No problem. You don't care whu he is or what his values are. It's a standard job.
Now, you're Jewish, and a couple of (heretosexual) skinheads come in and want you to photograph their wedding, at which they will all be dressed in neo-Nazi storm trooper costume. Surely, you should be able to refuse this commission.
But, you're a Jewish photographer, and a guy comes in for a sitting for a formal portrait, and he wants to pose in his SS rig. Are you obligated to take the portrait? Is this just a standard job, or is this a commission for personal services?
EXAMPLE 2.
I'm a cake designer/baker, and somebody comes in to buy a cake. Once I sell him the cake, he can do anything he wants to with it. He can put figures or words on it I find offensive, he can put cherry bombs in it and blow it up, he can have sex with it. Not my problem: after the cake leaves the store, it's not mine any more.
Now, a gay couple come to secure a cake for a wedding. I'm happy to sell them a cake, but I don't want to do a cake-to-order. I don't want to put my efforts, my "art," into celebrating his event. Is this bigotry?
Well, what if someone comes in asking me to design a cake for a KKK event, complete with little hooded figures in fondant? Can I refuse for reasons of conscience? Or suppose someone comes in asking me to design (and deliver) a cake for a dog's birthday party. Can I refuse because I don't like dogs, or think this is silly, or because I just can't think up any appropriate ideas? Do I have to do my best for events I don't like or which don't move me? Why can't I pick and choose?
no subject
Date: 2014-02-26 02:37 pm (UTC)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.