There is a simple, logical, humane solution to the dispute over religious freedom legislation.
It starts with recognizing who is doing what to whom. If I own a restaurant and I refuse to serve a gay customer a meal, I am refusing to allow him to perform a necessary, non-controversial, natural action in my restaurant, an action that I am willing to allow everyone else to perform in my restaurant--eating some food.
Serving the gay customer a meal would not violate any known religious belief, certainly no Christian belief. And serving him a meal would not require me to participate in any action that I find offensive.
On the other hand, if a gay couple wants me to cater their wedding, they are asking me (1) to attend a ceremony that I find offensive and (2) to facilitate an action that most certainly is controversial and that is arguably unnatural. As many scientists and other scholars have noted, nature knows of no example where two animals of the same gender live together in a romantic relationship--it is simply unheard of in nature.
Similarly, if a gay couple asks me if they can hold their wedding in my restaurant, they are asking me (1) to allow my restaurant to be used for a ceremony that I find offensive, (2) to facilitate a ceremony that I find offensive, and (3) to facilitate an action that is controversial and arguably unnatural.
If I refuse to host or cater the gay couple's wedding, I have not prevented the gay couple from getting married. Nor have I prevented them from quickly and easily going to any number of other restaurants that would be willing to host or cater their wedding. And I have not forced them to do something that violates their moral beliefs. At worst, I have wasted a few minutes of their time.
But, if the gay couple threatens me with a lawsuit and I feel compelled to host or cater their wedding, they are forcing me to do something that they know violates my religious beliefs and values. They are leaving me no viable, reasonable alternative: I either agree to their request or I get sued.
Or, if I decline and they sue me, then they are punishing me for merely not wanting to host or attend a ceremony that I find offensive, even though I did not deny them any basic right and even though they had plenty of other readily available options for hosting or catering their wedding and had no trouble making those alternative arrangements.
No gay couple "needs" to have a religious vendor host or attend their wedding. Marriage itself is a choice. We don't "have" to get married. We have to eat, sleep, get medical care, etc., but we do not "have" to get married. Nor do we "have" to have florists, photographers, and caterers attend our wedding. These are conveniences, not basic needs.
Some people have provided their own wedding flowers, food, and cake, and have had friends take pictures for their weddings. My wife and I had virtually no money for such things when we got married. A friend baked a wedding cake for us. Another friend took pictures. And various friends brought some flower arrangements from home and brought some food. We held the event in our church, which was free, and paid only for a few gallons of soda and punch and a guest book. That's all we could afford.
It should go without saying that no one has any "right" to force someone to attend their wedding, much less service it. Nor does anyone have any "right" to force someone to allow their business to be used for their wedding. On the other hand, people do have a right to be served a meal at a restaurant (as long as their conduct is not disruptive), to be allowed to rent a room at a hotel, to get medical care, etc., etc.
The liberal position is that if you disagree with their values and you seek to live your values when you are asked to host or service a gay ceremony, then somehow you are guilty of "discrimination" and "bigotry." But liberals are the ones who are seeking to impose their values on others: you either do what they want or they will sue you and/or (in some states) file a criminal complaint against you.
Using their logic, a Muslim polygamist should have every right to demand that a Jewish photographer service his next wedding; a group of swingers should have every right to demand that a Muslim restaurant cater their pre-orgy dinner; in those European nations where the age of consent is as low as 13, a 40-year-old man and his 13-year-old fiancee should have every right to demand that a Christian baker provide a cake for their wedding. And on and on we could go.
Everyone who is honest knows that if a gay couple asked a photographer who happened to be an old-style hippie who did not believe in marriage at all and who advised the couple that he never photographed any weddings whatsoever, the couple would simply go get a different photographer and would not dream of filing a lawsuit. Quite simply, the gay couple would not seek to coerce or punish the man for practicing values that differed from theirs. After all, they were done no harm. They were not denied any basic rights. And they had plenty of viable, reasonable alternatives.
If I were hosting a seminar on the health risks of homosexuality and I wanted some booklets printed for the seminar, and the printer whom I asked to print the booklets informed me that he was gay and that he would find it offensive to print the booklets, I wouldn't whine about "discrimination," much less even think about suing the man. I would respect his beliefs, even though I found them baseless, and would just go use a different print shop.
Simply put, this whole issue would vanish overnight if gays and their supporters would stop trying to coerce and/or punish religious vendors who do not want to host or attend a ceremony that they find offensive and uncomfortable.
It starts with recognizing who is doing what to whom. If I own a restaurant and I refuse to serve a gay customer a meal, I am refusing to allow him to perform a necessary, non-controversial, natural action in my restaurant, an action that I am willing to allow everyone else to perform in my restaurant--eating some food.
Serving the gay customer a meal would not violate any known religious belief, certainly no Christian belief. And serving him a meal would not require me to participate in any action that I find offensive.
On the other hand, if a gay couple wants me to cater their wedding, they are asking me (1) to attend a ceremony that I find offensive and (2) to facilitate an action that most certainly is controversial and that is arguably unnatural. As many scientists and other scholars have noted, nature knows of no example where two animals of the same gender live together in a romantic relationship--it is simply unheard of in nature.
Similarly, if a gay couple asks me if they can hold their wedding in my restaurant, they are asking me (1) to allow my restaurant to be used for a ceremony that I find offensive, (2) to facilitate a ceremony that I find offensive, and (3) to facilitate an action that is controversial and arguably unnatural.
If I refuse to host or cater the gay couple's wedding, I have not prevented the gay couple from getting married. Nor have I prevented them from quickly and easily going to any number of other restaurants that would be willing to host or cater their wedding. And I have not forced them to do something that violates their moral beliefs. At worst, I have wasted a few minutes of their time.
But, if the gay couple threatens me with a lawsuit and I feel compelled to host or cater their wedding, they are forcing me to do something that they know violates my religious beliefs and values. They are leaving me no viable, reasonable alternative: I either agree to their request or I get sued.
Or, if I decline and they sue me, then they are punishing me for merely not wanting to host or attend a ceremony that I find offensive, even though I did not deny them any basic right and even though they had plenty of other readily available options for hosting or catering their wedding and had no trouble making those alternative arrangements.
No gay couple "needs" to have a religious vendor host or attend their wedding. Marriage itself is a choice. We don't "have" to get married. We have to eat, sleep, get medical care, etc., but we do not "have" to get married. Nor do we "have" to have florists, photographers, and caterers attend our wedding. These are conveniences, not basic needs.
Some people have provided their own wedding flowers, food, and cake, and have had friends take pictures for their weddings. My wife and I had virtually no money for such things when we got married. A friend baked a wedding cake for us. Another friend took pictures. And various friends brought some flower arrangements from home and brought some food. We held the event in our church, which was free, and paid only for a few gallons of soda and punch and a guest book. That's all we could afford.
It should go without saying that no one has any "right" to force someone to attend their wedding, much less service it. Nor does anyone have any "right" to force someone to allow their business to be used for their wedding. On the other hand, people do have a right to be served a meal at a restaurant (as long as their conduct is not disruptive), to be allowed to rent a room at a hotel, to get medical care, etc., etc.
The liberal position is that if you disagree with their values and you seek to live your values when you are asked to host or service a gay ceremony, then somehow you are guilty of "discrimination" and "bigotry." But liberals are the ones who are seeking to impose their values on others: you either do what they want or they will sue you and/or (in some states) file a criminal complaint against you.
Using their logic, a Muslim polygamist should have every right to demand that a Jewish photographer service his next wedding; a group of swingers should have every right to demand that a Muslim restaurant cater their pre-orgy dinner; in those European nations where the age of consent is as low as 13, a 40-year-old man and his 13-year-old fiancee should have every right to demand that a Christian baker provide a cake for their wedding. And on and on we could go.
Everyone who is honest knows that if a gay couple asked a photographer who happened to be an old-style hippie who did not believe in marriage at all and who advised the couple that he never photographed any weddings whatsoever, the couple would simply go get a different photographer and would not dream of filing a lawsuit. Quite simply, the gay couple would not seek to coerce or punish the man for practicing values that differed from theirs. After all, they were done no harm. They were not denied any basic rights. And they had plenty of viable, reasonable alternatives.
If I were hosting a seminar on the health risks of homosexuality and I wanted some booklets printed for the seminar, and the printer whom I asked to print the booklets informed me that he was gay and that he would find it offensive to print the booklets, I wouldn't whine about "discrimination," much less even think about suing the man. I would respect his beliefs, even though I found them baseless, and would just go use a different print shop.
Simply put, this whole issue would vanish overnight if gays and their supporters would stop trying to coerce and/or punish religious vendors who do not want to host or attend a ceremony that they find offensive and uncomfortable.
