Monday, April 07, 2014

Give Them What They Want

In a discussion regarding businesses forced to participate in the celebration of sin and dysfunction, a comment was posted suggesting that we give them what they want, just not how they want it.  A response to that comment was as follows:

"The photographer should have prayed about it in front of them, and she
should have prayed that God would help them see the error of their
ways... she should have just dropped down on her knees right in front of
them and started praying. And then she should offer to pray for them
during the ceremony with their guests looking on... priceless."


I don't know if this is quite the right way to go about it.  The original commenter suggested doing as little as possible to provide the best service, such as making sure the photos were blurry or some such.  Praying aloud in a manner disruptive or disrespectful to the lesbians isn't exactly good for business.  And while this may only bring upon the photographer a lawsuit of a different kind, it does provoke another idea.

I once visited a customer who had a small sign posted just inside the front door that proclaimed to visitors that they are Christians and hope that all would respect that and act in a manner respectful of their faith while doing business there.  At the time, I imagined it referred mostly to things like profane/obscene language or things of that nature.

But imagine if the New Mexico photographer had something similar at her place of business?  Might those lesbians have continued seeking the services of this photographer if the photographer's faith was known to them before they sought her services?  It's been said that there are those activists that seek out Christians in order to force them to act against their beliefs, and if true, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised considering the fascistic nature of the homosexual lobby.

But consider if a business had a notice in their business such as that of the customer to whom I referred above.  What if businesses incorporated the following in their literature, ads, business decor:

LEV 18:22

Few homosexuals in this country are unaware of that verse.  Few would even need the verse to be printed out in full knowing exactly what they'd read if they looked up "Lev 18:22".  

A homosexual or lesbian looks in the Yellow Pages or online for a baker to get a cake for their "wedding" reception and sees that verse reference in the ad.   Only the most militant would insist on giving that baker any of their business, and that only if they are willing to go to court.  But what would that do for them if the baker went ahead and took the gig?  Every correspondence between the homosexuals and the baker would include "Lev 18:22" somewhere in the text.  The baker could even say, "I'd be happy to provide a quality and delicious cake for the celebration of your sinful union.  What exactly to you have in mind.  I want nothing but to provide for your sinful celebration a cake that will please all who taste it."  or something to that effect. 

The point isn't to deny them the business to which they believe they are entitled, but to provide it for them with the constant reminder that their intentions are sinful.  The photographer, for example, could have "Lev 18:22" printed in an easy to notice manner on his camera case where the customers can see it before hiring the photographer.  Any business that normally serves the wedding industry could partake in this idea if they oppose such unions for any reason.  A non-religious person can simply post notices that they support traditional marriage or some reference to that effect. 

Now, some might reject this idea as hateful.  But they wouldn't take such an attitude with a business that has a rainbow decal on their window, or any pro-homosexual indication.  Such people don't regard it as a double standard to do so, ignoring the fact that to support one thing is to oppose the opposite. 

Part of the reason our culture has become so morally corrupted is due to what the old adage suggests when good men do nothing.  It's never too late for people of faith to step up and defend truth and righteousness.  I mean it's not like the corrupt think highly of such people anyway, so why not? 

I like this idea.  "Lev 18:22" would make a great bumper sticker.  I'll have to see about how to go about having one made.  I'll have to put up with vandalism or the nasty looks and comments like I received from some people when I first applied "nobama" stickers to my bumper in 2008 (though I got, and still get, a lot of positive comments for that).  But the culture is in desperate need of people to simply stand up and say, "This is wrong" regardless of the heat.  It's harder now because it wasn't done well enough before. 

AND, it will draw out those who are the true haters and bigots that have pushed this abomination on the culture.

19 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

I guess then my bumper sticker would read, Ekekiel 16:49.

to provide it for them with the constant reminder that their intentions are sinful.

Do you really think the best way to "witness" to people is to be an obnoxious jerk? I would go to a wedding of a smoker without feeling the need to point out that smoking is harmful, in my opinion. I would go to the wedding of the greedy without feeling the need to point out that I think greed is wrong.

Why is it so important to tell your customers, "I think these behaviors of yours are sinful..."? Does that ever reach the "lost..."?

What someone with that sort of bumper sticker would be telling me and many others is exactly that they are a bigot, that they cherry pick sins from the Bible to point out to others, regardless of whether they ask or want their opinion.

This sort of behavior would just contributing to the diminishing of credibility and respect of at least a segment of Christianity, it seems to me.

~Dan

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I truly thing the best thing to do is to stand firm on our principles. NEVER, NEVER assent to provide services for activities which are against God.

I'm still waiting for a Christian to go a "gay" T-shirt business and ask them to make a T-shirt saying "God hates fags," and see what happens.

I want to see what happens if a black photographer is asked to provide photographic services for a Ku Klux Klan rally.

NO ONE, NO ONE, should be forced by the government to provide services for activities which are against their beliefs. This is NOT the same as providing general services, such as did the florist who provided floral arrangements for the "gay couple" for a long time but only refused to provide for a fake wedding. She never discriminated against the people - only the activity.

When we are not allowed to discriminate against activities, we no longer have any freedom.

Marshall Art said...

"Do you really think the best way to "witness" to people is to be an obnoxious jerk?"

Good question, Dan! Try asking that of those who sue businesses who would prefer not participating in the plaintiff's celebration of sinfulness. Try asking that of those who threaten, harass, and demonstrate at the private residences of those who support traditional marriage. Try asking that of Dan Savage.

While you concern yourself with the tender feelings of unrepentant sinners who are arrogant in their intention to sin and are haughty and doing detestable things before the Lord, I concern myself with the freedom of the religious to live their lives according to their faith without obnoxious lawsuits that seek to force them to do otherwise.

Apparently you aren't happy enough with people of faith being complicit in the celebration of sinful behavior, you want them to actually celebrate it as if it isn't the sinfulness it clearly is.

"I would go to a wedding of a smoker without feeling the need to point out that smoking is harmful, in my opinion. I would go to the wedding of the greedy without feeling the need to point out that I think greed is wrong."

How nice for you! Are smokers and the greedy pushing for legislation forcing you to participate in celebrations of their sinfulness? Do you intend to support smokers who may want to sue CVS drugstores who have recently announced they will no longer provide tobacco products? What bigots those people are!!! How dare they deny smokers their right to purchase a legal product!!!

"Why is it so important to tell your customers, "I think these behaviors of yours are sinful..."?"

Because as a Christian, it is my duty to avoid sin, avoid encouraging others to sin (which you clearly do) and for the sake of their salvation, encourage others to live on God's terms, not theirs or the culture's. Furthermore, I want them to know that I do not want to participate in their celebration of sinful sexual immorality by providing my products or services for it and would appreciate they not insist that I do. This would be a request that they show tolerance for MY beliefs and choices. For any homosexual who actually lives the spirit of tolerance and acceptance of disparate views, rather than simply demanding it of Christians, a prominent display of "Lev 18:22" should be enough for them to think that perhaps they should find another business to help with their "wedding" plans.

"What someone with that sort of bumper sticker would be telling me and many others is exactly that they are a bigot..."

I can't help that your morally corrupted sensibilities would lead you to this idiotic and hateful conclusion. That's on you and others like you.

Marshall Art said...


"...that they cherry pick sins from the Bible to point out to others..."

This from a guy who routinely preaches against what he sees as "greed". It should, to an honest and rational person, suggest only a response to those who would insist their sinful behavior is not sinful and are intent on pushing for legislation that protects this corrupted point of view. When other behaviors that are so clearly prohibited in Scripture are defended and celebrated in this manner, I would hope true Christians would speak out against it as well, so as to prevent further corruption to the culture. I would think someone who believes we are to do what we can to make a heaven on earth would not celebrate sin as you do.

"...regardless of whether they ask or want their opinion."

Ironic given the fact that the homosexual lobby is not only unconcerned with the opinions of others, the grant opposing opinions no validity whatsoever. Hypocrisy of the corrupt!

"This sort of behavior would just contributing to the diminishing of credibility and respect of at least a segment of Christianity, it seems to me."

Just another level of the persecution Jesus assured us we would suffer when He said:

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

It is not preaching accurately the clearly revealed will of God that contributes to "the diminishing of credibility and respect of at least a segment of Christianity". It is people like you who reject that clear teaching in favor of sexual immorality and other worldly motivations. It's expected from those who don't accept Christ. It is far more egregious from those who claim to have spent their lives in serious and prayerful study of God's Word.

Marshall Art said...

You are correct, Glenn. In that same way, a baker who also wished to recuse himself from providing his products for a similar celebration of sin also had a homosexual employee at one time. These sorry defenders of sin are so "married" to immorality that they cannot distinguish between discriminating against a person for being what he is versus discriminating against actions, activities and behaviors in which that person wishes to engage.

Another example would be someone who desires wealth. It might be the be all and end all of his existence in a manner that compares with the rich man who laid up treasures on earth rather than in heaven. Well, I would feel badly for such a person, but his focus would not preclude my association with him. However, if his desire for wealth resulted in his selling illegal drugs or pimping, I would not wish to be a part of either. Some would say that the difference is in the legalities, but I'm speaking of morality and my not being complicit. In the same way, I have not discriminated against this person because of his greed, but I do have a problem with the activities in which he chooses to engage.

But to both he and the homosexual, I would encourage repentance and a change of focus toward God's Will and not the desires of their unreliable hearts.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You hit the major point. Just because something is legal, that doesn't make it moral. Abortion ring a bell? Slavery ring a bell? Pornography ring a bell?

Too many are more interested in something being legal than they are in whether it is approved by God.

Jim said...

The Bible says that when a man lies with another man as he would with a woman, that is detestable. It never says anything about when a man celebrates his love with another man by marrying him. Do you dispute this?

Now it appears that the baker, florist, or photographer gladly did business with gay customers, and they knew these people were committing the act that the Bible says is detestable. They knew they were sinning at the time they were selling them their services yet never said anything about their acts being sinful or detestable. Yet when they commit an act that the Bible says nothing about, they have a problem.

I think it is the baker, florist, or photographer who is the activist here.

Glenn, you are either learning impaired or simply pay no attention to others' posts. As has been pointed out by me numerous times, a gay T-shirt maker would likely NEVER print a "God Hates Fags" T-shirt so he wouldn't be discriminating against any customer who asked for one. It's a rather simple concept that you just don't seem to get.

Further, the Klu Klux Klan has not been granted protected status in any civil rights laws anywhere in the country, and therefore anybody can discriminate against them for any reason they like.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

GOD says that homosexual behavior is detestable and an abomination. HE doesn't say that it is okay if they "love" each other. No exceptions. Just like He doesn't say adultery is okay if the couple loves each other.

You aren't paying attention. It doesn't matter if a "gay" would ever do a T-shirt like that - by their rules if they are in a T-shirt business, then they must do as requested. Using you example, a Christian photographer would NEVER photograph a fake wedding

There is NO SIN providing services to the public when one isn't participating in the sin of the people they serve. Whether a person is "gay" or an adulterer or just plain fornicator, providing routine service and business to them is NOT unbiblical. It only becomes a sin to US if we are called to participate in their sin.

Refusing to participate in an activity one finds abhorrent does not make that person an activist.

So, you are saying because someone doesn't have a "no-discrimination" status, then it's okay to not to force people to participate in their events. You are such a hypocrite. "Gays" are given a non-discrimination status based on their sexual activity. Talk about inequality!! Why can't I be on a non-discriminatory status because of my sexual activity, and they queers couldn't force me to do things for them!

But if an ex-"gay" group asked a "gay" owned print shop to print banners which say "You don't have to be gay," then the owner can discriminate against them because they don't have a protected status?!?!?

You liberals are all hypocrites of the rankest order.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

First, I will address your comments to Glenn:

First, how do you know that there are no "gay" T-shirt makers who would bite the bullet for a sale? Are we to believe only heterosexuals put aside principle for a buck?

It appears here that you are willing to tolerate a homosexual denying service to someone making a request that conflicts with the homosexual's beliefs, but deny that Constitutionally protected right for Christians. You intend that the Christian be forced to act against his beliefs in favor of some whiny homosexual who will be supported in suing the Christian for non-compliance. Regardless of who the law protects or not, this is an incredibly discriminatory double-standard of the type not accepted of the Christian business owner. It is not news to me, but I just wanted to point out that which does not seem obvious to you, or that you intentionally deny in favor of the sexually immoral. Now, for your initial comments:

"The Bible... never says anything about when a man celebrates his love with another man by marrying him. Do you dispute this?"

No. But honest people don't need the obvious spelled out for them. Their "love" is based on their dysfunctional attraction for a member of the same sex and their intention to engage in sexual relations as "a sign of their love" (which is really a sign of their lust) for each other. There is absolutely no Biblical justification or rationalization for anyone to participate in a celebration of such a union. It clearly isn't marriage by Biblical standard or definition (based on every Biblical reference to marriage and family).

"Now it appears that the baker, florist, or photographer gladly did business with gay customers..."

There are a couple of ways to address this poor attempt at rationalizing objection to the refusal of these business owners in participating in homosexual "weddings".

1. Real Christians know that we are all sinners. Nothing in Scripture suggests that we are to avoid dealing with those who are of the world while required to live in it. There really is no way to do that totally. Ask the Amish.

2. Jesus mingled with the sinners and did so with the notion that it ain't the healthy that needs a doctor or medicine. However, He didn't approve their sinful behavior and is reported to have said "Go and sin no more".

3. At the same time, Paul encourages us to avoid associating with the sexually immoral. He said, "With them do not even eat." And he was referring to those who are Christian brothers, not the non-Christian. Perhaps you expect business owners to interview their customers in great detail before serving them.

4. Selling one's products or services to anyone does not equate to an endorsement or tolerance for behaviors in which that customer might engage. Selling one's products or services to one who intends to engage in a behavior, and expressed the intention openly, does. Indeed, it is an implicit approval of the intended behavior to do so.

To further clarify, again, we are all sinners. Some sin routinely and rationalize their behaviors. Assume the latter. A known thief walks into your gas station to purchase a tank of gasoline. Do you turn him away? Well, you could, but that he is a known thief does not mean he intends to steal anymore. Simply knowing that he is a thief is not enough to make any judgement with regards to whether or not he will steal, or even that his purpose in filling his tank means he needs the car for the purpose of committing a theft. A homosexual might want a bouquet for his father, or for his lifelong best friend who isn't a homosexual simply because his friend really likes flowers.

It is ludicrous to suggest there is something problematic with doing business with anyone while denying doing business with that same person due to the specific request of that person.

Jim said...

My neck hurts from trying to follow your comment, Glenn.

Ok, for starters, my point is that the baker was willing to bake a birthday cake for a gay couple who was obviously going to have carnal knowledge after dinner, wine, and some cake. So he was obviously willing to "participate" in what he surely knew was a sinful act. The Bible doesn't say that carnal knowledge isn't a sin if they love each other, but it also doesn't say word one about loving each other or celebrating that love and commitment. It only speaks of the sin of lying with another man which the baker has already given them a pass on.

"by their rules if they are in a T-shirt business, then they must do as requested."

You're pretty effing dense, aren't you? Discrimination is treating some people different from others. If you deny a service to all people there is no discrimination.

"Using you example, a Christian photographer would NEVER photograph a fake wedding"

She might get away with that IF gay marriage were not recognized by the state and she could prove that she never photographed a wedding in which the couple was not legally married.

"providing routine service and business to them is NOT unbiblical."

Photographing a wedding or baking a cake for a wedding, or providing flowers for a wedding are clearly routine services.

"So, you are saying because someone doesn't have a "no-discrimination" status, then it's okay to not to force people to participate in their events."

The law says that, yes.

""Gays" are given a non-discrimination status based on their sexual activity. Talk about inequality!!"

There is no inequality. Gays can't discriminate against straights based on their sexual activity either.

Either way the discrimination is based on sexual orientation, not sexual activity.

"Why can't I be on a non-discriminatory status because of my sexual activity, and they queers couldn't force me to do things for them!"

Because we are talking about providing a service to the public. I have no clue what you are talking about. But a gay baker couldn't refuse to bake a wedding cake for you because you are not gay (I assume).

"But if an ex-"gay" group asked a "gay" owned print shop to print banners which say "You don't have to be gay," then the owner can discriminate against them because they don't have a protected status?!?!?"

They would have protected status if the basis of the discrimination was their sexual orientation. I'm not sure if that's the case in your example.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Once again, as if you have some deep seated need to argue an angle unrelated to the issue, you seem to believe we are unaware of what the law says on any given topic. Unfortunately, the issue being discussed is whether or not a law should be or should have been enacted. And if you want to keep on that track, then you must keep in mind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which is the main law that governs the issue of whether or not a business can refuse service in situations relevant to this post. What justification does the government have in burdening these business owners in forcing them to provide service for the purposes demanded of the homosexuals planning what they think is a "marriage"? The answer is, there is no justification. The plaintiffs are not without alternative sources for the products or services they seek for their celebration. Their intention, then, is to force compliance against the opposing beliefs of these business owners. Your defense of these actions on such spurious grounds as "discrimination" demonstrates YOUR inability to understand the realities of the situation.

That there are laws that seek to force people of faith to act in conflict with that faith is not in question. That the existence of these laws is unConstitutional is.

That homosexuals enjoy protected status like the black toad is not in question. That they should have such protection, as if their dysfunction is akin to race or gender is.

That providing services for weddings as routine business is not in question. That unions of two men or two women must be regarded by people of faith as akin to actual marriages is.

"Ok, for starters, my point is that the baker was willing to bake a birthday cake for a gay couple who was obviously going to have carnal knowledge after dinner, wine, and some cake. So he was obviously willing to "participate" in what he surely knew was a sinful act. "

This is so incredibly idiotic that I'm amazed (even after years of similar idiotic arguments by you) you're not embarrassed to type it. A birthday does not guarantee sexual activity. What you're doing is suggesting the purpose of a birthday celebration involving homosexuals is sexual behavior. I'm sure some homosexuals would take issue with this. Maybe you believe homosexuals host orgies for their birthday celebrations.

For normal people, birthdays do not carry a sexual connotation. I'm guessing, but I'd wager the average homosexual would agree.

A wedding, however, does carry a sexual connotation in our culture, especially considering the implications of the honeymoon being that time when the marriage is consummated. Maybe this is news to you. The marriage, also, is that binding of the man and woman to become one flesh. That is accomplished, traditionally, by the two engaging in intercourse. Since the homosexuals intend to pretend they are married, then naturally some effort to consummate the union will be following the ceremony and subsequent reception. It is indeed about the sexual union and thus, since homosexual activity of every kind is sinful and contrary to Judeo-Christian teaching, the Christian business owner is fully within his rights to refuse participation in such a sinful celebration by providing his property or skills for sale for the purpose based on his religious beliefs. This is fully protected under the RFRA of 1993, as there is no justification for burdening the business owner with the forced participation against his beliefs.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Jim,

Your stupid “analogies” are just that - stupid. Celebrating a birthday has nothing to do with one’s sexual relationship. I would have no problem playing for a birthday party for homosexuals or even an adulterer. One is celebrating life on earth, not a sexual relationship. Since everyone is a sinner, in your inane example one could not do any kind of business with anyone. That is not what the FAITH is all about.

You’re pretty dense aren’t you? If you discriminate against someone solely on the basis of what they want done, you are discriminating against the outcome, not the person. A T-shirt maker can’t turn down business he doesn’t want to participate in any more than can a photographer - according to your logic.

The photographer is begin required to recognize something just because the state says it is legal. The state says pornography is legal, and she refused to do that - so where was the lawsuit? The state says other relationships are legal, but she had a policy of not photographing any immoral relationships. The state making something legal doesn’t thereby make it moral.

Providing services for weddings are NOT routine in that one’s personality is involved to a much greater degree. I am a musician and play for parties, funerals, events of all sorts, but when I do weddings there is a lot more involvement with the activity. I have to work with the couple as to what type of music will go at what part of the service, I recommend music based on the many facets of the service so that it can be personal to the people involved. I do what I can to make the service memorable as something approved by God. For funeral’s/graveside services I just play the same stuff all the time. For parties I play the same stuff all the time. It is only weddings which take the extra time to meet with the couple, take part in planning the event, etc.

Guess what - I’ve turned down services at Masonic temples and a polygamous “hand-fasting” ceremony because they both would have had me giving tacit approval to what went on. No one sued because they understood. Only QUEERS force people to sanction what they are doing or seek punishment.

It is inequality because “gays” are the only people who get special protection based on their sexual proclivities. Adulterers, prostitutes, zoophiles, necrophiles, etc do NOT get such special protection - let alone the fact that normal people don’t get special protection. Only those who are perverse with homosexuality get special dispensation from the left who had to go through judges who violated legally established laws by claiming they are unfair.

See, the “gay” person, in your scenario, doesn’t have to provide service because it would be HIM who is discriminated against if Westboro Baptist asked him to provide party services, photographic services, sign or banner services, etc. And don’t give me a lie that a “gay” would have no problem providing anti-gay services for Westboro.

Feodor said...

Glenn is a civil rights idiot.

http://tribuneherald.net/2013/08/23/kkk-wins-lawsuit-against-bakery-for-discrimination/

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The civil rights idiots are the judges who make such decisions. I wonder if the baker was black - probably not.

Marshall Art said...

Really, Glenn. The fact that some judge ruled in favor of the Klan does not help the case idiots like feo are trying to support. It's the same stupidity but times two, since both sides claim religious support for their beliefs. A REAL judge, someone who is keen on the concept of justice and interpreting law, would look for evidence of the Klansmen's claim and see that there isn't any, while the baker's claim is solidly supported by Christian teaching.

But as far as the lawsuit, it is the same thing as the baker who was sued by the homosexuals. Each baker is being forced to act in conflict with their beliefs, when there is no justification for making them do so. THAT'S how the law is supposed to be considered.

Feodor said...

Apparently, you'll have to wait for a Real Constitution as well.

Marshall Art said...

Apparently, feo, you'll have to wait until you grow a spine and develop some some wisdom.

Joe C said...

Hi Art. Still falling on the sword of christianity I see. Never met anyone who could properly wield that thing. I think it would be easier if it were forged from steel rather than words but, hey, then it would be too easy I guess. Unchallenging is the day when the blood of the common isn't sacrificed to the assorted alters of spirituality.

Otherwise, life is freely given. I don't really know what the "shoulds" are after that, in terms of living it, so I'll beg out of engaging in sage discussions about enlightenment.

I do think anyone should have the freedom of disenfranchisement without so much as a breath spent on a sigh of why. It might strain the boundaries between personal rights and bigotry if courts of opinion were allowed to judge, and I think it would be the good fight to prevent that from happening, but I see the ultimate dissolution of the spiritual challenge to it possibly in our life time as the mongol hordes of disbelievers increase in numbers. They are the truly dangerous as they obliviously practice anarchy by simple and silent disassociation.

The times, they are a-changin'.

Marshall Art said...

Hey Sweb! Still drowning in the pool of disbelief I see. Many tread that water for a time before the undertow takes them.

One needn't be bound by any formal set of spiritual beliefs to be burdened unnecessarily by the whims of others. You're a biz man. (How's it going by the way? I hope very well.) Are not your products your own property? Do you not own them as you do any other piece of property? Would you prefer that no one tell you how to use, give away or sell your own property, and to whom?

This is all the debate is about, with the exception that it isn't so much to whom, but to those who specifically demand your wares for that which to which you object, for whatever reason, spiritual or otherwise. Your refusal does absolutely nothing in terms of preventing them from find what they want elsewhere. Can you force them to buy from you as opposed to a competitor? Why can you be forced to sell to them? Do you not see how basic this is in terms of personal freedom and liberty?

And of course, bigotry is just a cheap excuse used by those who have given justification to those who refuse them their selfish demands. It couldn't possibly be anything they are doing or wanting to do. (end sarcasm)

AS to that mongol horde, I'd wager their numbers as a percentage of the total population have remained rather constant over the history of the world. It's been the same struggle since He first created all things. The difference is they are now more vocal in trying to ram their morality down the throats of true believers (another group whose size hasn't much changed). They were never denied when they kept to themselves.

Otherwise, the times are about the same. Only the level of whine has changed.