What Is On The Line In The Stutzman Case? Freedom In America by R. Scott Clark on February 21, 2015 | 16 Comments More information from the Alliance Defending Freedom. Twitter
I wonder if these “conscientious” judges would agree with someone offended because a Kosher or Halal caterer refuses to barbecue a whole hog for his event?
The fact of the matter is that Evangelicals are unpopular in our elite culture, so the attorney general, judge, and ACLU gleefully pile on.
Someone truly said recently, that the Left sees religion as a hobby, with no more right to influence how one runs a business than a stamp collector or model train enthusiast. Sadly true!
It is the state vs. an individual. Unlimited resources against very limited resources.
However, the Attorney General of the state of WA does not have unlimited resources for his re-election campaign. A few dollars sent to the Washington Republican Committee for a candidate to defeat current Democrat AG Bob Ferguson will help remedy future nonsense of this sort.
Superior Court judges in Washington are also up for election. I’ll bet that they wouldn’t like it too much if out of state money removed them from the bench. It would not take a whole lot of money to replace the sitting judges.
Paul, it is a disgrace that His Dishonor who refused to throw out the case against Stutzman on probable First Amendment grounds is not facing impeachment–and the same goes for Bob Ferguson.
As for the Rob Ingersoll who brought the lawsuit, I suspect that he probably cultivated Ms. Stutzman to “set her up” for this sort of thing. It stinks of harassment and collusion against a currently unpopular minority; perhaps with Ferguson and His Dishonor thinking they might later parley their persecution of Stutzman in to “anti-bigotry” political points, when they themselves are the bigots. And I hope Rob Ingersoll is very, very, very proud of what he is doing to someone who befriended him.
It may be that the State of Washington wants Mrs. Stutzman to be like them . . . broke. Even though Washington is facing a $4 BILLION shortfall over the next two years, they have been able to dig deeply in order to sue Mrs. Stutzman.
Regarding the suggestion to send money to opposition candidates, you are already funding nearly 30% of the state of Washington’s budget with your Federal tax dollars. I’m sure their elected officials have
4 BILLION reasons why you should send more!
The Christian florist refuses to serve a now legal ceremony. Say I’m a Christian innkeeper or landlord, and want to check hetero couples’ marriage licenses, and further, their divorce history before renting. Will ADF defend my decision to not facilitate unbiblical living arrangements?
Be my guest. This is America. Because of the evils of Jim Crow we understandably over-reacted and wrongly sacrificed private property on the altar of equal access.
Should the government compel orthodox Jews to cater a neo-Nazi event? Should the government compel Muslims to cater a non-hallal event?
1. Private Property and Public Accommodation
2. Christianity Is Not Private But A Bakery Is
3. Should The Government Compel Them?
What’s on the line? Evidently a real human friendship, going by the clip, which is certainly lost when wants to use the other to make some political point.
Great point. Thank you.
Rather in the same vein nocable, should doctors be forced to provide a “legal operation” such as an abortion?
(If Sandra Fluke and the plaintiffs in the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of Charity case are correct, the answer is yes. Principles work through.)
FTM pornography is also “legal”. Shall we force photographers to provide their professional services and mom and pop grocery stores to sell the results?
And if not, why not?
That is the legal precedent or watershed from my (notv) POV.
While it is bad enough to allow libertinism, it is quite another to make it obligatory.
This is nothing more than a witch hunt by the pink nazis and their kinder, gentler version of totalitarianism, all the while trying to smear the opposition as intolerant.
Paul, appreciate the info. As a resident of Ma and Pa Kettle’s home state, it was helpful.
Bob Suden, I read your comment and Prof. Clark’s helpful links above. To continue this a bit, doesn’t the abortion analogy break down since presumably the Christian physician is providing no elective abortions for anyone? The doctor isn’t just denying abortions to people of a certain moral bent. The florist was in the wedding trade; the doctor is not in the abortion trade. Returning to my first comment, do the churchmen and women here think knowingly renting space to cohabiting unwed man-woman couples is a disciplinable offense? Is your answer identical for services rendered to homosexual couples?
I tried to address this question here:
Weddings are a subset of the florist business, abortions for the medical, pornography for photographers.
Legal is legal.
Yeah, normally a Christian wouldn’t be offering abortion services, but they’ve already steamrollered enough distinctions to get to homosexual “marriages” so it will be next.
“Same sex” marriages are not the same as marriages or they wouldn’t have to be legalized/distinguished from marriage marriages. (Can one have a traditional and a same sex marriage at the same time and if not, why not?) Which is to say, she wasn’t in the business of doing homosexual marriages, was she? Didn’t matter a bit. Off with her head.
The ultimate/logical goal is to make the “legal” mandatory. Equal protection means equal outcome. Count on it. “Discriminashun” is our new moral majority’s unforgivable sin.
To answer your first question, yeah, but it is a bit of a distraction from the issue here.
It is frightening to see the state compelling people against their conscience. It is even more so in the cases of florists, photographers, and others providing services for ceremonies. Those are, at least in some cases, coerced participation in religious worship services.
Your analogy of the innkeeper is a straw man. No-one’s arguing that Christian innkeepers- or photographers or bakers- should enquire into a potential customer’s sexual activities; the issue is when they are asked to support a particular event or activity that is immoral.
For example, a Christian hotelier’s duty is to provide a set-up that is most conducive to Biblical morality. So, if a man and a woman arrive and ask for a double room it is a reasonable assumption they are married and it is not for the hotelier to pry into their personal situation. The Christian hotelier can, in good conscience, supply them with a double room. If two men arrive and ask for a room, the hotelier cannot- in good conscience- give them a double room. He can supply a twin room (and if they are a homosexual couple and decide to push the beds together that is their business). If the hotelier knows that the two men are brothers, or father and son, then it’s a different situation. But the principle is that the Christian hotelier is only required to act on what he knows and what is presented before him; he’s not required, not is he really entitled, to actively pry into other people’s business.
The same can be applied to other service industries: if a man asks for a wedding cake, and he plans to use it for a same-sex wedding but only asks for a wedding cake then there’s no problem. I’d even argue that if a same-sex couple asked for a wedding cake that didn’t promote same-sex “marriage” then there wouldn’t be an issue (perhaps it’s necessary to distinguish between buying one already made and making it specifically for that event).
Perhaps Paul’s teaching on meats sacrificed to idols is applicable here: “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake.” (1 Corinthians 10:27-28a) Clearly, a Christian shouldn’t be going to a same-sex “marriage feast” though.
Further comments at Denny Burke’s site regarding Mrs.Stutzman’s reply to the Wash. Attorney General’s offer.