Religious Freedom and Business Owners

I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that this topic is still fighting for center-stage. This time it is in the form of an absurd law-suit targeting a Christian couple's photography business for declining services for same-sex ceremony. After finding a favorable alternative for the desired photography, the offended party decided to sue the Christian couple for discrimination wherein the state courts ruled against the refusing photographers. Apparently, owning a business obligates the owners to provide demanded services. At least, it does in New Mexico...

Reading the story from a conservative newspaper, it is also not surprising that the majority of the comments fall on the side of the couple's rights with a small portion vilifying that position as being the same as old time segregation. People. We've been here before and it's just going to keep coming up. The right is terrified of the liberal encroachment upon their moral conscience and the left if offended that the right would even consider that liberal alternatives are inappropriate. As I've said in a previous post, there are unfortunately bigots on both sides of the fence. I also said there, and say again here, that I don't care to try to stare down either set of bigots.

Most of the comments after the Deseret News article are actually fairly tame if rather irritated at the situation. I confess that I also find it concerning that the government thinks to rule on a matter of moral conscience and I came across many responses stating many of my own thoughts on the matter. They also make the points as clearly as I could hope to so I shall refer you to them rather than quote them here. (I highly recommend reading through comments - they are my favorite part of controversial issues as the debate gives a broader perspective than I could create with only my own thoughts to work with and have not infrequently caused me to adjust my own position on a matter.) I have made it about 100 comments in and it occurs to me that one issue has so far been missed.

What has been a bit surprising to me is not that atheists or others in the LGBT community attack the Christians in saying that Christ loved and sat with the sinner so 'they/you must not be good Christians' but that other Christians are attacking from the same ground. One might suppose that this is evidence on the side of the suing party, but everyone seems to be missing the fact that there is a relative issue directly addressed in the New Testament dealing with this.

In Romans 14, Paul takes the Romans to task for the contention arising around the issue of meat sold in the marketplace. The truth was, though, you couldn't actually be sure which meat had been offered to idols and which had not. Therefore, it became a risk in buying and eating meat that one might end up with meat that had been used in the offerings. Some only saw it as meat and did not find offense in the buying and eating of it. Others felt that to eat of that meat meant they were participating in the pagan worship and, after all, is not the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? It went against their conscience and so they avoided contact with it. It became an even bigger issue when eating at the house of one who saw no problem with it (it's only meat after all) and they were then placed between holding to their beliefs and not offending their fellow Christian friend.

So what does Paul say about it? Mostly he agrees that God knows that meat is meat is meat, but he also says that it is uncharitable for those who are unbothered to force those who are disturbed by the origin to hold to one or the other for he says that it is the conscience of the person that determines their reality. If to eat means to participate in pagan worship, then that person is right to avoid the meat and their friends would do well to respect and support them in maintaining a conscience void of offense. If the person has a clear conscience knowing that not knowing leaves them innocent of accidental 'participation', they are likewise uncondemned of God in that thing. 

19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

I honestly can't say whether I would have been willing to accept an obligation to participate in an event that is clearly stated as against God's law. I think it's easy to understand that it could feel like being forced to witness idolatrous offerings (even greater than the risk of meat of unknown origin).  Many would say that is discriminatory and Jesus says love everyone, but there is a difference between loving a person and participating in improper events. One (attacking) commenter condemned (illogically as it has no evidence outside of the speaker's imagination) the photographers because they 'would deny service to provide individual portraits to homosexuals which proves they are discriminating and were right to have lost the suit' (not exact words, but the gist of the statement). Honestly, I doubt the sexual orientation would have had any bearing on services provided outside of the union ceremony. Yes, we are to love everyone, even the sinner (aren't we all?). That does not equate to being forced to support the sin. And a concerned Christian can be easily understood to have such a reaction in this situation.

Government cannot dictate every element of the business sector without becoming their own entity of monopoly and therefore tyranny. Free enterprise dictates that if a business chooses to engage in undesirable practices, they will face the natural consequences from the consumers by losing business. It is their right to do so. It may not lead to commercial success, but in the 'pursuit of happiness', if one values his values more than his monetary gain, I see no justification for the government stepping in to say otherwise.

As Christians, how can we think to condemn and force a straying from the dictates of conscience of another Christian? Are we not all metaphorically part of Christ's body? Has the hardened skin of the heal a right to condemn the sensitivity of the eye-lid? I could say I fear the way the tides are turning if I did not understand what we have been warned and prepared for its happening ahead of time. Those of other persuasions often mock such feelings and outlooks, but truly, time will tell all things. I simply hope that all who are not interested in the impending violence, figurative and literal, will seek to support and strengthen each other in the ways of peace taught not only by Christ but by the other main religions as well. And that we will focus on it without tearing ourselves down in the process. 

I believe my God is the same God the Jews and the Arabs worship and that He will truly guard those with an honest heart. I warn that we lose integrity when we target others in a misguided sense of superiority and that leaves us vulnerable to falling further. Let us not fall, but let us stand together and stand strong against the coming times.

(Mormon Articles of Faith # 10 & 11)

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. 

P.S. I included number ten because when America finally implodes, and the rest of the world is in their own chaos, Mormons are taught that Zion will be a place of refuge for those who do not wish to fight and that will not just be for Mormons, but for all those who do not follow, nurture anger and hate. It will be a refuge for all the pure in heart. This may sound absurd and fantastical to any non-Mormon readers out there, but after having seen Jericho (TV show - fascinating!), I greatly desired to tell these fictitious people there is an alternative of safety. So maybe you will consider it a strange and ridiculous belief right now, but should the time come where you recognize truth to what I'm saying here, know that it is an option of safety.

Constitutional Rights and Religious Reactions to DOMA

[Dear God, I've been fighting off a crash all day, but I have something to say and I really need to be able to concentrate because I think it's worth saying. So please help me do this quickly and clearly and then I promise I'll go lay down and rest and watch Stargate like a good little girl. Thank You, Me]

There are strong emotions all around after the Supreme Court ruled against the Defense of Marriage Act today. As I have freely admitted, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. For those not Mormons, please, keep reading. This is not a place of bashing, but I hope it is one where hurt or anxious feelings are soothed.

Particularly in California, Mormons are seen as the hated force behind Proposition 8, the vote where the majority agreed that marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman. What has been clouded is the fact that Mormons were far from the majority in that effort. They have also been mis-represented as doing so to attack the LGBT portion of our society. For Mormons, mis-representation is hardly a new thing and one that our mature members recognize as almost routine. But that is hardly the point. Rather, it is a concern to protect our most sacred beliefs - that the family unit is crucial to fulfilling our Heavenly Father's plan on earth.

This is not only a mortal affair, but an eternal one. The family is meant to continue throughout forever. And to achieve these highest blessings possible, the promises must be made in the proper place (the temple) and by the proper authority (one with the legitimate priesthood of God who has been authorized to 'seal on earth and have it be sealed in heaven'. See :Matt. 16:19, Hel. 10:7, and The Guide to the Scriptures - Seal, Sealing). I cannot and do not attempt to speak for God. I can only understand and follow His revealed word as best I can in my honest desires to be true to Him and the church I believe He has formed for His children to be able to have all parts necessary to return to Him. And the crowning point of those needed steps is to be married in God's temple for time and eternity, which marriage is between man and woman. His definition, not ours.

So what about those who chose a different lifestyle? Some will argue it is not actually a choice at all. I believe in some it is and they use the claim 'they were born that way' to side-step responsibility. Some I think are more naturally inclined towards a different way of life. This is the area where the discussion tends to get heated and people feeling attacked on both sides tend to say things that only intensify the antagonism. Again, this is not the place for that.

Religiously speaking, I feel sadness when I think of those living the alternate lifestyles as I see it ultimately having a negative impact on their eternal future and I would want everyone to have the best possible. I would also consider reminding those who claim that 'God made me this way' as an excuse that all people have their weaknesses, temptations, their thorns of the flesh to test and prove them as did Paul in 2 Corinthians 12 wherein God answered:
 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.
Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 10:13 we are promised:
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
I cannot claim to know how God will succor those in this particular situation, but I can say that He helps me every day carry the burdens and sorrows of my own life. His power, His love is real and dependable to all who will steadfastly seek it.

There are, of course, those who will think being considered according to religious views which do not legitimize their positions as distasteful if not insulting. This is where today's title comes into play.

America was primarily peopled by those who sought a refuge where they could fully worship their God the way they believed they were supposed to. Our very first amendment in the Bill of Rights is supposed to guarantee the 'free exercise' of religion. To have the government make rulings on what is to us a religious matter is distressing in the least. To have a religious matter co-opted and secularized places it in the realm that leaves it open for further legal interference. Which directly counters first amendment rights. There is a reason the religious right gets anxious about this subject.

Unfortunately, I think the instinctive anxiety clouds the recognition of why there is so much concern. Admittedly, there is also a portion of the population who are narrow-minded bigots, but to apply that title to all who stand by man-woman marriage merely places the attacker in the same category. Sorry if it hurts to read it, but it is true none-the-less. Bigotry is simply intolerance of any other belief system outside your own and is used as an excuse to attack verbally, politically, physically any who do not comply. As I said, some fall into that category on the religious front, but some are merely seeking to participate in the conversation.

What I'm hoping is that considering what this means to us, both the religious and the alternative life-style people will recognize what our concern truly is. Maybe then there will be less reaction and more honest conversation.

I, personally, think all people should be treated with respect and love. Our scriptures teach that all are welcomed, that the gospel message of Christ and His sacrifice and offers of repentance and forgiveness are available to everyone. And everyone needs it. Each for their own personal situations, but everyone will need to apply the Atonement appropriately to survive this life and return cleansed and refreshed for whatever lies beyond mortality. And as the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Religion should not stand in the way of civil rights just as those who do not believe should not be allowed to inhibit the 'free exercise' of religion. It goes both ways.

One final note for those who may still be inclined to condemn The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for voicing our position regardless of public criticism. There are two Responses I would have you read closely - that to today's DOMA ruling and that on the Boy Scout policy regarding gay membership. If you pay attention, the concern expressed in the first is with the process of a government which ignores a legal, public vote rather than any railing attack. It also simply reaffirms our beliefs in man-woman marriage. In the second, you will see that our church welcomes the gay membership ruling under the same terms that we welcome gays in general. Those terms are simply that so long as one lives according to the commandments of God, their particular leanings are no basis for condemnation or exclusion. And those commandments are the same for them as they are for us - that sexual relations are to be shared only between a man and a woman lawfully married. Pre-marital sex is a no-no for everyone. So agrees the majority of religious moral standards. It is, therefore, no more of an inhibitor than any other would face.

I hope this is understandable and received in the spirit in which it was intended. Now, if you all don't mind (my years in Texas are threatening to show through...), I'm going to lay down and rest. My body does not function in certain normal manners and I happen to be having trouble of late. Until the doctors understand what they know happens but not exactly why, let alone what to do about it, that will kinda be the story of my life... With love and best wishes to all - Till next time. :)