One of the news stories that broke this past week was that the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a florist who decided not to offer her services to a same-sex couple for their wedding. This case has ignited much furor in both the LGBT and evangelical worlds because it seems to place the debate as a battle between civil liberties and religious liberty. I have only slightly followed this case, but as this discussion will soon (and already has) become heated, here are a few thoughts I have to hopefully bring some nuance to this case that addresses both sides:
- If you hear conservative Christians saying this story was "buried" this week in some attempt to secretly take away religious liberty, don't believe the hype. Mainstream media did in fact cover the story (how else do you think people became aware of it?) Furthermore, if this story did not rise to the level of prominence many conservatives felt it deserved, it was likely the result of the current chaos in the Trump administration, not because of some conspiracy theory.
- It seems pretty obvious that Barronelle Stutzman (the florist) was in violation of the law. Our current laws clearly state that same-sex unions enjoy the same privileges and rights as heterosexual marriages. Furthermore, it is a crime to discriminate against a person based on either gender or sexual orientation. A business refusing to provide a service because of a person's sexual orientation is a crime. Under the eyes of the law, it is really no different from refusing to provide a person a service because of their race or ethnicity. This is why the Washington Supreme Court was unanimous--it's pretty cut and dry.
- One's religious liberty is not unlimited. The law only grants religious liberty so long as that liberty does not infringe upon the well-being of society (this is how all rights work). For instance, I cannot kill my child even if I followed a religion that said this was acceptable. In this current case, the laws and perception of our society state that such discrimination is detrimental to society. Thus, the court ruled that the practice of her religious conscience in a place of business was problematic.
- What all does religious liberty actually cover? I am not a constitutional scholar, so I'll largely leave this question open. However, it is good to note that the State is not forcing Stutzman to change her beliefs, per se. She can still worship as she pleases, she can still speak out against gay marriage, she can refuse to attend gay weeddings, etc. The court simply said that, if she is going to operate a place of business in the public sphere, then she must treat all citizens equally.
- Which leads to this last point on religious liberty. I'm not sure religious liberty extends to a business. An individual can be a "Christian," and a church congregation can be "Christian," but I'm not convinced a business can be "Christian." The reality is that when you open a business, you agree to abide by the laws and regulations affecting businesses. This include anti-discrimination statues. If you are not willing to serve certain customers because of demographics that fall under those statutes, then you probably shouldn't run that business or you should be willing to face the consequences of breaking the law. It may even be right to defy a law you see as unjust, but be truthful and don't whine or complain when you get in trouble for breaking that law. Ironically, I've seen a number of conservatives this past week say, "You're free to express your beliefs, but you're not free from the consequences of those expressions" in response to employees getting fired for taking off work on the "Day without Immigrants." Shouldn't we say the same about Stutzman? She was free to express her beliefs, but she's not free from the legal consequences of those actions.
But before my more liberal friends get to excited, I do have a few thoughts for that side as well.
- This court case has often been characterized in terms of "civil liberties." As noted above, I won't argue with the legal realities here, but there is one aspect of the LGBT movement that's never set quite well with me, and that's the comparison between LGBT rights and the racial civil rights movement. In this particular case Stutzman's actions have been compared to refusing to serve a customer because she is black. While legally speaking this is true, I think we'd be amiss if we didn't acknowledge some substantial differences. The main difference I see is that most educated Christians who don't approve of same-sex unions take issue with the ACTS of homosexuality, not the impulses or orientation itself. This is quite different from discrimination based on race which is a trait you are born with and can't escape. There is no way to not act out on being your color. Your race race remains the same regardless of your actions. Regarding being gay, even if sexual orientation is genetic, a person still has a decision about whether or not to act out on those impulses, which makes it somewhat different than racial discrimination.
- Bring this point onto the Stutzman case. What if a man who identifies as gay but chooses not to act out on those impulses (perhaps because of a religious conviction or some other reason) decided to buy flowers from Ms. Stutzman, perhaps for his mom. And let's say the florist sells him flowers and she knows he identifies as gay. But, at the same time, she refuses to offer services for a gay wedding. Is this truly discrimination against a person for being gay, or is it discrimination against the actions of homosexuality? It may be a fine line, but I think it's worth at least acknowledging.
- Additionally, I think it's easy for LGBT advocates to get overly militaristic at times (just as evangelicals often do). From some of what I have read, it seems Stutzman did attempt to offer the gay couple a referral for another florist. So, it does not seem like she is some evil lady trying to hate on "the gays." Rather, she is a person of conscience (like a significant minority of Americans) who are not comfortable with gay marriage and who view homosexuality as a sin. For many of us, we strive to love our LGBT brothers and sisters, but the liberal narratives of being anti-gay marriage as equivalent to being hateful or bigoted or uneducated are simply not fair. Those who are pro-LGBT rights would do well to remember that it has only been very recently that a majority (and only a slim majority) of Americans back their cause. Triumphalism and shouting down the opposition does nothing to draw us toward unity or truth. Not all who oppose gay marriage are hateful. Many of us continue to wrestle with the issue.
- Finally, pro-gay rights individuals should remember that (for Christians) this is a debate about sin. Is homosexuality a sin or not? This is no small question and the Church remains incredibly divided on this issue. So, for Christians who have become convicted that gay marriage is acceptable because it is something different than what the Bible addresses, be patient with the other half. Don't get angry or judgmental just because you are passionate about what you see as an issue of "justice." Remember you are asking your brothers and sisters to change their minds about sin. For any Christian, this is not a matter to be taken lightly as getting the answer wrong (in either direction) could amount to an offense against God. So, be filled with grace (both sides).
So there are my thoughts. In summary, the law seems pretty clear, but the underlying issue is not. I don't think Christians can really argue that Stutzman wasn't breaking the law (I think she probably was), but what remains open is whether those laws themselves are unjust or how people on both sides of the debate choose to relate to and characterize each other going forward.
