E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Monday, November 17, 2014

Following up on "marriage equality" vs. religious liberty

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Critics of my guest editorial on religious liberty have taken the principle of freedom of association and expanded it far beyond the real issue we are facing regarding "marriage equality."

The issue is not whether Christian business owners should refuse service to all homosexuals, or whether businesses in general should be able to refuse service to specific groups of people. Selling gasoline or potato chips to a homosexual (or anyone engaged in any sin) presents no moral quandary for a Christian. The issue is whether the civil magistrate should force Christians to endorse homosexual behavior.

Should a Christian business owner be forced to participate in homosexual weddings by providing photography, flowers or a wedding cake? Should Christian business owners should be forced to provide space for homosexual activity by renting a room in a bed and breakfast to a same-sex couple? Should our society expect anyone to endorse behavior their faith deems unacceptable, and be punished by the state if they do not?

In a response to me, another guest columnist asked regarding a bed and breakfast if "different-sex couples registering for rooms required to provide a copy of their marriage license in order to rent a room." The answer - of course. A Christian bed and breakfast owner should be allowed to refuse to rent a room to an unmarried heterosexual couple.

The common refrain is that a church should be allowed to refuse service, but a private business in the public domain should not. But the obvious question is this: Why should Christians who own a for-profit business have fewer rights under our Constitution than Christians in a ministerial position? More importantly, once the precedent is established, does anyone really think the exception for ministries will last very long?

The solution should be simple: Take your business elsewhere. There are plenty of business owners who will rent a room to a homosexual couple (or an unmarried heterosexual couple) or who will sell a wedding cake to anyone. No one's rights are being violated by respecting freedom of conscience. But it is not and has never been about tolerance. It is and has always been about mandatory acceptance of homosexuality, now enforced by the state.


Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.


At November 21, 2014 at 2:05 PM , Blogger TableTopJoe said...  


I believe your understanding of history and government-compelled service is misguided.

Going back nearly a thousand years, businesses were classified as either traditional or "common carriers." A traditional business, say a barber, has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Such right was memorialized in the U.S. Constitution under the "free association" clause.

However, the U.S. Constitution also grafted itself on top of the common law, which stated that a common carrier could not refuse service except for specific circumstances approved by the sovereign. Thus, a hotelier could not refuse service to someone based simply on his nationality, or a restaurateur could not refuse service to someone simply due to his skin color. Similarly, a gas station owner cannot refuse to sell gasoline to someone based on his skin color or sexual preferences.

These issues were dealt with in the 1960s with the passage and implementation of the Civil Rights Act. To my understanding, there is no push to force anyone to do business with homosexuals who isn't already obligated, per the common law rules pertaining to common carriers, to provide their service in an indiscriminate manner.

To your point as to "Christians who own a for-profit business" having "fewer rights under our Constitution than Christians in a ministerial position," you miss an important distinction: when someone incorporates, the corporation becomes a legally separate and distinct being. "Corporations are people, my friend." That sword has blades on both edges.

You remain free to hold your bigoted views of homosexuality. You can fly a "God Hates F**s" flag for all I care. However, you can't simply re-write a thousand years of common law jurisprudence to fit your preferred worldview, especially on the justification of "homosexuals are yucky."

You assert that there will be plenty of business owners willing to rent a room to a homosexual couple, yet provide very little evidence of such. Further, you fail to draw your lines clearly. Should a gas station owner be allowed to refuse service to a homosexual customer who is nearly out of gas in the middle of nowhere, with the next gas station 100 miles away? What about a hotel owner at 11 P.M. with the next hotel more than 100 miles away, and no guarantee that that hotel will serve homosexuals?

I think I've made my point.

At November 22, 2014 at 5:38 PM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

There is not now, never has been, and never will be any real-world "clash" between freedom of religion and marriage equality. No church or "pastor" can be forced to perform gay weddings, period. This fevered fantasy is one more manifestation of the "religious right's" raving bigotry, eventually destined for the scrap head of history--and the sooner the better.

At November 23, 2014 at 6:13 AM , Blogger Scott Tibbs said...  

Ministers have not been forced to perform homosexual weddings (yet) but Christian business owners have been forced to participate in them. That's a violation of religious freedom.

The common law is subservient to the First Amendment.

Post a Comment

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.