The Point: The Cost of “Gay Marriage”

The Jack Phillips’ Supreme Court case is more important than ever. For the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, I’m John Stonestreet with The Point.

Remember back in, say, 2008 when we were told that gay marriage wouldn’t affect those of us who objected to it? Well in 2018, it apparently does. It costs $130,000, your livelihood, your good name, and several years of your life.

At least that’s true for Melissa and Aaron Klein, former owners of Sweet Cakes bakery. The Kleins had to close their business after the state’s labor commissioner imposed a six-figure fine when they wouldn’t design a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. An Oregon court recently rejected their appeal and upheld the enormous fine.

Their case, like Jack Phillips whose case was just before the Supreme Court, is about a simple question: Can Christians be true to our beliefs about sexuality in the workplace? Are we able to not celebrate and send messages that we consider objectionable? Do basic freedoms extend to us, too?

We won’t know how the court will answer. What we do know is those who said their gay “marriage” wouldn’t affect anyone else sold us a bill of goods.

 

 


Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • Steve

    That is how freedoms are eroded, a little bit at a time. It is like the slowly turning up the heat while having the frog in the water.

    • Phoenix1977

      Ask the LGBT community. They can tell you a story or two about erodee freedoms. Like the right to bodily integrity or the right to live your life without being harressed. Well, we don’t even have to go that far. How about simply the right to live, period?
      You will find no sympathy in the LGBT community and we will never, NEVER, allow people like Jack Phillips or Aaron and Melissa Klein to degrade us again. NEVER!

      • eddie333

        LGBT can do what they want but they cannot force others to accept their choices and lifestyle as “normal” or accept a man masquerading as a woman as a “woman”. Do what you want but do not degrade those who don’t buy into your fantasy gender.

        • Phoenix1977

          And yet, everyone is obliged to obey the law, requiring them to treat LGBTs equally to everyone else.

          • Steve

            The law in the South prior to the Civil Rights movement was discrimination against African-Americans. Were they obliged to obey that law?
            If a gay LGBT couple comes into the doctor’s office and want to conceive a child between them, what should the doctor tell them?
            After all, isn’t it their right to be able to conceive a child with each other without outside individuals, or does natural law get in the way?
            At a certain point, your quest for “equality” runs into certain unavoidable obstacles.
            You may wish to believe that morality should only be determined by each individual but that mindset doesn’t hold up when taken to its logical conclusion.

          • Phoenix1977

            “The law in the South prior to the Civil Rights movement was discrimination against African-Americans. Were they obliged to obey that law?”
            How about you look into your own history books and answer that question? After all, even after president Johnson ended racial segregation it took countless law suits to reach something resembling equality. But before Johnson singed his presidential order people were indeed punishable by law if they violated racial segregation.

            “If a gay LGBT couple comes into the doctor’s office and want to conceive a child between them, what should the doctor tell them?
            After all, isn’t it their right to be able to conceive a child with each other without outside individuals, or does natural law get in the way?”
            Natural law is not in the way at all. Human law is. Or, to be more precise, an international treaty lobbied by the second Bush administration, outlawing medical techniques making it very much possible for two men to conceive a child together.

            “You may wish to believe that morality should only be determined by each individual but that mindset doesn’t hold up when taken to its logical conclusion.”
            Actually, it does. Like the treaty the Bush administration demanded a religious mindset is an obstacle for progress. The sky is the limit, if you are willing to think outside of the box and outside of dogma.

          • Steve

            First of all, Johnson was an outspoken racist and it was the Republicans in congress who pushed through the Civil Rights Act.

            Secondly, as a physician as well as I understand you are, please explain to me how two men can conceive a child together and have that child be born of one of them. That is, two XY males, not someone who says she is a man. There were no men with uteruses in any of the anatomy books I studied.

            Then explain the rationale behind trying to go to extraordinary means to do so while at the same time promoting the taking of unborn children conceived naturally.
            Sounds like we have collectively gone down Alice’s rabbit hole.

          • Steve

            conceive: become pregnant with (a child)
            pregnant: (of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus

            Merriam Webster Dictionary definitions.

            Men cannot conceive or become pregnant.

      • Brian B

        OK, but isn’t compelling someone to do something they don’t want to do, especially something protected by the Constitution, exactly the kind of thing you’re complaining about?

        • Phoenix1977

          Do you pay your taxes willingly or are you compelled to do so? Do you adhere to the maximum speed willingly or are you compelled to do so? Do you treat everybody equally or does the law compel you to do so?

      • Steve

        Just how did Jack Phillips degrade “you”?
        Someone tried to force him to do something clearly against his conscience and he wouldn’t.
        Would you want someone to force you to do something against your conscience?
        Do you think Jewish butchers should be forced to sell pork? Do you think Muslims should be forced to serve alcohol?
        Jack Phillips would not make cakes celebrating divorce. Why do you think a divorcee didn’t sue him? No, it takes someone with malice in their hearts to attack him for his longstanding beliefs.
        Why all the anger?

        • Phoenix1977

          “Just how did Jack Phillips degrade “you”?”
          By treating an LGBT couple as second class citizens.

          “Do you think Jewish butchers should be forced to sell pork? Do you think Muslims should be forced to serve alcohol?”
          Do you ever read the replies I give to your comments? You are comparing apples with oranges because Jewish butchers don’t sell pork to ANYONE. Muslims don’t sell alcohol to ANYONE. Jack Phillips only refused to sell a custom designed wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Definitely not the same.

          “Why all the anger?”
          I don’t really have to answer that question, do I?

          • Steve

            No, he refused to sell custom-designed cakes to celebrate divorces and Halloween also.
            The Jewish butchers and Muslims who don’t sell the pork and alcohol to ANYONE are doing so because of their deeply held religious beliefs.
            You are respecting their right to have religious beliefs but not Christians just because the Christian beliefs clash with what you want.
            Are you saying that Christian churches should be required to perform same-sex weddings? Because that would be the next step.
            If so, you are saying that one group can dictate the beliefs of others. That’s not how it works in the U.S. Is that how it works in your country?
            You really need to look at this from a longer view. Take it to its logical conclusion and you have tyranny.

          • Phoenix1977

            “No, he refused to sell custom-designed cakes to celebrate divorces and Halloween also.”
            Again, he denied those to EVERYONE. The only people he refused to sell products to, were same-sex couples.

            “The Jewish butchers and Muslims who don’t sell the pork and alcohol to ANYONE are doing so because of their deeply held religious beliefs.”
            Key word here being “anyone”.

            “You are respecting their right to have religious beliefs but not Christians just because the Christian beliefs clash with what you want.”
            No, because Christians believe they have the right to discriminate against people based on their religion. If Jack Phillips stops selling custom made wedding cakes to everyone, that’s fine with me. As long as he singles out same-sex couples it is not.

            “Are you saying that Christian churches should be required to perform same-sex weddings? Because that would be the next step.”
            And I should care because …?

            “If so, you are saying that one group can dictate the beliefs of others. That’s not how it works in the U.S.”
            Why don’t you ask the Native Americans about that?

            “You really need to look at this from a longer view. Take it to its logical conclusion and you have tyranny.”
            The LGBT community has suffered tyranny by the hands of Christians for 2 millennia. Never again!

      • James Biersteker

        So, basically your only answer is REVENGE? Let me suggest from a practical perspective, that you have the unique opportunity to take the high road here, but from your response, this opportunity will certainly be lost. Sad!

  • Tom

    Have they made cakes for drunks? For a bride to be that has committed an abortion in her past? Or even for adulturors that have divorced for unbiblical reasons and are about to remarry, maybe even for the second or third time? Let’s say all these people are not Christians and are therefore unrepentant. Are we, from one sinner to the next, given the right to weigh situations or sins greater than others and pick and choose who we share our goodies with (or not)? Does it become hypocrisy at a certain point?

    • Brian B

      What?
      Are you asking if a drunk came in and asked them to make a cake honoring skid row or a couple asked them to make one celebrating their adultery?
      It’s not “sharing goodies” to attempt to freely exercise ones religion; it’s a God given and a Constitutionally recognized right. To do otherwise is to render unto Caesar what is God’s.

      • Tom

        Not to celebrate drunkenness or divorce/adultery etc…but those that have committed unrepented sins looking to form a union

  • The $130,000 fine was not a penalty for refusing to bake the cake. After the initial discrimination complaint, the Kleins posted documentation about the case on Facebook, including the lesbian couple’s home address. This led to them receiving death threats, which were menacing enough that they had to move. It was that which led them to file a lawsuit against the Kleins, which led to the monetary award.

    As for the initial discrimination complaint, a case like this is no different than the cases half a century ago when some lunch counter owners refused to serve black customers. Businesses open to the public cannot legally discriminate on the basis of things like race or sexual orientation. It doesn’t matter that in some cases the desire to discriminate is motivated by a religious taboo. Some segregationists in the old South also claimed that their racism had a Biblical basis.

  • greenbird7

    the comments below all reflect an inaccurate understanding of the situation. The Kleins did NOT refuse to sell a cake to the gay couple. They were perfectly willing to sell them any “off the shelf cake” that was already made and on display. What they refused to do was design a specific cake for a gay wedding. Elaborate wedding cakes often have little plastic figures of a husband and wife on top. Should the Kleins be forced to buy and use figures of gay and lesbian couples which would imply their approval of gay marriage. Some really elaborate cakes apparently require the baker to show up at the wedding so they can be put together at the last minute. Should the Kleins be forced to show up and then congratulate the couple on their sinful fake “marriage?”

    The question is NOT one of discrimination but of forced speech. Should a gay owned cake shop be forced to make a cake that says “God hates gays” for the Westboro Baptists? Absolutely not! Equality under the law means that opponents of gay marriage should have the same right to refuse to endorse behavior with which they disagree, a principal of basic freedom that goes well beyond the question of gay marriage.

    • Phoenix1977

      “The Kleins did NOT refuse to sell a cake to the gay couple. They were perfectly willing to sell them any “off the shelf cake” that was already made and on display. What they refused to do was design a specific cake for a gay wedding.”
      Thank you for making the exact point this case is about. The Kleins refused to sell the same product (custom designed wedding cakes) to both opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. And that is a violation of the law in their state (and 31 other states in the Union).

      “Should a gay owned cake shop be forced to make a cake that says “God hates gays” for the Westboro Baptists? ”
      They should if the were willing to bake cakes with hateful messages to other groups but not Christians. However, as long as they refused to bake hateful cakes for everyone refusing the Westboro Baptists would be no problem.
      You Christians keep trying to find examples to make your case but all you manage to do is make our case. The sad thing is you people are so convinced of your rights and your privileges as Christians you simply cannot see you are on the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of history.

    • Tom

      I believe we’ve all been made aware of the circumstances of selling this cake, but not that one…which is confusing in itself. If the gay couple had been content with the generic cake and if a guest at the wedding loved the cake and asked where they purchased it and they were to say where, I believe they would deduce that that particular shop would’ve endorsed the wedding.
      I am a guy that happens to be gay and somebody that The Lord has revealed Himself to. I had no genuine conviction over my sexuality, as I had known I was gay prior to kindergarten and felt natural to me, until The Spirit was calling me to leave my partner (and not in a hateful, spiteful, or condemning way)…the call was done in a tender and loving manner, beconing for trust and faith as He would continue to reveal Himself to me. I chose to leave my partner and be celibate to follow Christ.
      My only concern in these situations is the manner in which tones and perspectives are exchanged. As stated in my original message, is that there are many different types of unions formed by many different types of sinners outside of God’s grace…if none of them have rested their lives in Christ’s hands, then none of their eternities will be with Him, so why do certain sins get elevated or get addressed with certain tones that can make the person feel there is nothing redeemable in them, or that Jesus couldn’t possibly love them. It goes beyond stating simple cold, hard doctrinal facts, such as “a fake and sinful marriage,” but actually having a heart for the unsaved and showing love as you share truth, and being salt to those you find salty…otherwise one ends up looking like the world. My decision to leave my partner wasn’t an easy one, and at times has been very trying, but it has been such a rewarding one. All I ask is to please consider this…we all have struggles and sins. Yours may not be same sex attraction, and the desire for the same sex is not given to people by God, but God does allow it to happen, just as He allows the particular thorns to be left in your side

    • Tom

      Also, sorry if this message seemed completely directed towards you; I didn’t mean for that to happen…just in general

  • Steve

    Interesting worldview, atheism–people deny the existence of God and then want to be Him.
    Never seems to work out.
    Signing off on this discussion.
    See you around…

    • Phoenix1977

      Not nearly as interesting as a religious / conservative world view: wanting everything to remain as it was instead of people reaching their true potential.

      • Steve

        Gotta sign back in!
        Here’s a conservative question for you:
        Who is reaching their true potential in an abortion and who is being denied any potential at all?
        Do only some people get to reach their potential?
        And who decides?

        • Phoenix1977

          “Who is reaching their true potential in an abortion and who is being denied any potential at all?”
          The women who undergo a basic medical procedure to end an unwanted medical situation will be able to reach their full potential. The fetus will not but since a fetus is not a legally a person …

          “Do only some people get to reach their potential?”
          No, every person gets the opportunity to reach his or her full potential.

          “And who decides?”
          Most of the time circumstances decide. To take an American example: if you were born in a poor family and you don’t have a chance for a athletic scholarship the chance of you getting a college education, no matter how smart you are, are very slim.So the circumstances of your birth will decide whether or not you will reach your full potential.

          • Steve

            But the fetus is alive, right? It is certainly not dead, obviously.
            And the fetus is human, right? It has two human parents (man and woman, by the way)
            Why is someone charged with double homocide if they kill a pregnant woman? Why would it be a homocide in one case but not the other? Is who is killing the baby the determining factor of whether the baby is a person?
            Since you are very interested in the law (you often mention it), why is it unlawful to have an abortion after a certain date?
            Does the baby become a person at some date? If so, when?
            Don’t say at viability, because that is variable and impossible to define for any one individual and can be mistaken.

            “The circumstances of your birth will decide whether or not you will reach your full potential” Really? That shoots down all of those rags to riches stories and the pathetic trust-funders who had every possible advantage and failed.

            You should read about Dr. Ben Carson. Illiterate mom, born in Detroit, no dad at home, poor, black. Went on to become chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins and separated conjoined twins at the brain. Ran for president.