If you’ve been paying attention to the news or (Heaven help you) been on social media, particularly twitter, you know that this past week, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a number of controvertial decisions, ones that have (once again) polarized conservatives and liberals (or Christians and everyone else it seems).
I’m only going to discuss one and my discussion will not be exhaustive. I’m addressing the Supreme Court’s decision that a web designer is allowed to refuse to make a website for gay people. From the left’s perspective, this is blatant discrimination against the LGBTQ (and so on) community and goes well beyond whether or not a Christian baker must make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.
Opponents of the decision say this opens to door for any business anywhere to refuse to serve any LGBTQ customer “just because.” But is that what it really means?
I chose the NPR story because it includes a frame allowing readers to go through the entire Supreme Court written decision. But it’s seventy pages long, so I’m not reading it.
On the other hand, the story does summarize the key points.
The decision was limited because much of what might have been contested about the facts of the case was stipulated–namely that Smith intends to work with couples to produce a customized story for their websites, using her words and original artwork. Given those facts, (Justice Neil ) Gorsuch said, Smith qualifies for constitutional protection.
So the basis upon which the web designer may refuse to work with LGBTQ people is somewhat limited, but it still seems kind of vague to me.
Further…
Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch drew a distinction between discrimination based on a person’s status–her gender, race, and other classifications–and discrimination based on her message.
It gets worse.
In a story published by the Associated Press, the suit originally came into existence when someone named “Stewart” requested she build a website for him.
The request in dispute, from a person identified as “Stewart,” wasn’t the basis for the federal lawsuit filed preemptively seven years ago by web designer Lorie Smith, before she started making wedding websites. But as the case advanced, it was referenced by her attorneys when lawyers for the state of Colorado pressed Smith on whether she had sufficient grounds to sue.
These records go back to 2017 but the story continues with…
But Stewart told The Associated Press he never submitted the request and didn’t know his name was invoked in the lawsuit until he was contacted this week by a reporter from The New Republic, which first reported his denial.
“I was incredibly surprised given the fact that I’ve been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years,” said Stewart, who declined to give his last name for fear of harassment and threats. His contact information, but not his last name, were listed in court documents.
One wonders how this case ever reached the Supreme Court, and yet it did.
Naturally, as I’ve already mentioned, social media exploded.
For instance, on twitter, Lakota Man said that in response to the SCOTUS decision, he would refuse to provide medical treatment to “MAGA’s” (sic).
https://twitter.com/LakotaMan1/status/1675136583044067328
He had a message for “anti-vaxxers” as well.
Addendum: July 2, 2023: I checked and Lakota Man deleted the “anti-vax” statement. Imagine that.
https://twitter.com/LakotaMan1/status/1675139931549872129
I found the following image on twitter and took a screenshot.
Of course, there’s always this.
There’s even a news story where Boston University law students are offered therapy in response to the recent SCOTUS decisions. Holy cow, really? Therapy?
Anyway, it goes on and on and almost none of it addresses the specificity of the high court’s decision.
But I’ve been considering Christian business people, websites, cakes, and gay customers. Just how far are Christian entrepreneurs entitled to use their faith to refuse to provide goods and services to those they consider “sinners?” Christianity and perhaps come circles of Judaism tend to treat homosexual acts as a special and particularly odious sin, worse than adultry, bank robbery, cheating on your taxes, or tripping a blind person as they’re walking down the sidewalk.
Is it? Does the Almighty draw such a distinction?
I suppose I’ve just opened up the entire topic of what the Bible says about homosexuality. I’ve written about that before and don’t want to cover the same ground again. Review my articles:
Book Review: God and the Gay Christian
What Does God Want From Gay People?
Parts One, Two, and Three of God vs. Gay? The Religious Case for Equality.
I’ve written more, but that will get you started.
Romans 1:24-32 is often quoted regarding Paul’s perspective of how God reviewed unbelievers and homosexual behavior. But remember that being gay or gay sex in and of itself isn’t or shouldn’tbe a special class of sin.
Should a Christian baker make a wedding cake for a couple who have each been previously married and divorced and did not divorce because of adultery? Should a Christian web designer refuse to develop a business website for a person who had gone to prison for eighteen months for tax evasion or embezzlement? Should a Christian seamstress refuse to make a dress for a woman who once cheated on her husband?
“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. –Matthew 7:12 (NASB)
If someone says, “I love God,” and yet he hates his brother or sister, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother and sister whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. –1 John 4:20
But then who is your brother (or sister)?
While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. [Someone said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to You.”] But Jesus replied to the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?” And extending His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold: My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother.” –Matthew 12:46-50
Okay, that doesn’t work. But what about this?
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I say to you, do not show opposition against an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other toward him also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may prove yourselves to be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors, do they not do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Even the Gentiles, do they not do the same? Therefore you shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. –Matthew 5:38-48
Wow. That’s pretty selfless. If you do not show opposition to an evil person when they slap you in the face (often considered a metaphor for a verbal insult), how much moreso should you not oppose an “evil person” when they request you bake a cake or make a website?
I’ve been thinking a lot about the various rebukes Paul issued in his letters. Paul didn’t necessarily get “political.” If he was to criticize any person or group, it was within the context of the “church” (given that the entity we call “church” in modern times didn’t exactly exist back then). He didn’t complain about the Emperor, Centurions, corrupt Senators, and the like. In fact, he more often criticized corruption within religious Judaism.
Although Paul allowed other emmisaries of the Master (Jesus) to earn operating funds through donations, Paul wanted to pay his own way. Then no one could say that he owed anyone else. What did Paul do for a living.
Generally, it’s accepted that he was a tent maker (although net mender comes up occasionally) as cited by Britannica.com and Relevant Magazine.
Assuming he was a tent maker, who did he make tents for? Only for believers? Only for people in the “church?”
Could he have made or repaired tents for pagans, Romans, Greek idolators, non-Jewish adulterers? Could he have made or repaired tents for a Roman master who had engaged in homosexual activities with a slave?
It is true that Paul was critical of Felix and his Jewish wife Drusilla on the matter of (sexual) self-control (Acts 24:24-25), but that’s not the same as refusing to make a tent for them.
I did recently publish Where True Love Means Telling Straight Men To Call Themselves “CIS”, but in the end, I wrote that more out of personal angst than viewing the matter through the lens of faith.
It’s important to remember that we live in a very fallen world, and things are getting worse all the time. But what we (I) complain about are the symptoms of that fallenness and heralds of what is yet to come. It’s horrible and terrifying, but if we keep our focus, if we keep alert and aware as the Master often advised his listeners and students, then we shall be prepared.
My conclusion is bound to upset a few people. You see, if I was a baker, I’d probably make the cake for the gay couple’s wedding. If I was a web designer, I’d probably create the wedding website for the gay couple. I’d certainly sell gays flowers to brighten their dinner table, sell a gay man a pair of shoes, put that second coat of wax on a lesbian’s car.
None of that means I approve or condone anything. I’d also sell shoes to an adulterer, wax he car of a person who had just gotten out of prison for cheating on their taxes, and build a website for someone who says they would refuse me medical services because of my politics.
I know we are not to participate in or encourage the sin in another, but if we didn’t interact with sinners, we would only interact with believers. Jesus almost always interacted with sinners for it is the sick who need a doctor, not the healthy.
Maybe by resisting so much, we only prevent others from considering the words and teachings of the Master, making us emissaries of rejection and hostility.
As I said, the argument isn’t exhaustive and we could continue to debate the matter this way and that. But if we fight to heard (or if I fight too hard), we might discover we’re fighting against ourselves or worse, against the Almighty. I believe Jacob already had that experience.
Oh and a fashion designer already refused to dress then incoming First Lady Melania Trump, so it’s not like the opponents of the SCOTUS decision have clean hands, either.
Morning Meditations 
You seem to have made the same error as those who oppose the SCOTUS decision. The focus was not on the denial of service, nor on the would-be customers who were denied, but on the first-amendment rights of an individual not to be coerced to “speak” that which is contrary to their own choice of speech content. It was like saying that they could not be taken prisoner and forced to read and record someone else’s political manifesto. Nor could they or their business be punished for refusing to cooperate in that manner. The message on a website, or on a cake, for that matter, does require a characteristic expression of propositional content.
Now, is a doctor who treats a patient that has different views about medicine, or other healing arts, or about political issues, being coerced to violate his first-amendment rights to speak or not to speak? No, his treatment is not a “statement”, though it may express his professional competence or commitment.
This case did not touch on the First Amendment’s religious establishment or free exercise clauses, because no law produced by any legislature was impinging on the issue at hand.
Since the above blog essay failed to address and clarify these mistakes, I’m not sure why it was written, but maybe it was rushed and didn’t include all that was intended.
Well said, thank you. Similar to my thoughts, too. When you bake a wedding cake or sell flower arrangements for a wedding you are participating in a celebratory event that does not reflect your free speech. You are being coerced to participate. Consider forcing Jewish or Muslim business to sell pork products, or a doctor to perform abortions to retain their medical license. BTW, didn’t Paul also say to not eat meat offered to idols? Yes, in one place he said, “don’t ask, don’t tell” for an idol is nothing, but another place Paul said the meat offered to idols is offered to demons? IMO, he is saying boycott the meat market for pagan idolatry, even if it saves you money. For me, I don’t shop Target. Hahahahaha
One thing I get tired of is everything being about gay sex or gay couples in this regard of rejection. I, myself, would probably wish not to create a cake in the context of a “pastor” who (last I was paying attention to such things) was going around in the public eye telling Christians to have anal sex (a man and a woman). I consider this a perversion or gross abuse of so-called Christian understanding (and of women or anyone). That’s what I’d say to him.
This case has zero to do with serving a self-identified gay couple. It is extremely unfortunate how news articles have been headlined to falsely state what the case was about. One only needs to read the opening paragraphs of the case notes (which Justice Sotomayor decided to skip) to see the following:
“Before the district court, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts: Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender” and “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation; she will not produce content that “contradicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it.”
More plainly, even if Chief Justice Roberts requested that she design a same-sex wedding website, she would refuse.
Odd. I got the impression from the reported SCOTUS summary of the decision made that it was about artistic content, and thus about free speech. A web designer could be damaged professionally if the personal style of content produced conflicted with their normal well-known artistic bent. They might not be able to express their gift for beautifying something so utilitarian as a website if required to do so.
Worse, they would be forced to support with their efforts the views on the website requested against their personal views … which is what is desired by the LGBTQ+ movement, and has been since the wedding cake episode. It was one more camel’s nose being shoved into the tent of free-speech and expression. And being unable to make a beautifully decorated cake, I consider that artistic too, although from the beginning it was a rejection of a cake for a Gay Marriage, and was stated to be so. The cake shop threw down the gauntlet, and it was picked up.
I don’t know exactly what kind of website design would be involved, but if the designer uses highly spiritual imagery as a background for the usual click here button, and was asked to put that kind of painting behind a website for LGBTQ+ wedding services, that would be forcing the designer to ‘speak’ with their digital paintbrush for what they might abhor.
As for doctors or lawyers or anyone non-artistic in their services posting they do not want to serve a sector of the populace under this decision, they need to talk to their legal representative before they get sued … or go broke as people avoid their business.
I really like your take on Paul being a tent-maker or net-mender!
I haven’t read the recent case, so l don’t know the details there. I have, as you shared too, heard in news that the standing seems to have been bogus (in that the story about the man wasn’t real) while I haven’t heard the word “standing” used but am aware that’s the meaning. It can feel perplexing that the U.S. legal system requires a factual case where someone is being harmed, a theoretical possibility not being enough.
[I want to note, as further detailing on people I mentioned in my comment under your other writing: Mom is a conservative Republican who sees herself as a believer, cries and looks pensive at touching moments, goes forward for the Eucharist (whatever that word means), and so on. The son I referenced is not a Christian but is a trustworthy person.]