Refusing Homosexuals Service or Commerce

[SERay]

Personal preferences can't be used by individuals or groups to claim exemption from general laws. That much is clear. If we are going to permit any exemptions, we must be able to distinguish between mere preferences and objections of a deeper kind — ones that the state (or the courts) should recognize and respect. But on what basis is our pluralistic, publicly secular society to make such a distinction? What separates a group that thinks incomes taxes are unjust from a group that objects to abortifacient (causing an abortion) birth control on secular grounds from a group that objects to the same thing because the Catholic catechism declares it morally illicit? When it comes to religious freedom, these are interesting times.

[Roger]

The problem is the governor ordered all county clerks to issue license. She is guilty of not follow what the governor said to do. She has refused to give license to gay or normal couples. The Governor of Kentucky Steve Beshear and the Attorney General Jack Conway left the clerks out to dry. They shouldn't have issued any instructions until the Kentucky legislature came back into session.

[Rebecca]

No worries, Roger Chaney. There is no need to apologize. Although I disagree with a few things expressed through this discussion, it in no way will ever hinder the unity we all have in Christ. Thank you for all of the scripture shared.

I think I thought you were referring to the kind of modern day tolerance we see defined by the world. I had a preconceived meaning when I read. You are right that forbearance and tolerance mean the same thing.

[SERay]

Undeniably, the situation has downgraded into an unacceptable legal precedent. Davis’s lawyer, Roger Gannam with the Liberty Counsel, said following Judge David Bunning’s decision to imprison his client: “Today, for the first time in history, an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and she’s been ordered to stay there until she’s willing to change her mind, until she’s willing to change her conscience about what that belief is. This is unprecedented in American law.”

Ordered to remain incarcerated until she changes her mind? The governor said he had no authority to use an executive order to relieve a county clerk of his or her duty; therefore they are going to hold her in duress to force change, the same action taken in countries hostile to Christianity. This exceeds the boundaries of the Constitutional Amendments; U.S. Bill of Rights... the same rights the homosexual Reich insists supports their freedom of choice to consummate in unholy matrimony. Unbelievable, but not unexpected considering the effective liberal-socialist encroachment.

[cmnahrwold]

Thanks for the commentary SERay.

I have been reflecting on Acts 5:29 in regards to this situation. Still pondering about this situation.

It is hard to know for sure whether God disapproves of signing same sex marriage certificates. I know it states not to be a stumbling block or to cause your brother to sin, but in context that applies to fellow believers, not unbelievers. It becomes a matter of splitting hairs and what your conscience tells you. I feel for that lady and respect her ability to stand up for what she believes, but I pray that the Holy Spirit is leading her to what God would want in this situation.

Interesting article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-of-your-job/

[SERay]

Yes, have read about the other situations that are related to religious accommodations. What is unique in this case is that homosexuals have zero tolerance of Christian’s moral platitudes, resulting in liberal drama as a "flash point" and thus media attention. If this was a Muslim not wanting to serve alcohol, it would have never gained media attention. Additionally, unlike the other cases mentioned in the article, she was an elected official, a government employee sworn to uphold the legislation of that office, under the commonwealth in which she served. An elected position that cannot be vacated by force less impeachment. Her designation requires her to follow the dictated laws, like it or not, a position she should have never pursued considering her personal volatility. This position gave her unusual sway and powers that further escalated the situation. Good article, it succinctly digs deep into the details. I like!

[Roger]

The one problem is she stopped issuing all marriage licenses in her county putting undue burden on the people of her county. The truth is signing the licenses is not an approval or disapproval it is a verification of facts and registration. Trust me county clerks do not celebrate or approve of any license. They are recorders and keeper of records. Personally, I am not so sure she hasn't been manipulated and conceived that what she would be doing would be an approval.

[Johanna]

It has taken me a couple of days to come to terms with what I think about this issue... it is that complex and, as Steve says, there is an important grey area which I think relates to personal conviction.

My take is that all of us Christians recognize some issues as sinful personally which might not be such for other believers. I think for her, issuing a license was a sinful act that she didn't want any part of. So be it. I will not comment further on that because that is personal and is profoundly intimate to one’s walk with Christ. However, I will comment on how she chose to respond to that dilemma.

In my understanding, she had two choices on how to respond: she either stepped down from her elected post—as we have seen many other Christians in other positions do—or she would go down with a fight, e.g., refusing to fulfil her obligations as state employee and thus receive the expected punishment by breaking the law. I wonder if she was expecting some sort of miraculous deliverance in the form of an exception, one that would allow her to get off Scott free instead of going to jail, coming from a Apostolic background where many details in life are sometimes over-spiritualized. I could understand where she might expect that, or be encouraged to take a stand to prove God is powerful, etc.

Anyway, going back to how she chose to respond to this civil matter. The Scriptures teach us as well as the Spirit of the Lord reminds us we are not our own, we are a priesthood, a chosen people to shine forth as the light of Christ amidst a dark world. In doing so, we must bear the fruit of a new spirit, a new attitude that resembles the meekness of Christ. He said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor in spirit…” Taking this into account, why couldn’t she have stepped down and shown the world she would not, indeed she could not, participate in approving same-sex marriage licenses? This is not a case of being imprisoned for proclaiming the Gospel, as the Apostles were. Hers was not an issue of being punished for living quietly and peacefully as a Christian. On the contrary, she chose to go—as a I call it—the “American Way,” that is, putting up a fight. She chose to take a personal religious stand that has political implications.

This is a hard truth to swallow, however as a foreigner (no offense intended), I can see American Christians have become spoiled. They think the law of the land should protect them, should reflect God’s moral standards, and such. No. The fact that this country has kept a sense of morality until not so long ago has made the Christian church complacent, lazy and unspiritual. That’s a fact not only in the USA but look at Europe. Churches in Asia are thriving in spite of the laws against it, in spite that being a Christian might result in untimely death. May we learn from them and remember to “go outside the gates bearing our Lord’s reproach.” Not kicking and screaming and putting up a fight but in all meekness and humility. That's what the Scriptures teach, repeatedly sharing examples of the Lord and the apostles. None of them made a political stand in a most corrupted time and age. It is important that the world see we belong to a different Kingdom, that we are indeed pilgrims here. May the world see a different spirit in me, not pride and stubborn attitudes that only serve to further offend the God of heaven and further drive souls away from his amazing grace.

My question remains, why couldn’t she step down by means of a humble spirit due to a transformed life living for Christ even in the face of abuse, just as He showed us to, or the apostles? Good food for thought.

PS. I also wonder if she was encouraged by her peer spiritual surroundings to become a sort of an icon of religious injustice… a sort of modern-day martyr. Which is unfortunate because it takes away from the true martyrs shown in the Scriptures who did not fight the moral laws of the land but suffered and died because of the Gospel, and did not claim to know anything but Christ crucified.

[Rebecca]

She is not breaking the law. She was voted into office to represent the people of her county in Kentucky. Kentucky as a state voted that they would not allow same sex marriage. Five elitists in the Supreme Court decided to illegally override the States' decision on same sex marriage and right law on it, again illegally, because it is not in their power to right law.

Another note, Kim Davis was interviewed and admitted that she sowed a pit of sin with her own hands during her life, but she has become a Christian just four years ago. Why are we not in prayer for her as a fellow believer?

[Johanna]

I think praying for a fellow believer in distress is a given, Rebecca. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, however we respond to the trials we are presented in life, as long as we remain in Christ. As I said above, as a citizen of the U.S.A., she has chosen to go down a path as a civil servant that takes away her freedom of personal choice pertaining to that office, therefore now she has to face the consequences. I pray the Lord will give her wisdom to proceed and in doing so, to bring glorify to His name only and above all.