The author’s argument is that providing a service should be construed as participation or affirmation. Why? Because if Christians truly believe that a vendor service is an affirmation, then they need to explain why it is only gay and lesbian weddings that violate their conscience.
Her argument is that Christians are applying their beliefs INCONSISTENTLY or UNFAIRLY. She then gives examples...
For instance, Before agreeing to provide a good or service for a wedding, Christian vendors must verify that both future spouses have had genuine conversion experiences and are “equally yoked” (2 Corinthians 6:14) or they will be complicit with joining righteousness with unrighteousness. They must confirm that neither spouse has been unbiblically divorced (Matthew 19). If one has been divorced, Christian vendors should ask why.
But Christians don’t do that in the latter case, so, her question is this, why simply target refusal of service to gays and lesbians and ignore other Biblical violations?
In the second it is quite in your face.
I am not quite sure why this seems to be so difficult.
It is like if I sold a dog to a couple not knowing that they were going to make the dog a blood sacrifice and in another case sold a dog to someone who TOLD me he was going to sacrifice the dog to satan before burning down his neighbors house.
I don’t remember and Divorce Pride movements and people throwing Divorce into your face, demanding you affirm it.
These gays can buy cakes all day long without telling anyone they are homosexuals.
I would guess that in order to do this, a business must delve more deeply into a couple's personal issues than most people feel comfortable with. Generally, when processing an order for cake or flowers there is nothing particularly obvious about a couple who are violating God's law when they are a male/female couple. A male/male couple is obvious right off the bat.
Sure, we can probably assume the couple is engaged in fornication- they could have children accompanying them, which would make it obvious, but in that case most of us would be glad to see them "making it legal".
Aside from the divorce issue, a male/female couple have the capability to build a Godly union over time, if the union does not begin in that manner. And even in the case of divorce, would God demand that a person who divorced and re-married and then became a Christian un-do the second union and dissolve a family created? My guess is no, this is where grace comes in- where before you did not understand, acknowledge that you violated God's law, ask forgiveness and move on.
A same sex union has none of these possibilities.
By the way, it was years and years ago that I refused to attend the wedding of my husband's scummy boss who had an affair and then left his family to marry the other woman.
For years I have been quietly resistant to treating my brother's live-in girlfriend as my sister-in-law. The end result is that I don't have any special relationship to my other brother's wife because I don't wish to highlight any difference in treatment between the two.
Fortunately for me, they all live very far away and the issue is largely moot. But I mightily resent being put in a position where I am expected to treat their relationship with far more respect/credibility than either of them do. If my brother does not want to make her a part of the family-or if she is choosing to not become my family, how am I the bad-guy by treating her like just another girlfriend?
I suppose that homosexuals could just request a cake that says "Congratulations Bob and John" and theoretically, that wouldn't be a violation of conscience, but in the details of these lawsuits, it seems that the "engaged" parties announce it directly.
If a bunch of people created a golden calf and worshiped it, and asked a christian caterer to provide and staff the event, there will be many christians who would balk at that.