Caren White questioned whether a restaurant in Virginia should have canceled a reservation for donors to a conservative Christian group that actively campaigns against LGBTQ rights and abortion access. The restaurant explained that many of its staff are LGBTQ and women. They were uncomfortable serving conservative Christians who donate money “to deprive women and LGBTQ+ persons of their basic human rights in Virginia.”
Caren White has a point: political differences with restaurant staff should be irrelevant when people go out for dinner. A server and patron aren’t likely to discuss their experiences with, or positions on, abortion and LGBTQ rights. The server won’t likely introduce him or herself as LGBTQ. (However), Conservative Christians have forced political, religious, and ideological differences into relevance when people eat out, buy a wedding cake, or request a custom website for their wedding. By advocating their right to refuse service to people with whom they disagree, Conservative Christians have created the conditions for people who disagree with them to refuse service, too. Here are some examples;
Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission – Jack Phillips, owner and operator of Masterpiece Cakeshop, doesn’t want to make a wedding cake for an LGBTQ couple. He says complying with Colorado’s anti-discrimination law would violate his religious beliefs. Well, Jack, I don’t want to serve someone who doesn’t support marriage equality. Serving your ilk at my restaurant would violate my beliefs. You’ll have to find somewhere else to eat.
303 Creative LLC vs. Elenis – Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative, doesn’t want to design custom websites for LGBTQ weddings. Before the Supreme Court, her lawyers argued that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law “compels” speech in support of same-sex marriages, violating her First Amendment rights. Sorry, Lorie, but I don’t want to do any kind of work for someone who disagrees with LGBTQ relationships. That would be “compelled speech,” violating my freedom of speech and religion.
Creating conditions for discrimination – Conservative Christians seem to think only they have sincerely held religious beliefs and moral values. They haven’t imagined, evidently, that their own logical and legal arguments could be turned against them. Following the logic of Jack Phillips, Lorie Smith, and their lawyers, an atheist could refuse to serve Christians because of a sincerely held “religious belief” that religion itself is wrong. A Muslim-owned business could refuse to serve Christians because they practice a false religion. A Hindu could refuse to serve Christians unless they can prove they don’t eat beef. Catholics could refuse service to Protestants and vice-versa. Protestants from different denominations could withhold services and goods from each other over their doctrinal differences.
If those scenarios seem too far-fetched, then how about LGBTQ-affirming Christians like myself refusing service to non-affirming Christians? We have very different religious beliefs, after all. I arrived at my affirming position based on how I interpret the Bible, so I could argue that I can’t serve people who have a non-affirming interpretation of scripture. Doing so would support and thereby express beliefs contrary to my sincerely held beliefs and values. That is essentially what the Virginia restaurant owners said when they canceled the reservation for the anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion donors. “We don’t support these people’s actions and values, so we won’t serve them.”
But why stop with the issue of LGBTQ rights? According to a literal interpretation of Matthew 19:1–12, Jesus condemns divorce except in cases of adultery. So, I won’t serve divorced couples unless adultery causes the split. Adultery isn’t good either, so I won’t serve the couple if one cheats. People on their second-plus marriage can find a table at that moral relativist sin den down the street. If this wedding isn’t for you and your fiancé’s first marriage, then you’ll have to look elsewhere for a custom website.
Leviticus says eating shrimp is an “abomination.” Therefore, I will not serve shrimp in my restaurant. Clothing made from mixed fibers is also an abomination, so staff and patrons must wear 100% cotton. I won’t even list your caterer’s shrimp cocktail on the menu of the custom wedding website you paid me to make. Nor will I tell the groomsmen and bridesmaids where they can get tuxes and dresses made of mixed fibers. Many conservative Christians label other people as “moral relativists” or “of the world,” but they gladly relativize when they’re remarrying and want shrimp on the menu and synthetic blends on their backsides.
Isn’t it ironic? Conservative Christians have long claimed to be discriminated against for their religious beliefs as part of arguing for their right to discriminate against LGBTQ people. (They got) their way in 303 Creative v. Elenis (and) successfully legalized discrimination based on religious belief. (Now) they can expect to be refused service at certain businesses.
Follow James Sericsentell on Medium. Use my referral link for unlimited reading on Medium. Contact (James) at jamesericsentell@gmail.com about writing gigs. https://medium.com/politically-speaking/conservative-christians-can-expect-more-businesses-to-refuse-service-ed5b7d081624