Are Christian vendors being hypocrites for refusing to provide services to same-sex ceremonies citing a violation of their faith while continuing to provide services for other unbiblical weddings?

That is the question that is beginning to swirl in light of several state bills that would give Christian business owners the right to refuse service to homosexual couples seeking their services for weddings. Those bills, introduced in Tennessee, Ohio, Kansas, and awaiting the governor’s signature in Arizona, are a response to lawsuits by homosexuals against “wedding vendors” that refused to render services saying to do so would violate their faith.

The cases of a photographer in New Mexico, baker in Colorado, and florist in Washington have made national news as they pit Christian conscience against government coercion. While people on both sides of the aisle are quick to agree that no one should be forced to violate their religious convictions, the government appears ready to do just that in forcing these Christian business owners to provide services for homosexual weddings.

To guard against such governmental coercion, states have begun introducing bills that would prevent Christian business owners – such as bakers, florists, and hotel owners – from being sued in the event that they refuse service to anyone based on religious convictions. These bills have gained momentum in state legislatures as backers both local and national see them as a necessary protection in addition to the First Amendment in preserving religious freedom.

The question that is now being asked is: “Is providing a service the same as an endorsement?”

In other words, if a photographer takes pictures at a wedding is that the same as endorsing the union of the two individuals? If a florist provides flowers for a same-sex ceremony is that the same as endorsing the marriage of the two people?

Dr. Russell Moore

The verbal tussle began when Dr. Russell Moore of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the Southern Baptist Convention answered a write-in question from a reader that wanted to know if it was hypocritical not to photograph a same-sex ceremony though other non-biblically justifiable weddings had been photographed.  Moore answered:

“First of all, while a biblical view of marriage would see that such people (fornicators, believers to unbelievers, unlawfully divorced, etc.) should not get married, and that the church has no authority to marry them, we also would affirm that such people, when married, actually are married. A pastor who joins a believer to an unbeliever bears an awful responsibility for doing something wrong, but the end result is an actual marriage. The same-sex marriage differs not in terms of morality, but in terms of reality. It is not that homosexuality is some sort of wholly different or unforgivable sexual sin. It’s that the historic Christian view of marriage means that without sexual complementarity there is no marriage at all.”

Kirsten Powers took exception with Dr. Moore’s answer and replied in an article of her own at The Daily Beast. Her query was whether or not the Bible forbids Christians from providing services to people engaging in activities that violate Christian teaching, especially as it relates to marriage. She answered her own question matter-of-factly with “it does not. Nor does the Bible teach that providing such a service should be construed as participation or affirmation.”

It was at this point that Powers suggested refusing to photograph one wedding without refusing to photograph all unbiblical weddings amounts to hypocrisy that gives the Gospel a black eye. She wrote:

Kirsten Powers

“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, vendors should ask why. Or perhaps you don’t even have to ask. You may already know that the couple’s previous marriages ended because they just decided it wasn’t working, not because there were biblical grounds for divorce. In which case, you can’t provide them a service if you believe such a service is affirming their union.

“If your hotel is hosting the wedding and you don’t see rings on both individual’s fingers, you must refuse to rent them only one room. The unmarried couple must remain in separate rooms until after the ceremony. Otherwise, you may be complicit in fornication. And of course, you must not under any circumstances rent a room to a gay or lesbian couple.”

Just as the verbal joust was getting under way Erick Erickson of Red State jumped into the mix with an initially confusing article that made it seem that he believed Christians should serve same-sex wedding ceremonies. What Erickson did however, was to bring the conversation to a critical juncture and highlight the underlying problem with current laws and why legislative bills are needed.

The current conversations taking place in state legislatures and court rooms involving lawsuits do not center on whether Christians should voluntarily serve homosexual weddings; the conversations currently taking place center on whether or not the government can force Christian business owners to violate their religious convictions. This is a very big and notable difference that others, including Moore and Powers, missed.

Powers makes the point that some Christians have no trouble at all taking part in homosexual weddings while some believe it would be a violation of their religious convictions. Erickson also makes this point. But where Powers deviates into theological conjecture with her comments on whether it is right for Christians to refuse to serve homosexuals, Erickson clarifies the conversation by stating that no Christian should be forced by the government to violate their religious convictions or advocate the government forcing another Christian to violate their convictions. He writes:

“I understand if you are not a believer and define yourself based on your sexual preference that you think the government should legitimize you by forcing others to treat you in a particular way. But it boggles my mind to think any Christian should want the government to force their view of Christianity on another believer. If you think the government should be able to force Christians to provide goods and services to a gay wedding or risk losing their business, why not command a preacher’s service? If a Christian baker cannot opt out, why should a preacher be able to opt out? And why not take from churches their tax exempt status if they fail to participate?”

What Powers missed in her article is that while some Christians might have no trouble taking part in a homosexual wedding, for others it violates their religious convictions. This is not a blanket issue. The law, at this point, is not defined well enough to protect those whose religious convictions would be violated by being forced under government penalty to take part in a wedding they believe is sinful. So failing to protect those that have a moral or religious convictions against taking part in a wedding they believe is sinful will be detrimental to all Christians.

Thankfully, Dr. Moore refocused his arguments and came back to this very critical point in an article that served as an answer to Kirsten Powers’ article. Dr. Moore wrote:

“I recognize there are some blurry lines at some of these points. But what isn’t blurry is the question of state coercion…It’s quite another thing for the state to coerce persons through fines and penalties and licenses to use their creative gifts to support weddings they believe to be sinful. That’s broader than just homosexuality. I don’t want wedding singers forced to use their lyrics and voices to tell us how great it is that Herod and Herodias or Henry VIII and fill-in-the-blank wife’s name are soul-mates.”

Lest anyone think I believe this question has only a legal aspect and answer rather than both a legal and moral/biblical answer let me quote Dr. Moore: “In the case of a same-sex marriage, the marriage is obviously wrong, in every case. There are no circumstances in which a man and a man or a woman and a woman can be morally involved in a sexual union…”

For me, that lays to rest the issue entirely. I won’t pretend to be the conscience of others that have no problem taking part in a homosexual wedding. Their faith and convictions are between them and God. However, even those that take such a position should recognize the danger in the government being able to force others, such as myself, to participate in what I believe is sin. I agree with Erickson that the idea of any Christian supporting government coercion and forcing people to violate their convictions is absurd. To those Christians I encourage a reevaluation of your position.

To bring the discussion to a close Erick Erickson articulates what, I think, most Christians believe:

“You might think Jesus would bake a cake for a gay wedding. I think you are wrong. I do not think Jesus Christ would participate in the ratification of a sin — and a marriage between two people of the same sex is a sin.  Are you really going to tell the millions of Christians in the United States who think otherwise that not only are they wrong, but the state should be able to force your opinion of what Jesus would do on them? In your pride, you might think 2000 years of Christian orthodoxy and the majority of practicing Christians in the world today are wrong — but don’t think among people of practicing Christian faith you are in the majority.”

This argument is just beginning. Voices on both sides of the discussion will undoubtedly weigh in with the pros and cons – both legally and biblically – of both sides. What is critical is to remember that religious freedom and freedom of conscience are intricately linked and must be defended. The government has no place forcing anyone to violate their convictions and take part in something that a person considers sin. If the government can force one person, it can and will force others to support, endorse, and take part in what the individual considers objectionable. For this reason, regardless of where we stand on the issue, we must link arms against any attempt to force people to violate their religious convictions.