Is Thought Police in Our Democracy What We Really Want?
There is an unsettling process underway in our country that prides itself as a model of democracy. Even as we fight to uphold democracy in the Middle East and soldiers die for the rights attached to it, we operate against those principles by how we are legislating ourselves. Supposedly, we have freedom of speech and religion that allows for a range of views to be held in our culture. That practice is rapidly changing and going away, selectively.
Look at some laws that have been passed or are under consideration in our country recently. If you bake a cake for weddings or sell flowers but will not do so for a same sex couple that targets you to make the point (when there are florists or cake bakers who would do this for such couples), then you are a criminal, subject to fine or imprisonment. Even courts have upheld this kind of law. You are liable for your ethical choice, even when it is rooted in a religious or social belief and even though the suing couple can go elsewhere to get their cake or flowers from someone comfortable doing this. If you are an organization that chooses to hold to moral standards that have been held for centuries, then laws target you to remove your non-profit status. Non-profit status is being overseen in such a way that freedom of belief or speech or religion is not being sustained. In one state, if you claim your gender is different than your biology, you are free to choose what bathroom you use. Sexual identity is only a choice now. Our legislation now reaches beyond our biology. Many of those defending such laws used to complain about this type of thing being done against them in the past. Those who disagree with them are not the beneficiaries of the same rights they pursued. Is turn about fair play? That is not democracy, where a range of views are allowed and not legislated.
What does this mean? It means we are moving in the direction of a kind of secularism being established as religion that drives our laws. Democracy tied to the principles of religious choice is disappearing, because secularism is being established as a religion in key pockets of our society. I say this not to complain but to observe. I am asking us to reflect on whether in trying to swing a pendulum back, we have now let it swing too far in the other direction. Are we establishing a religion in secularlism because we argue it is not a religion? Does its non-religious status protect it from contributing to a healthy democracy.
Our legislatures now are saying we will make you pay for how you think. There is no act of violence involved in those who are being called criminals. They just hold a position out of personal conviction and that is good enough to qualify for jail. So the same people who claimed the state should not come into my bedroom to tell me how to live now support the state to tell you how to think and live. The state has no business in one area but do have the right to enter your mind and tell you what to do. Do people in our democracy have the right to refuse to act because of their beliefs? That inconsistency reflects a theology of thought police. It is the antithesis of what democracy was designed to allow. Maybe we should rethink some of this. Is where we are going really reflective of democracy? Perhaps we should allow a return to what many of us hope for in a pluralistic democracy. A genuine democracy permits us to refuse to act out or support something out of conviction when such a service is available in our society. Is that a democracy worth defending and pursuing for all of us?
28 Comments
Craig Gunderson
Thought Police and Possibly Next – Revocation of 501c3
Darrell, as a Journalism Major in college and also more importantly through my increasing study of God's Word and His truth, I confirm what you have observed in your closing paragraph (and throughout your article) that our nation is now being controlled by government in having any thoughts contrary to what the government defines and what they want to hear. People are discouraged from even voicing their own thoughts and opinions without a fear of reprisal in stating something that is considered a criminal act. Although there hasn't been enforcement of a law already on the books, churches are scared of losing their tax exempt status (501c3) and thus aren't addressing the topics considered politically offensive such as homosexuality being addressed by God as a sin, or even abortion. So now truth is being suppressed and oppressed. Although I personally do not try just to focus one particular sinful behavior to the neglect of proclaiming the True Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Bible is clear on calling out homosexuality as a sinful, unnatural act and behavior in numerous passages, Leviticus 20:13, Judges 19:16-24, 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, 2 Kings 23:7, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Jude 7. As Edmund Burke was attributed this quote, "
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Skeptimal
triumph of evil
Yes, it's very important that you speak out on behalf of the rights of religious people to refuse to treat others like human beings.
Darrell L. Bock
Skeptimal
No, this is not about denying people be treated as human beings. This is about denying people the right to choose how they exercise a servive they make to the public and to act out of their conscience by forcing someone to carry out a service those seekign it can get elsewhere very easily. That choice of conscience may be right or wrong, but having the right to make it is something freedom has long espoused. I still maintain there is irony that what is being complained about and forced on people now is what those who are forcing issues were complaining about before when the tables were reversed.
Skeptimal
Ironies
"I still maintain there is irony that what is being complained about and forced on people now is what those who are forcing issues were complaining about before when the tables were reversed."
That's an interesting statement. If businesses were refusing to serve Christians, and civil rights law prevented these businesses from exercising their "choice of how to provide a service," would you think it was hypocritical of civil rights groups to have a problem with the anti-Christian discrimination?
I can practically hear you rolling your eyes at my "ignorance," but stop and think about it before you do. What really is the difference?
Claudio Rodriguez
Is Thought Police in Our Democracy What We Really Want?
That is a very good point but highly misunderstood by Christians. I'd go even further by asking how do we get to this point? I mean, after all, we have claimed to be a Christian society over the centuries. Where did we go wrong? I blame mainly our leaders for politicizing the church and treating the secular world as a post-modern crusaders' campaign in which we make it our goal to Christianize our society with our own efforts (and political views) and not the Spirit of God. That is plain wrong. Also, so many generations of false preachers and lovers of money more than God have discouraged the many (to say the least) about our true agenda in this world. Today, most secular minds may be arguing that with all the sin, divorce and generally open mindedness of most of 21st century Christendom, there is no real difference between what the followers of Christ preach (today) and what they are trying to accomplish, why not then just live our lives the secular way and avoid the Christian farce altogether?
Skeptimal
Maybe
I just want to be clear on what you're saying here, because it seems that you have a problem with civil rights laws in general. Black people could always go to the "colored" stores; why did they need to sit in the "white" section?
No doubt you'll disagree with that comparison, because "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice." And you can fool yourself with that for a while, but the fact is that racists never had a problem with black people, per se, it was just when they made the lifestyle choice to flaunt their blackness or socialize with white people.
Christian bigots are being told they need to act like adults and be civil to their countrymen who are gay and lesbian, and that's really what the problem is. No one's forcing evangelicals to approve of anything; just to act like you value equal protection under the law.
Delete this post, Bock, and I'll never bother you again. But honestly, I expected better.
Darrell L. Bock
Skeptimal 2
The comparison with civil rights and blacks fails because the services perfomed are available to them elsewhere. Homosexuality is not merely a lifestyle choice (you put these words in my mouth). Some are inclined in this direction, just as others are inclined to other moral acts. An issue is how we engage each other in the midst of those differences and differecnes of opnion about them in terms of their moral impact. My complaint above was and is, why should we punish people for choices they make that are rooted in human inclinations about which all of us know there is a lack of agreement? What I am complaining about is the inconsistency in one side saying give us our freedom because you have forced us into a box all of these years and then saying but we will force you to act this way. Criminalizing this issue makes the law do too much within the context of our pluralized syatem.
Skeptimal
Civil Rights errors
First, I apologize for the presumption of the last sentence in the "Maybe" comment. I *am* disappointed, but I'm hardly in a position that you should care about that. Although I'm an atheist, I'm familiar enough with DTS and your work to respect both. But you don't know me from Adam, and you have no obligation to engage with atheists, Christians, or anyone else you don't feel like chatting it up with.
You said: " The comparison with civil rights and blacks fails because the services perfomed are available to them elsewhere."
Setting aside the similarities inherent in most bigotry, how would you determine when there are sufficiently few of a certain service available before you would force Christians to act like adults? Housing? Restaurants? Doctors? Lawyers? Should a hospital be able to reject gay patients?
Atheists often offend Christians more than gays do. Should it be inexcusably offensive for Christians to have to serve atheists? Muslims?
Should unmarried straight couples be able to have housing in an apartment complex owned by Evangelicals? Should single gays be? And if it is a straight person who is renting, how will he or she satisfactorily prove to the landlord that they're not doing anything he or she would disapprove of?
But as I said before, bigotry always justifies itslef through "immorality" or "corruption" in those who are considered "the lesser."
As I mentioned before, blacks had "their" stores. They could buy food and sit in a cafe. They could ride the bus, as long as they said in "their" section. If you look back on racist behavior (or frankly, look at it now in Florida and the "stand your ground" law states) you see that it was and is always the "lifestyle" of blacks that the racists have the problem with.
Trayvon Martin's murderer is a hero of right-wing extremists today because he "stood his ground" against a younger, smaller, unarmed kid who was minding his own business. What was he doing that justified that murder? Wearing a hoodie and eating skittles. He walked too slow and didn't seem to have a direction (because he was talking on the phone). He was dubbed "lazy" and a pothead. The behavior is always a justification for seeing "the other" as lesser than human, but the prejudice has less to do with behavior than bigotry.
You somehow think it's hypocritical that anyone defending the rights of gays would have a problem with Christians having to live by the same rules as everyone else. Having to live peaceably among people whom they don't like and may feel are immoral or corrupt. You're upset that Christians can't pick and choose who they serve, who is up to the mythical superior morality of Evangelicals. Really? Hypocritical?
Darrell L. Bock
More Skeptimal
What "right" is harmed by saying to someone I will not take pictures at your wedding because I do not believe it to be a moral act and the couple can walk down the street and have someone who is happy to take such pictures and join the celebration? Who is the victim in this scenario? I am not saying I would make that choice myself, but I do question why we should criminalize that choice of conscience when there are differing moral judgments involved that all recognize the issue is disputed. How is your imposition of a claim of bigotry versus a moral judgment about my personal association with an action I do not believe in any different than the oppressive act of dictating a response through legal means? If it were completely unavailable or prohibited across the board, I'd be on your side of the argument, but that is not the case here. I am not arguing these are different rules here. EVERYONE has this choice in this area of moral dispute. Anyone who objects, including atheists, have the option of refusing out of a choice of conscience in this example.
Skeptimal
Victims
"Who is the victim in this scenario? I am not saying I would make that choice myself, but I do question why we should criminalize that choice of conscience when there are differing moral judgments involved that all recognize the issue is disputed.?"
Darrell L. Bock
Victims
Being born black is not the same as choosing to enter into a same sex marriage. So the equation you make with blacks does not work. A black person could not choose to be another race even if they wanted to be. I agree with you about legislation about how blacks are covered. Separate but equal does not work there. What about the other catergories you note? A dead body is a dead body and deserves the honor of burial. There is nothing that can be undone here, no alternative really exists. But why do I FORCE a photographer to take pictures at a service he does not accept morally and make him a criminal for it, when the person can get the same service from someone happy to be there? Why FORCE an organization to pay for a contraceptive they think is morally unjustified? I am NOT arguing those judgments are automatically correct. I am arguing that we should not criminalize those acts of conscience that deal with choices, when the service is provided by others without violating their conscience. You never answer that question. It is perfectly fair to ask what makes a difference between blacks (for example), same sex marriage, contraception, or suicide. I think there are distinctions here. Your logic leads potentially to criminalizing any act someone else wishes to perform who has no conscience about it (like murder or pedophilia) because a human does it and it is civil rights. Individual conscience deserves some protections as civil rights do. My use of the word FORCE shows that the dominance is not from the person asking to be allowed to exercise a choice of conscience (since the person denied the service by the one who has questinns of consicience in one location can get it elsewhere), but by the oppression of a law forcing him to act against that conscience. Those who say do not legislate against morality are doing precisely that. They are guilty of what they used to claim being a victim of in a area of moral, not biological, dispute.
Skeptimal
Manufactured religious persecution
“Being born black is not the same as choosing to enter into a same sex marriage. So the equation you make with blacks does not work.”
As I’ve said several times now, it’s the freedom of behavior that racists fought to make illegal, and that’s the equation I’m making. You only think it’s different because you think gays are immoral but you’re not a racist.
“But why do I FORCE a photographer to take pictures at a service he does not accept morally and make him a criminal for it, when the person can get the same service from someone happy to be there?”
Aside from the fact that no force is involved, your question is based on a lot of faulty assumptions. Since when does taking pictures at an event endorse that event? Since that is not the case, his argument that it violates his conscience is spurious. He has manufactured this crisis of conscience so that he can get exclusive privilege for his prejudice.
“Why FORCE an organization to pay for a contraceptive they think is morally unjustified?”
With only a handful of possible exceptions, there is no cost to the employer for a policy that covers birth control, so the real intent here is to draw a line in the sand that they can use to claim religious persecution. A number of states already had this policy, and it didn’t become a “conscience” problem until the requirement came from a program associated with President Obama.
More later in response to the question you say I’m not answering.
Darrell L. Bock
Response
No force involved.? No, only criminalization, and the imposition of a legal sanction. And you claim the violation of conscience is spurious. Hardly. You now have the right to dictate what is in someone else's mind as they act. Manufactured by the photographer? Hardly. It was created when a couple came to force his hand and sued him. So who created the situation? To the extent they are asked to pay for the care that adds this procedure to the cost, they do pay for the act.
It is the attempt to wall off these connections or deny them that shows the very kind of inconssitency and insensitivity I have been pointing toward throughout this posted topic. You suggest this is racisim, but the responses may well indicate that the prejudice may be on the side of the one seeking to control how others think and act, which was precisely my point in the original post. The roles have been reversed. The actions to control remain. Nothing has been learned.
Skeptimal
Dictation
“You now have the right to dictate what is in someone else's mind as they act.”
What am I not understanding about this? How is anyone dictating what is in anyone else’s mind?
Darrell L. Bock
Denial of a violation of conscience
In denying a genuine violation of conscience, you are making a judgment about what is in another's mind.
Skeptimal
Oh.
At least I understand what you're trying to say in that sentence. Fair enough. I can't read the man's mind.
Perhaps its a failure of imagination on my part. If he's a photographer with a public business, he has presumably taken pictures at other events he did not personally endorse.
My sense is that most of us have had to serve people doing things we considered immoral. If it's not illegal and is not immediately threatening someone's physical well-being, you suck it up and serve them the same as you would anyone else. It may be distasteful, but we wouldn't say it violates our conscience.
Why is taking pictures of THIS event a violation of his conscience? How does that work?
Darrell L. Bock
Oh Response
Ask the person who feels that way. All I am defending is the person's right to make that choice for those who seek their services. It is like a lawyer saying I will not take your case.
Skeptimal
Feelings are an easy dodge
If I were having a gay marriage, I wouldn't have wanted this photographer, and I wouldn't have sued. If the photographer had been an atheist refusing to do a Christian wedding, I'd have supported the Christian in suing. We don't have to like or love each other in this country, but we do have to respect each other as human beings.
I still don't see where your "Thought Police" argument comes into play. You said in your original post that "our legislatures say we will make you pay for how you think." Can you be more specific? How does requiring civil behavior legislate thought?
Do you HONESTLY believe that Christians, of all people, are being repressed in the country where you can't get elected in most districts if you're not a Christian?
Can you even acknowledge the corruption of deceptive groups like the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defending Freedom?
Darrell L. Bock
Actions, Feelings, Conscience
Your redefinition of categories does not get at the issue. Feelings and conscience are not the same thing. Feeling is my emotional reaction to something. Violation of conscience is when I undertake an action I am not in agreement with that I view as communicating acceptance of something I reject. Now some will do as you suggest- perform the service and not view it as an act of endorsement, despite their feelings. Others, who see it differently, view it not as a matter of feelings, but as an expression of conscience. I simply am arguing to preserve that right for people, Christian or not. It is a long held legal principle which in this case is violated. You define it as requiring "civil" behavior. That is your judgment. Others see it as being forced to perform or endorse something they do not believe in participating in. Your forced civility through legal sanction is precisely what I am rejecting as not appropriate. Your questions about repression shift the discussion to other spheres. I am only making a case in this case. It is NOT Christian specific. It is simply overlegislation.
Skeptimal
“Your questions about
"Your questions about repression shift the discussion to other spheres. I am only making a case in this case. It is NOT Christian specific. It is simply overlegislation. "
You accused the country of implementing "Thought Police," which goes far beyond this case. If you don't want to explain who's getting in trouble based on their thoughts, fine, but I've given you examples of out-and-out represssion by those marching in lockstep with the people you're defending. You say that's shifting the discussion, but only if it mattersa bout the context in which a handful of religious people are not getting their way.
You say it isn't just Christians. My problem is not that the people doing it are Christians, though most of them are. It's what they're doing that's the problem. And one of the things they're doing is manufacturing controversies and a kind of secessionist mythology in which they are the victims. Based on your post, you're in danger of becoming one of those secessionists.
And you've come close to saying this, so let me bring it out plainly. If you want to accuse me of being anti-Christian, I can understand why you would, but it wouldn't make it true. I have no illusions that atheists or skeptics are better people than Christians, and I don't think that if all the world's religions were to fade away, that mankind's problems would be gone as well.
What I won't stand by for, though, are ridiculous claims that the supermajority religion is being victimized in this country. The idea would be laughable if so many weren't deluding themselves into thinking it was true. And where does this kind of "majority is being persecuted" thinking lead? Do you really want to be one of the people lighting the torches for the angry mob?
Darrell L. Bock
Response
You habitually put words in my mouth, or come close. I have never said you are anti-Christian or anything close. I think we simply disagree about whether or not these kinds of categories should be legislated against and why or why not. My post was careful, I think. It said this was a step in a negative direction and explained why. I chose a few examples to show (1) the case is not an isolated one and (2) to illustrate the area of concern. I used "thought police" for the very reasons our subsequent responses and dialogue have made evident, namely that conscience or the raising of it as a category is defined as an illegitimate concern by those who defend such legislation. It is redefined as simply feelings.
Are those sanctioned by such laws simply manufacturing the controversy? That also was challenged by me. Who did the sanctioning? What if the couple had simply gone to another photographer? There would have been nothing to report.
Now I am called a secessionist for defending conscience (and choices I myself do not necessarily agree with but do argue people have the right to possess). The whole of your response justifies calling this a "thought police" act.
As for inciting an angry mob, I have on this blog in other posts said to Christians to quit whining. There are places where Christians claim to be victims when they are not. They simply are in a discussion on areeas where people disagree. I have tried consistently not to respond in ways that incite anger.
This blog entry is not aimed at making people angry or trying to take people there. Again, you might be making more of this than is there. It was simply expressing a concern about a pattern of legislation that treads where law should be slow to go, and where it has been slow to go in the past, and point out an irony and a concern, at least in my view, of what it means to have gone there. Neither side has learned much about how to deal with differences in view and in conscience. Our extending postings back and forth may well be the proof of the point.
Skeptimal
Conscience and civil rights
“I used "thought police" for the very reasons our subsequent responses and dialogue have made evident, namely that conscience or the raising of it as a category is defined as an illegitimate concern by those who defend such legislation. It is redefined as simply feelings… Now I am called a secessionist for defending conscience… The whole of your response justifies calling this a "thought police" act.”
Conscience is not irrelevant, and I don’t think anyone says or thinks that it is. Honestly, when you look at how we bend over backwards for claims of conscience (particularly with regard to religion), the conscience is more protected now than ever before. We’ve always made exceptions in times of war, and a number of exceptions are made for those who believe abortion is wrong. We’ve distorted our laws out of proportion to make sure that no taxes go to fund abortions, though it is never enough, and the religious right is now going after birth control as well.
We also make all kinds of exceptions for the consciences of religious people with regard to holidays, apparel, and exemptions from some codes of behavior. We even try to make allowances for those with different dietary preferences, some of which are matters of conscience. We generally don’t require people to do things that demonstrably violate their religious codes.
Most of these examples make sense, but far too often, we let groups break the law in their name of religion. Consider that the Church of Scientology has literally gotten away with murder and tax evasion over the years because its religious freedom is so sacrosanct. And like Scientology, the Unification Church gets away with slave labor and migration, because they have successfully claimed that abusive behaviors better described as human trafficking were actually somehow sacred religious practices.
I'm not comparing the photographer/Florist/pharmacist with Scientology or the Moonies. The ONLY thing I suspect they have in common is a convenient recklessness with regard to claims of conscience.
Respecting consciences is one thing, but when we allow the mere claim of conscience to serve as a trump card against all other codes of behavior, as we’ve done with these two criminal empires, nothing good will come of it. There’s nothing wrong with challenging other people when they say their conscience forbids them from doing something, especially when they are suspiciously selective in how they apply their moral codes.
You say that the conscience is being redefined as simply feelings, but that’s not what is happening either. When I’ve asked for explanations of the reasoning behind these alleged attacks of conscience, you’re the one who has repeatedly said you’ll respect their feelings, as if the feeling alone is enough.
Those have not been rhetorical questions I’ve asked, regarding the reasoning and codes being violated. When a conscience is activated, there are thoughts behind the feelings, and the reasoning behind those thoughts can be explained. It might not change the law, but it might change the picture for me if I could understand why merely being present and providing a service is creating a crisis of conscience for a photographer, florist, or other. I don’t even have to agree with the reasoning, as long as it is something that is acted out consistently in the life of the person claiming their conscience is violated.
Darrell L. Bock
Response
Simple to explain and already said. They view it as endorsing and affirming the act they believe to be immoral, in a sense to share in the act.
Darrell L. Bock
One more point
The issue is that this does not look back at what had been done (Picture for a couple that had lived together), but what is now being done. I note this distinction as a clarification given your call for consistency (Not sure how we make that a standard). You are correct we do protect this in many areas. Just asking tthis to be included.
Skeptimal
Bigotry vs Oppressive civil law
"How is your imposition of a claim of bigotry versus a moral judgment about my personal association with an action I do not believe in any different than the oppressive act of dictating a response through legal means?"
I hope you'll respond to my other comments as well, but I thought this question deserved its own response, because it seems to be at the core of what's bothering you about the photographer case.
The photographer's "conscience" issue was that he doesn't want to lend any credence to gay people having a right to the legal contract of marriage. (The "sacrament" of marriage is a separate issue and always has been.) But you're mistaking his requirement to provide service equally to a requirement to think gay marriage is okay. And that's where your "thought" police argument buys into the secessionist mentality of the dominionist Christian movement.
This photographer's conscience didn't bother him, and it doesn't even pass the straight face test to say it did. He could have told the couple that he would do their service but doesn't approve of gay marriage. They probably would have gone somewhere else, but it wouldn't have forced this issue. Does he approve of every other wedding he takes pictures for? If not, why didn't THAT bother his conscience? He found a way to set aside his disapproval for the sake of professionalism, but in this case, he's drawing a fake line in the sand so he can claim to be "religiously persecuted."
What is happening increasingly in this country is Christians putting religious chips on their shoulders and then claiming persecution when they aren't permitted exclusive legal exemptions. We have pharmacists refusing to refer people to pharmacies that would provide legal birth control. We have schools systems wanting to bypass the scientific process to teach Creationism as if it were a scientific theory. And we have state laws requiring doctors to lie to patients about a legal medical procedure because it suits the religious needs of the Christian majority.
In the face of that kind of unconstitutional outrage, it's infuriating that someone is claiming "thought police" about something as petty as a photographer having to work for people doing something he doesn't like.
Darrell L. Bock
Bigotry and Oppression
This response is addressed above mostly. The one point to make here is your claim that the photographer's response does not pass the straight face test mises the point. It completely ignores the point that performing the service at the wedding is what violates the conscience, not merely expressing the protest verbally that they'd rather not be there. I actualy argree with you that drawing a line here, but not at other wedding scenarios may well be inconsistent. But do we criminalize this choice? That is my complaint about thought police. It is whether the law has the right to get in my head and say you MUST live this way or we will sanction you for your refusal to act against your conscience (The law has always recognized such a category). Again, is that not a form of oppression?
Another element is your claim this is only a Christian issue. It is not. Others who are not Christian, or even religious, may feel the same way and deserve the same protections (only if the same services are available elsewhere). This is not a special privilege that is being contended for. That is a characterization of the argument. It is about conscience and a moral judgment, not about a particular religion. It is about not being oppressive on either side of the disagreement.
Skeptimal
Endorsement powers
You said: "Simple to explain and already said. They view it as endorsing and affirming the act they believe to be immoral, in a sense to share in the act….The issue is that this does not look back at what had been done (Picture for a couple that had lived together), but what is now being done. I note this distinction as a clarification given your call for consistency (Not sure how we make that a standard). You are correct we do protect this in many areas. Just asking tthis to be included."
I did understand what you were saying they felt: that their service at an event served as an endorsement, or as taking part in the perceived immorality. I just couldn't imagine how someone could jump to that kind of conclusion. My first response was to be impressed by the arrogance of someone thinking their mere presence is so sought-after that it bestows an aura of righteous credibility wherever they go.
I've taken part in ceremonies at churches that were despicable in some of their doctrines and behaviors, and it never occurred to me that my presence would be seen as lending those doctrines an aura of rationality. No one who knows me would think that I endorse the doctrines of a dominionist Christian church just because I may usher a wedding and treat the people there with courtesy and human dignity.
I do recognize that there are times when failing to speak up about something does make a person complicit, but it's difficult to imagine this couple suing if their wedding involved criminal behavior, hate speech, and/or ritual human sacrifice.
I also recognize that my experience in life isn't universally applicable, which is why an objective view would take in: how does the florist or photographer handle other events that aren't worthy of the endorsement? Does the florist check to see if it's a wedding of Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses before delivering the Christian flowers?
I appreciate that you've kept talking with me despite my own unendorsabiity. I know you're a man in demand, and I sincerely thank you for taking the time.
Darrell L. Bock
Response
Glad to chat. It is a tricky issue.