FYI, here is a link to the final order in the Oregon anti-discrimination case.

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf

The Oregon baker case is instructive on many levels.

The owners were not LDS. My understanding is that they had previously provided services to the couple in question as well as other gays. They made a distinction about what they felt was participation in the marriage ceremony. I suspect, and I think many LDS would concur, that such a ceremony would essentially be mocking God, and therefore not something they would be comfortable participating in. For that reason I disagree with your conclusion that it would “violate the LDS faith” to not participate. Of course I agree with you about the service mentality of LDS people. The level of service we provide is largely incomprehensible to most of the world. The big rub comes when dealing with the gay community. Do we, or do we not believe that homosexual acts (not desires) separate us from God? I think our teachings are pretty clear on that. The question then becomes; how do we best serve our gay brothers and sisters? If you grant me my belief then I think you should also grant me that to celebrate the Court ruling would be doing a disservice to them. I can only presume that my LDS brothers and sisters that do celebrate the ruling reject the Church teaching on these matters. In short, we can believe that others are wrong, but to ascribe any ill will is not appropriate here.

Regarding the violation of law, it is interesting to note that at the time service was refused the Oregon Constitution defined marriage as one man and one woman.

You note that the case was brought by a government agency. The agency was coordinating with a gay rights group (Basic Rights Oregon) throughout the process. This coordination is going to be a big part of their appeal.

Also interesting is the amount of the award. I think any impartial observer would agree that pain and suffering of $135,000 for having to go someplace else to get a cake is ridiculous. The clear message is: Do not mess with us or we will ruin you. My biggest disappointment throughout the last couple of weeks has been the response by the gay advocates almost universally supporting the award. I do not know how anyone can consider it justice to ruin people financially for taking such a position. Add to that the successful bullying of the internet campaign to raise money for the bakers and the motives become clear. I have heard justification such as: It is only one business, so it is not really a big deal. Of course every business in Oregon has been put on notice – do not mess with us as we have the power of the state behind us if we want to ruin you.

The bottom line on the differences of opinion on the Court ruling issues rests largely with one assumption. That is, what was the goal of the gay movement? If you believe it was a sincere desire to acquire the right to marry, and that was all, then you are probably comfortable with the court decision. If you do not believe that marriage was the goal, then you have big concerns.

I appreciate the example of the Oregon bakers. It’s concrete. It involves real people with a real issue. I think two people with differing viewpoints could discuss the issue and both people could walk away from the discussion with greater insight about the world.

It would surprise me if the case involved an LDS couple who refused to make a cake for a homosexual wedding. Why is that the case? Why is it that I would be surprised if an LDS business refused to cater to a homosexual wedding? I can’t quite put my finger on it. Let me see if writing out some of my thoughts helps clarify my thinking.

LDS people, as a general rule, abide by the law of the land. At least in the Oregon case, the couple was accused of violating the state’s anti-discrimination statute. “Businesses can’t discriminate based on a person’s age, sex, religion, disability, race, … or sexual orientation.” (I paraphrase.) The case was brought by a government agency. As a general rule, LDS people abide by the law. Certainly LDS leaders encourage members to abide by the law. The letter quoted in this post suggests we follow the law. I suppose one reason I’d be surprised to see LDS bakers in a similar position is that we’re more law abiding.

I think it would violate the LDS faith to refuse to serve the homosexual couple. LDS people, as a general rule, are deeply interested in serving others, regardless of differences. It has been my experience that the LDS people, with a few exceptions, are exceptionally accommodating on a personal level. I could spend hours telling stories of LDS people I’ve known who love and serve unconditionally–even when they probably shouldn’t. I could literally drive down my country road and go house by house giving examples of people who are definitely opposed to homosexual marriage who would bend over backwards to serve a person who was openly homosexual. Seriously, if you asked the folks in my ward to bake a cake for homosexual wedding–for free!–you’d have 10 volunteers. I don’t exaggerate. It is a central tenet of LDS belief to serve others, regardless of philosophical or political differences. That’s my experience.

LDS people, for better or worse, distinguish between how they make a living and their religious life. (See thriving LDS community in Las Vegas). As I stated above in #69, LDS people have adjusted well to the 21st century, at least the economics of the 21st century. I don’t see many central LDS teachings about not getting involved economically with lawful but nonetheless “sinful” activities.

For these reasons it would surprise me if an LDS owned bakery refused to bake a cake for a homosexual couple.

No one knows for sure. Some think we’re seeing a shift as happened in Europe, albeit developing much more slowly. Others think that we’re moving to a new balance point with acceptance of some social changes but little change in others. Some (myself included) think that while there is a small shift most of the shift is just a shift in naming rather than behavior. We’ll see over the next 10 – 20 years I guess.

My guess is that social conservatives will just accept SSM, political parties will establish new balance points with perhaps gays being welcomed more into the GOP fold, but that other than that there won’t be major social changes. And frankly, gays were mostly accepted a decade or two ago. While a major legal shift, in practical social terms this really isn’t that big a shift. The shift started accelerating in the 90’s and this is just the evidence that the shift has happened.

The Oregon-baker case poses a religious-freedom issue. Yes. :-)

Would you like to frame the issue or would you like me to frame the issue?

Josh – do you not think the Oregon baker case poses a religious freedom issue?

I agree with what Clark says. There is probably a lot of overlap among the portion of the population that believes in God, with no attachment to organized religion AND approves of SSM as part of their religious beliefs.

I think the original point I was trying to make regarding religious belief is that, on the whole, we no longer accept religious reasoning as acceptable in public debates. Whether that belief is “SSM is good” or “SSM is bad”, if it comes from a religious source, we can’t use our line of thinking legitimately anymore to influence laws and culture. Am I making any sense?

You’re right. The Walz case does not apply. Walz just says that tax-exempt status is not forbidden by the Constitution. It does not say that tax-exempt status is required by the Constitution.

The case we need to look at is Bob Jones *UNIVERSITY* v. U.S. The IRS revoked tax exemption status by saying the educational institution was not a “charity” for purposes of 501(c)(3) because the school refused to admit interracially married blacks. If anyone else is as clueless about me as to tax-exempt status, Bob Jones University v. U.S. is a great place to start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

The first thing worth noting is that this is a case against an educational institution, not a church. As far as I know, there are no cases of the IRS trying to remove a church’s tax-exempt status. (Maybe the KKK? Maybe Westboro Baptist Church? I really don’t know. Maybe hate group churches don’t enjoy tax-exempt status?)

The LDS Church has discriminated against women (60% of the congregation?) for decades without losing tax-exempt status. Why would the LDS Church lose tax-exempt status for discriminating against homosexuals (maybe 2% of the congregation)?

I think it is complete nonsense to suggest the LDS Church will lose tax-exempt status based on SSM.

Clark, you make a great point about BYU though. Based on Bob Jones University v. U.S., I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that SSM may someday lead to revocation of tax-exempt status for BYU. Possibly. I’m persuaded that there’s a religious-freedom issue there. That seems like a reasonable concern.

So I think we’re seeing a transition not necessarily towards secularism (although that is rising) but to the abandonment of traditional religion.

In comment 78, you suggest that it is not a big deal that Episcopalians hold SSM as a religious belief since they are supposedly in rapid decline. Look at it this way. 60 percent of Americans are in favor gay marriage and over 90 percent of Americans believe in God. It seems right to say that all those who believe in God or a higher power have religious beliefs. So the majority of Americans see the legalization of same-sex marriage as either part of their religious beliefs (i.e., God’s will is for there to be SSM) or consistent with their religious beliefs (I’m not going against God’s will by supporting SSM). I might say that a fair number of active LDS folks find the legalization of SSM to be consistent with their religious beliefs. Polling data from last summer indicate that only 88 percent of “very active” Mormons in Utah are against gay marriage, and that 40 percent of “somewhat active” Mormons favor, as well as 48 percent of “non-active” Mormons.