Different State, Same Result: Washington court rules against Christian florist in gay wedding case

[Idiot]

I like these kinds of questions, and it is not cluelessness on your part to ask.  Lots of traditions and misunderstanding have obscured or clouded God's intents and statutes.

Sin is anything contrary to God's nature and His Laws, which are actually given so that we might life a blessed life and put on His mind that we might inherit eternity.  All misery and suffering is the result of mankind rejecting both God and His Laws and making himself god in his own eyes and determining justice based on his own human reasoning.

Understand that God established a theocracy for Ancient Israel when He brought them out of Egypt.  It was a covenant agreement Israel had agreed to upon God's promise to deliver them to the Promised Land.  As such, God was specific that His Laws were to be strictly obeyed, and deviance from some of them were punishable by death. The reason for that is as the Apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 5:9, a little leaven, leavens the entire loaf - in regards to sin.  God wanted His nation to understand that the penalty for some sins was extreme, and ultimately all sin leads to death anyway and God was giving a physical example to a larger spiritual truth.

In the New Covenant - the penalty for sin is still death (spiritually), but we now have an Advocate and our sins upon repentance are washed via the willing sacrifice made in our place by Jesus.  God simply set aside the penalty for sin, which is still earned every time we sin, but upon repentance and coming under the blood of the One Salvation, we are washed and that sin's penalty is no longer imputed to us.  It is a constant process of overcoming and putting on the mind of God in every aspect of our lives.

Since Ancient Israel no longer exists because they refused to abide the covenant they made with God, the physical death penalty under that theocracy no longer applies.  There is no more nation under that covenant.  We have a New Covenant, one made by the Blood of Him who made us.

The woman caught in Adultery and brought to Jesus is often cited as proof that sin itself has been done away with - but that is a deception.  The Pharisees who sought to stone her for being caught in adultery were attempting to assert their authority before Jesus and entrap Him into breaking 'the law'.  The fact only the woman was brought before Him, and not the man also as the scripture commands (both are to be put to death), it was a trap and bogus to begin with.  Jesus did not set aside the Law, He simply told them that whomever among them was without sin, to throw the first stone at her.  As they stepped up, Jesus was writing their sins in the sand.  None remained to do the deed, and Jesus said to the woman that He did not condemn her to death - and TO GO AND SIN NO MORE.  For if she was caught again and Jesus was not around - it is likely she was stoned as the law provided.

Both parts of the Law actually still apply.  Every man born dies, and if unrepentant and not under the blood of Christ - earns eternal death as scripture tells us in Romans 6:23.

The only difference today is that there is no longer a physical theocratic civil government under the God of the Bible.  We have a spiritual one instead.

[LateForLunch]

Surely someone has thought of the obvious solution which also works in the case of cakes. Accept the job but do it so poorly that they will not accept it and go somewhere else. It is not possible to legislate quality. One cannot sue someone for doing a poor job (unless it is blatantly malicious). So all they have to do is arrange flowers or decorate a cake poorly.

As far as I know, nobody has ever been sued successfully for not doing a great job at something. All the law cares about is "reasonable performance" which generally means:

Judge: Did the defendants bake you a cake, put icing on it and the words you asked for?
Whining Homosexual Plaintiff: Yes but....
Judge: But what !?! Was the cake in one piece? No bugs crawling around on it? No bare spots!?!
Whining Homosexual Plaintiff: Yes, but it wasn't nearly as nice as the other cakes!!!
Judge: Too bad. You ordered an iced cake with the words, "I'm Proud that I Suck" on it and they made a cake that said this and gave it to you in a timely manner in one piece. I find for the defendant! (Bangs gavel) Next case...

Eventually the militant gay morons will learn that coercing people into involuntary servitude using the threat of government force is futile.

Better that shops spring up which cater to homos who want their friggin' money. That is the American Way - not punishing people who don't want to provide a service, rewarding people who do! God, it's not rocket scientist. Only a far leftist moral retard would have to have this explained to them.

Only a militant homo would be so insufferably stupid as to try to force people to serve them when they don't want to serve them. Stupid motherfathers!

[INVAR]

It is not possible to legislate quality. One cannot sue someone for doing a poor job (unless it is blatantly malicious).

And that will be the case made by the Gay Mafia, along with charges of discrimination via doing a poor job because of their homosexuality and therefore 'malicious'.  You are missing the intent behind all these lawsuits; to punish and make public anyone who refuses to acknowledge and celebrate homosexuality as 'normal' and 'good', period.

The business owner is still violating their religious faith, their conscience and their private property and labor to produce a product for an evil act.

As mentioned before, there are PLENTY of businesses that are happy to cater to homosexuals, including homosexually-owned businesses that specialize in such things.  The intent to punish and destroy is as I said it was.

As far as I know, nobody has ever been sued successfully for not doing a great job at something.

When it will be shown that the business can do a great job decorating other cakes and arranging flowers - but their homo-cake is 'poor quality' - the suits will fly just as assuredly as the ones for refusal to do them.

All the law cares about is "reasonable performance"

And the Gay Mafia will exploit a less than perfect cake/flower arrangement  with the other products that are produced for other events and it will be shown that there is a pattern of discrimination that is actionable.

Aside from that, usually when a person gets a bad product, they want the service 'done right' and their money back - and if the owner turns out another bad cake as a 'make good' - I see as many lawsuits for this as simply refusing to do one in the first place.

Eventually the militant gay morons will learn that coercing people into involuntary servitude using the threat of government force is futile.

So far there is no reason for the 'militant gay morons' to think or learn that.  In fact, they have learned that just the opposite is true - as they have been winning high profile cases like this and creating a climate of fear among those who would rather not violate their faith and conscience to celebrate an evil act.

Better that shops spring up which cater to homos who want their friggin' money.

They already exist and they were specifically bypassed to target Christian businesses that refused to cater to homosexual events.

That is the American Way - not punishing people who don't want to provide a service,

This is the NEW American way, and all of PeeCeedom works to ensure that remains the case.

Only a militant homo would be so insufferably stupid as to try to force people to serve them when they don't want to serve them.

And you have your answer right there in your statement.

Genesis 19 illustrates for us that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to that sin.

[LateForLunch]

And that will be the case made by the Gay Mafia, along with charges of discrimination via doing a poor job because of their homosexuality and therefore 'malicious'.  You are missing the intent behind all these lawsuits; to punish and make public anyone who refuses to acknowledge and celebrate homosexuality as 'normal' and 'good', period.

The business owner is still violating their religious faith, their conscience and their private property and labor to produce a product for an evil act.

As mentioned before, there are PLENTY of businesses that are happy to cater to homosexuals, including homosexually-owned businesses that specialize in such things.  The intent to punish and destroy is as I said it was.

When it will be shown that the business can do a great job decorating other cakes and arranging flowers - but their homo-cake is 'poor quality' - the suits will fly just as assuredly as the ones for refusal to do them.

And the Gay Mafia will exploit a less than perfect cake/flower arrangement  with the other products that are produced for other events and it will be shown that there is a pattern of discrimination that is actionable.

Aside from that, usually when a person gets a bad product, they want the service 'done right' and their money back - and if the owner turns out another bad cake as a 'make good' - I see as many lawsuits for this as simply refusing to do one in the first place.

So far there is no reason for the 'militant gay morons' to think or learn that.  In fact, they have learned that just the opposite is true - as they have been winning high profile cases like this and creating a climate of fear among those who would rather not violate their faith and conscience to celebrate an evil act.

They already exist and they were specifically bypassed to target Christian businesses that refused to cater to homosexual events.

This is the NEW American way, and all of PeeCeedom works to ensure that remains the case.

And you have your answer right there in your statement.

Genesis 19 illustrates for us that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to that sin.

My attorney relatives disagree with your conclusion. Of course, nothing is guaranteed in legal cases because presiding judge can be inclined one way or the other (especially in these days of ultra vires judges who legislate from the bench).

The crux of the legal matter is contract law. A contract in mundane affairs like minor purchases has only implied stipulations. That means if you ask for a cake or flower arrangement with minimum qualities and get one, then the contract has been fulfilled. I am not aware of any precedent (nor more importantly are any of my lawyer relatives) where someone has been successfully sued along the lines of argument that you describe in your scenario. Sure, it seems reasonable that someone could follow that scenario, but to my knowledge, nobody ever has.

Case law precedents are in most situations, the guide by which attorneys decide which cases to fight and which to settle. In a case involving a minor purchase, there would likely come a point in which the presiding judge would be faced with a situation where it became apparently that the plaintiff was "chasing a case" not an outcome - in other words most judges frown upon a plaintiff who seeks legal relief to resolve a problem that could have been solved by other means - such as someone who is dissatisfied with a product who invests thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars going after a baker or florist instead of simply going to another company to get the product/service.


The grievous mistake the previously-prosecuted people made was outright denying service. I still maintain that had they merely provided a service that met the minimum requirement of the implied contract inherent in all minor purchases, they would not have been convicted nor held liable for anything and I think the legal precedents back that up.

[Jazzhead]

I like these kinds of questions, and it is not cluelessness on your part to ask.  Lots of traditions and misunderstanding have obscured or clouded God's intents and statutes.

Sin is anything contrary to God's nature and His Laws, which are actually given so that we might life a blessed life and put on His mind that we might inherit eternity.  All misery and suffering is the result of mankind rejecting both God and His Laws and making himself god in his own eyes and determining justice based on his own human reasoning.

Understand that God established a theocracy for Ancient Israel when He brought them out of Egypt.  It was a covenant agreement Israel had agreed to upon God's promise to deliver them to the Promised Land.  As such, God was specific that His Laws were to be strictly obeyed, and deviance from some of them were punishable by death. The reason for that is as the Apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 5:9, a little leaven, leavens the entire loaf - in regards to sin.  God wanted His nation to understand that the penalty for some sins was extreme, and ultimately all sin leads to death anyway and God was giving a physical example to a larger spiritual truth.

In the New Covenant - the penalty for sin is still death (spiritually), but we now have an Advocate and our sins upon repentance are washed via the willing sacrifice made in our place by Jesus.  God simply set aside the penalty for sin, which is still earned every time we sin, but upon repentance and coming under the blood of the One Salvation, we are washed and that sin's penalty is no longer imputed to us.  It is a constant process of overcoming and putting on the mind of God in every aspect of our lives.

Since Ancient Israel no longer exists because they refused to abide the covenant they made with God, the physical death penalty under that theocracy no longer applies.  There is no more nation under that covenant.  We have a New Covenant, one made by the Blood of Him who made us.

The woman caught in Adultery and brought to Jesus is often cited as proof that sin itself has been done away with - but that is a deception.  The Pharisees who sought to stone her for being caught in adultery were attempting to assert their authority before Jesus and entrap Him into breaking 'the law'.  The fact only the woman was brought before Him, and not the man also as the scripture commands (both are to be put to death), it was a trap and bogus to begin with.  Jesus did not set aside the Law, He simply told them that whomever among them was without sin, to throw the first stone at her.  As they stepped up, Jesus was writing their sins in the sand.  None remained to do the deed, and Jesus said to the woman that He did not condemn her to death - and TO GO AND SIN NO MORE.  For if she was caught again and Jesus was not around - it is likely she was stoned as the law provided.

Both parts of the Law actually still apply.  Every man born dies, and if unrepentant and not under the blood of Christ - earns eternal death as scripture tells us in Romans 6:23.

The only difference today is that there is no longer a physical theocratic civil government under the God of the Bible.  We have a spiritual one instead.

Thanks, INVAR - I found this very interesting.

[Jazzhead]

Case law precedents are in most situations, the guide by which attorneys decide which cases to fight and which to settle. In a case involving a minor purchase, there would likely come a point in which the presiding judge would be faced with a situation where it became apparently that the plaintiff was "chasing a case" not an outcome - in other words most judges frown upon a plaintiff who seeks legal relief to resolve a problem that could have been solved by other means - such as someone who is dissatisfied with a product who invests thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars going after a baker or florist instead of simply going to another florist.

The mistake the previously prosecuted people made was outright denying service. I still maintain that had they merely provided a service that met the minimum requirement of the implied contract inherent in all minor purchases, they would not have been convicted nor held liable for anything and I think the legal precedents back that up.

I think that's about right.  That's why I doubt the assumptions made by some that gay activists are out to "get" poor Christian businesspeople.   People get sued for being a$$holes usually because they've acted like a$$holes.   Some of the posts on this thread take the extreme position that a shopowner can boot customers for any arbitrary reason they want, be it for race or sexual orientation,  and the community has no right to tell a for-profit business that it needs to play fair.   Well,  if that describes our florist,  making a political statement by denying service,  that explains why a suit like this was allowed to go forward.   The plaintiffs suffered real injury,  at least injury worth being compensated to the tune of $1,000.  While the shopowner may have claimed "faith" as her excuse,  from the perspective of the plaintiffs her actions were indistinguishable from bigotry.   

All I'm saying is that the courts functioned properly in this case, delivering measured but not ruinous justice with respect to a clear violation of the law against arbitrary discrimination.   This isn't about religious freedom, this is about the conduct of commerce.   And the conduct of commerce is subject to the community's rules. 

[Smokin Joe]

@Jazzhead Okay, we all just voted that you have to provide goods and services to anyone who wants them for free. How's that for 'community'?

See how that works? If you want taxes from me,  you will damned well let me run my own business, otherwise, I'll go somewhere that will.

Now, that's only one argument.
The other which you don't get, refuse to get, or which involves a concept you apparently do not/cannot/will not understand is that some things are not for sale. Tacit approval of something I find abhorrent isn't going to happen, not for love nor money. I refuse to even buy girl scout cookies because some of the money ends up at Planned Parenthood.

However, instead of letting the community decide (as in vote with their business or lack thereof) what they think of the policy of the owners, you would use the courts to impose the will of a small minority on the whole community in general, and the business owners in particular.

There's that nasty tyranny thing again. Gay apartheid, fascism, it really fits under a bunch of labels. You can't tell me they couldn't find a different florist.

[Jazzhead]

You can't tell me they couldn't find a different florist.

Why should they have to?  Why do you back the bully rather than the bully's victim?   The florist has complete freedom to decide what services she'll provide.  She advertised flowers for weddings.  I say hold her to it - but that's because I don't defend bullies,  even bullies who wrap themselves in religion.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Why should they have to?  Why do you back the bully rather than the bully's victim?   The florist has complete freedom to decide what services she'll provide.  She advertised flowers for weddings.  I say hold her to it - but that's because I don't defend bullies,  even bullies who wrap themselves in religion.

You cannot defend most doctors either then, as they are bullies, even when someone's life is at stake.

You really need to distinguish between discrimination and prejudice.

When is it okay to discriminate?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/when_is_it_okay_to_discriminate.html

[LateForLunch]

@Jazzhead Okay, we all just voted that you have to provide goods and services to anyone who wants them for free. How's that for 'community'?

See how that works? If you want taxes from me,  you will damned well let me run my own business, otherwise, I'll go somewhere that will.

Now, that's only one argument.
The other which you don't get, refuse to get, or which involves a concept you apparently do not/cannot/will not understand is that some things are not for sale. Tacit approval of something I find abhorrent isn't going to happen, not for love nor money. I refuse to even buy girl scout cookies because some of the money ends up at Planned Parenthood.

However, instead of letting the community decide (as in vote with their business or lack thereof) what they think of the policy of the owners, you would use the courts to impose the will of a small minority on the whole community in general, and the business owners in particular.

There's that nasty tyranny thing again. Gay apartheid, fascism, it really fits under a bunch of labels. You can't tell me they couldn't find a different florist.

There is a line from a book I have read where an all-powerful godlike being is making a judgment as to whether Humanity will be allowed to perish or be saved. The being says to the assembly in the court, "I will make a decision, though it cannot be just." What that being meant of course, is that no judgment arbitrated by a disinterested third party can ever be completely fair to all parties involved.

Because a decision must be made due to the fact that the alternative (indecision) is deemed the more-intolerable thing, someone involved in the issue will by nature of reality receive less fair judgment than they rightfully deserve.

At least one and sometimes both parties will not be satisfied with the judgment because the adjudicator must perform a manner of "surgery" to bring resolution that serves the best interests of the greater entity (society).  That process often requires denying something to which someone may be morally, rightfully entitled but which must be abridged in order to achieve the vital synthesis demanded by legalism in a democratic republic. 

So a smart business owner would forever keep this in the back of their awareness any time they deal with the public. The business owner might be informed by the reality that whatever good might come from remaining intransigent in the face of being asked to do something that they deemed bad, a greater good might be served (protecting their own long-term best interests) by making some compromise which does not fully capitulate to sin, but also satisfies the obligations placed upon them as participants in a civil society.

Any business owner who does not want to be subjected to oversight by a court system that is secular and which will from time to time abridge their personal rights in favor of the collective, might consider a different line of work as opposed to remaining sky-lined as a big juicy target for every stupid faggot and lowlife leftist who is shopping for their Daily Cause.

Living well is the best revenge. I do not believe in a God which judges His children harshly when they are forced into moral dilemmas where they must choose between doctrinaire conformity to credo, or pragmatic issues of personal survival or security.

[Smokin Joe]

Why should they have to?  Why do you back the bully rather than the bully's victim?   The florist has complete freedom to decide what services she'll provide.  She advertised flowers for weddings.  I say hold her to it - but that's because I don't defend bullies,  even bullies who wrap themselves in religion.

You are the bully if you would force someone to (literally) cater to something they have a religious opposition to. You would define the parameters of their religious belief.
That's bullying (and unconstitutional, by the First Amendment).
If, at the time they walk into the shop, they have not contracted for services, no contract for services exists. Without that, there is nothing to honor in terms of doing business.
Your assumption that religion is an excuse for "bullying" (there's that buzzword, again) belies a lack of understanding of religious faith.
Would you require a Muslim Florist who advertises flowers for weddings to provide flowers for a homosexual civil union? Even knowing the Hadith requires them to throw homosexuals from a high place and finish off any survivors by stoning?

[Smokin Joe]

Why should they have to?  Why do you back the bully rather than the bully's victim?   The florist has complete freedom to decide what services she'll provide.  She advertised flowers for weddings.  I say hold her to it - but that's because I don't defend bullies,  even bullies who wrap themselves in religion.

One more thing. You assert that those who could acquire services from someone else, who sued the florist (hoping for the big payday), subjected that family and employees to legal stress, and cost them money--for NOT doing anything, is somehow the victim--as opposed to the people who are forced to pay to have their religious beliefs (an allegedly Constitutionally guaranteed and unalienable Right), forced to pay to not do business with someone under circumstances they object to, are somehow the "bullies".
Considering the coercion and abrogation of a fundamental civil right are all on one side, here,
I think this is the most bassackwards nonsense I have seen on this forum to date.

[EC]

am not aware of any precedent (nor more importantly are any of my lawyer relatives) where someone has been successfully sued along the lines of argument that you describe in your scenario. Sure, it seems reasonable that someone could follow that scenario, but to my knowledge, nobody ever has.

With respect, even in the law there is a first time for everything. Nobody had ever sued a baker or florist for discrimination at one time. If your relatives think "It hasn't happened, therefore it won't happen" they are sorely mistaken.

Throw in the tendency to shop for judges as well as a suitable target and the precedent will be set as Invar describes.
Besides - lawsuits over quality happen all the time. People sue the sandwich shop because their sandwich doesn't match the picture! (OK, that is a slight exaggeration, but not by much. The FTC could prosecute, among others, but they don't because an egg mcmuffin is dirt cheap)

[Smokin Joe]

There is a line from a book I have read where an all-powerful godlike being is making a judgment as to whether Humanity will be allowed to perish or be saved. The being says to the assembly in the court, "I will make a decision, though it cannot be just." What that being meant of course, is that no judgment arbitrated by a disinterested third party can ever be completely fair to all parties involved.

Because a decision must be made due to the fact that the alternative (indecision) is deemed the more-intolerable thing, someone involved in the issue will by nature of reality receive less fair judgment than they rightfully deserve.

At least one and sometimes both parties will not be satisfied with the judgment because the adjudicator must perform a manner of "surgery" to bring resolution that serves the best interests of the greater entity (society).  That process often requires denying something to which someone may be morally, rightfully entitled but which must be abridged in order to achieve the vital synthesis demanded by legalism in a democratic republic. 

So a smart business owner would forever keep this in the back of their awareness any time they deal with the public. The business owner might be informed by the reality that whatever good might come from remaining intransigent in the face of being asked to do something that they deemed bad, a greater good might be served (protecting their own long-term best interests) by making some compromise which does not fully capitulate to sin, but also satisfies the obligations placed upon them as participants in a civil society.

Any business owner who does not want to be subjected to oversight by a court system that is secular and which will from time to time abridge their personal rights in favor of the collective, might consider a different line of work as opposed to remaining sky-lined as a big juicy target for every stupid faggot and lowlife leftist who is shopping for their Daily Cause.

Living well is the best revenge. I do not believe in a God which judges His children harshly when they are forced into moral dilemmas where they must choose between doctrinaire conformity to credo, or pragmatic issues of personal survival or security.

My existence in this world is short. Eternity lasts a very long time. I will not 'sell my birthright for a mass of pottage'. What you do is your choice.

[LateForLunch]

You are the bully if you would force someone to (literally) cater to something they have a religious opposition to. You would define the parameters of their religious belief.
That's bullying (and unconstitutional, by the First Amendment).
If, at the time they walk into the shop, they have not contracted for services, no contract for services exists. Without that, there is nothing to honor in terms of doing business.
Your assumption that religion is an excuse for "bullying" (there's that buzzword, again) belies a lack of understanding of religious faith.
Would you require a Muslim Florist who advertises flowers for weddings to provide flowers for a homosexual civil union? Even knowing the Hadith requires them to throw homosexuals from a high place and finish off any survivors by stoning?

Some good points, except that U.S. courts commonly recognize "implied contracts" or other stipulations in commerce even though no written contract exists.

For instance, in the recent case where some stupid faggot "pastor" claimed that some employee of Walmart put an anti-faggot slur on his cake, the court did not immediately act in his favor because he took the cake out of the store, which relieved the store of liability. By taking the cake out of the store, the fool performed an act that the law calls "acquiring possession". Once the cake left the store it was assumed without having to be documented (in writing or otherwise), that it was in acceptable condition. The faggot lost his right to immediate legal relief once he took the cake out of the store and drove off with it. The general stipulation of commerce law is that to accept possession of a product defacto establishes that the product is in acceptable condition.

Any time some business opens their doors to a public street,  (either literally or figuratively) they lose some of the rights afforded to private property or proprietorship. So in the case of a florist or a baker.

[Idiot]

My existence in this world is short. Eternity lasts a very long time. I will not 'sell my birthright for a mass of pottage'. What you do is your choice.

[Suppressed]

I like these kinds of questions, and it is not cluelessness on your part to ask.  Lots of traditions and misunderstanding have obscured or clouded God's intents and statutes.

Thank you, @INVAR, for taking the time to put together such a great reply.  I still have a few questions, though, if you or others wouldn't mind addressing...

Sin is anything contrary to God's nature and His Laws, which are actually given so that we might life a blessed life and put on His mind that we might inherit eternity.  All misery and suffering is the result of mankind rejecting both God and His Laws and making himself god in his own eyes and determining justice based on his own human reasoning.

Understand that God established a theocracy for Ancient Israel when He brought them out of Egypt.  It was a covenant agreement Israel had agreed to upon God's promise to deliver them to the Promised Land.  As such, God was specific that His Laws were to be strictly obeyed, and deviance from some of them were punishable by death.    ...

Fair enough.

In the New Covenant - the penalty for sin is still death (spiritually), but we now have an Advocate and our sins upon repentance are washed via the willing sacrifice made in our place by Jesus.  God simply set aside the penalty for sin, which is still earned every time we sin, but upon repentance and coming under the blood of the One Salvation, we are washed and that sin's penalty is no longer imputed to us.  It is a constant process of overcoming and putting on the mind of God in every aspect of our lives.

I follow you there.

Since Ancient Israel no longer exists because they refused to abide the covenant they made with God, the physical death penalty under that theocracy no longer applies.  There is no more nation under that covenant.  We have a New Covenant, one made by the Blood of Him who made us.

...
Jesus did not set aside the Law, He simply told them that whomever among them was without sin, to throw the first stone at her.  As they stepped up, Jesus was writing their sins in the sand.  None remained to do the deed, and Jesus said to the woman that He did not condemn her to death - and TO GO AND SIN NO MORE.  For if she was caught again and Jesus was not around - it is likely she was stoned as the law provided.

Both parts of the Law actually still apply.  Every man born dies, and if unrepentant and not under the blood of Christ - earns eternal death as scripture tells us in Romans 6:23.

But doesn't that mean the sin is still the sin? 

So in the case of eating pork, which was against the Law, that would mean it's still a sin under the New Testament, but that Jesus washes the sin away...no?  So why do churches serve pork during dinners?

Even if the sin is no longer death, the sins are still not to be committed, right?  So why aren't Christians following Jewish Law?

(I guess some Christian women still keep their heads covered, for example, but the vast majority don't.)

[INVAR]

I still have a few questions, though, if you or others wouldn't mind addressing...

But doesn't that mean the sin is still the sin? 

Yes.  Sin is still sin. God has never revoked a sin to non-sin status.  Mankind and man's traditions have done that.  God hasn't.  Sin remains sin and those committing sin, earn the eternal death penalty.

So in the case of eating pork, which was against the Law, that would mean it's still a sin under the New Testament...So why do churches serve pork during dinners?

I look at the bible as an instruction book from the Creator on how to live the best possible life, with the least possible self-inflicted miseries. The bible could be subtitled "Sin, and how to avoid the consequences of it".    God did not intend swine for human food consumption.  Neither did He create birds of prey to be food or sea creatures that essentially acts as kidneys for the ocean.   Their digestive systems do not remove the impurities and poisons that make it into their flesh.  Pigs are by nature, garbage and refuse eaters.  Same as dogs - but we do not eat them, because as one actor famously put it "Dog's got personality".

God never rescinded His laws regarding clean and unclean meat.  That came about when the church determined that Jesus makes all things clean coupled with the vision Peter had three times in Acts:10 about the Roman Centurian who was coming for baptism, was about God doing away with the dietary laws.  Acts 11 plainly tells us that the vision of the common and unclean foods on a sheet was a metaphor for how the Jews looked at Gentiles, and that men should not call other men unclean and eschew them when Salvation was being offered for all mankind.  The vision had nothing to do with food, or that God decided in a vision to Peter to simply do away with sin altogether.

Even if the sin is no longer death, the sins are still not to be committed, right?  So why aren't Christians following Jewish Law?

It's not "Jewish Law" - it's God's Law.  The road to where Christian doctrine finds itself is the result of 2 millennia of incremental changes made to what was established in 33 A.D. Christianity during the middle ages did all it could to separate itself from having any similarities with Judaism, even though in the First Century - the Roman historian Josephus tells us the the Romans could not tell the Christians apart from the Jews, except by what name they preached.  It is common understanding among most of Christendom that the Old Testament was nailed to the cross and done away with.  I am not of that understanding, but of the understanding that Christ was the fulfillment of everything God had established.  The physical sacrifices were replaced with spiritual ones (we are supposed to be crucified daily in order to put this flesh and our carnal nature to death).

(I guess some Christian women still keep their heads covered, for example, but the vast majority don't.)

That is a Hebrew and Jewish cultural custom that Paul was addressing in I Corinthians 11.  Not a biblical command.  It was a custom of respect in their culture - similar in nature as our culture once had men wearing hats, and taking them off when entering a home or when coming into church.