RECENT  POSTS:  » What most people aren't getting about the fake non-troversies of the anti-gay right » 'Weekly Standard' asst. editor equates Tim Cook with man who pits God against him » Michigan pastors make unfortunate lifestyle choice; say they'll go to jail rather than not discriminate » PFOX's Quinlan says SBC leader's opposition to 'reparative therapy' is cruel » That Idaho wedding venue posts new 'rules and regulations'; will still perform non-Christian weddings » Another deceptive thing about NOM's duplicitous anti-Hagan ad » NOM trying to shape Arkansas politics without even learning state's abbreviation » Video: Focus on the Family staffer who calls homosexuality 'particularly evil lie of Satan' hangs out in Chicago's Boystown » Video: Another new NOM ad targets Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR); uses James O'Keefe video as source » What the heck is 'NOM Victory Fund'?  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

08/23/2013

The National Organization for ['We don't serve your kind here!']

by Jeremy Hooper

Yesterday afternoon, New Mexico's high court did the obvious: it found that business owners who conduct commercial exchanges with the public cannot pointedly deny service to a gay couple. As I said yesterday, most of these vendors can likely find a way to lie about why they are denying the service ("Oh sorry, we're all booked on that day") and manage to fulfill their discriminatory wishes. However, they cannot deny a potential client of the basis of who they are, which is what every last one of the professional "victims" that the far right props up has, in fact, done.

But now here's NOM's response to the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling, which remains defiant in the face of yet another—YET ANOTHER!—major loss:

Screen Shot 2013-08-23 At 10.36.46 Am"While the court calls for compromise, they got it wrong in this case," continued Brown. "The Huguenins [the photography business owners] should not have to compromise. Their beliefs are constitutionally protected. But the Willocks [the lesbian couple] could easily have compromised by going to another photographer who would not have had such a conflict. Instead the Willocks forced the issue and used the power of the court to put the Huguenins in an impossible position - compromise their beliefs or give up their livelihood. There is nothing just about that."
...
"People of faith should not be coerced to denying their beliefs or losing their livelihoods," concluded Brown. "There are plenty of photographers, bed and breakfast owners, or florists who would happily serve same-sex ceremonies. However, same-sex 'marriage' activists are not concerned with getting service, but instead forcing Americans of faith to compromise their beliefs and support something they know is objectively wrong.
"

NOM president Brian Brown

Just think about the precedent that Brian wants to set. He is seriously suggesting a world where gay people, while going about their days trying to plan an event in a state to which they pay taxes, can face the indignity of non-service based solely on who they are. Imagine passing by a store and seeing a gorgeous wedding cake of your dreams available in the flavors that you find most pleasing, and then being told that this cake isn't available to the likes of you. In the world Brian wants to create, every business owner would earn that "right."

It's not right, and it's not a right. It is naked discrimination. And I would argue that the more NOM pushes the issue, the more NOM admits the obvious animus that propels this organization.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails