RECENT  POSTS:  » Report: US District judge won't deny justice to gay Coloradans; might delay it, though » AFA to POTUS: End your 'love affair with homosexuality,' give anti-gay Christians entitlement instead » Congressional right wing's right-side-of-history whip count: 8–271 » NOM, Manhattan Declaration turn Unitarian's anti-slavery, anti-war into pro-discrimination anthem » Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera tease America's coming anti-gay street revolts » FRC writer: We're not all the same, 'gay agenda' is 'dangerous for the wellbeing of this nation' » NBC analyst Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam » NOM becomes even more of a generalized anti-LGBT animus organization » Sure, NOM—I'll play your game!! » Bryan Fischer: POTUS 'stood on the graves' of Malaysia Air victims 'to promote the legitimacy of sexual deviancy'  

« 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