RECENT  POSTS:  » Fox News pays this person for his opinions » Pat Buchanan doubles down on 1983 column claiming AIDS is nature's punishment » Is NOM really going to push for a constitutional convention on marriage? » Video: Great piece from 'CBS Sunday Morning' highlights sweet success » Yes, the American marriage equality fight is over—the rest is just bluster » Goodnight from the White House to your house » AL Chief Justice Roy Moore calls marriage equality worse than segregation decision » And by opposition 'from all sides,' FRC means exclusively from the (R) side » Video: What it looked like when that thing happened today » Hillary vows to keep fighting for full LGBT equality; et tu, GOP rivals?  

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

09/04/2013

Matt Barber is just plain wrong.

by Jeremy Hooper

When a Tweeter confronted the Liberty Counsel attorney, spokesperson, and Liberty University Law School dean on his claim that a Oregon baker was "forced" to close, the reliably incendiary Matt Barber replied like so (third tweet):

Screen Shot 2013-09-04 At 8.11.54 Am

Matt is wrong. Factually wrong. Legally wrong.

The cake, its shape, its coloring, its topper, and its intended destination is just the cosmetic representative. The issue is the denial of business, which was made on the basis of sexual orientation. The couple tried to buy this product, which just so happened to be a wedding cake, and was told they could not do so because of who they are.

A bakery that hangs a shingle and offers up a menu of items must make those items available to the public, in accordance with local nondiscrimination laws. The bakery cannot deny a cake—any kind of cake—on the basis of any of the nondiscrimination ordinance's carefully detailed classifications. It is really not the business owner's well, business, to determine whether or not the usage of the product is "morally acceptable." There are many reasons beyond a wedding why one might buy a wedding cake (e.g. a theatrical performance, a political demonstration, a church's wedding prep class, a bridal shop's opening, a declared bachelor's sacrifice ritual, etc.) and it's not really the bakery's role to adjudicate acceptable use. If you list the product as available for purchase, you cannot deny that purchase for any number of reasons. Sexual orientation is but one reason.

The social conservatives like to focus on this one product—its shape, its coloring, its topper, and its intended destination—because it's an easy mental connection. It's part of the whole "war on traditional marriage" theme. However, it's a wholly unsustainable allusion. It's an illusion meant to distract from the core of this conversation: nondiscrimination laws and their proper application.

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