RECENT  POSTS:  » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out » But your subjective view of 'real' marriage is factually irrelevant, Ryan » Flip Benham (yes, their dad) reportedly protesting outside NC weddings » TV's Duggar family continues anti-LGBT activism » Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case  

« 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