RECENT  POSTS:  » Jodie Foster in 2013: 'I am'; Jodie Foster in 2014: 'I do' » AFA promotes its new app in only way it knows how » Robert Oscar Lopez says I perform 'psychological operations routine' on him when I quote his own words from his own web site » Matt Barber's ever-classy site suggests gay people are literally crushing fellow humans » Bryan Fischer is on to our comic book villain–in-chief » Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Al Mohler 'can't give' us acceptance; good thing we're not asking » NOM fails to trip up Oregon marriage case » Audio: Tony Perkins equates opposing equality with opposing Nazis » 'WaPo' conservative columnist: 'Strident' marriage equality opponents have lost » If you feel like you hear about another marriage case every day, here's why  

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

12/13/2013

Nope, it's *not* about cake (or much sweetness at all)

by Jeremy Hooper

The Family Leader's David Barnett is absolutely right that the Colorado baker situation is not really about cake. Unfortunately, he's completely wrong about what it is about:

The right to free speech and freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment has been ruled by an activist judge to be subject to the feelings of a particular people group. Judge Spencer said in the ruling:

“It may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” he ruled. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

Translation: “Because they might feel bad, this baker and other Christians like him, must forfeit their right to religious liberty.”

So, let me get this straight – in order to get a cake, these two guys sued a baker, and had his first amendment rights stripped away?

Somehow, I don’t think this is about cake…

FULL: Iowa: It’s Not About the Cake [The Family Leader via Focus on the Family's Citizenlink]

See what he did there in his translation (third line)? He made it all about Christians and their supposed victimization, as if we are talking about a law that only protects LGBT people and specifically targets people of faith. That is purposeful on his (and his larger movement's) part.

In reality, we are talking about nondiscrimination laws that also protect people on the basis of gender, race, religion, national origin, age, disability, etc. It's not just about sexual orientation protections (which, I should remind you, also protect people with a heterosexual orientation). We are talking about laws that root out all forms of unfair discrimination, which we base on real life knowledge of groups that tend to be targeted.

Religious people were included because religious people are, in fact, sometimes marked for unfair discrimination. And so are LGBT people. The big difference is that most every L, G, B, or T person I know fully supports protections as they apply to people of faith while the most vocal proponents of marrying faith and politics refuse to extend the same courtesy our way.

So no, it's not Christians who must "forfeit" this supposed "right" to pick and choose which customers a business that purports to do business with the public must serve—it's ALL OF US! We do not have the right to nakedly flout nondiscrimination laws. And no, it doesn't change a thing simply because the person who wants to discriminate couples his or her selective business practices with a couple of bible quotes.

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