RECENT  POSTS:  » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » 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  

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

01/14/2014

FRC logic: Nondiscrimination incident in state w/out marriage equality proves marriage equality's consequences

by Jeremy Hooper

This comes from the Family Research Council's press release on today's historic court decision in Oklahoma, quote attributed to president Tony Perkins:

Screen Shot 2014-01-14 At 7.06.16 Pm
[FRC]

Of course Colorado doesn't have civil marriage equality (or hasn't "redefined marriage," as Tony would put it). The cake was for the non-legally-binding party of a couple who had legally married in Massachusetts prior to entering this cake shop. The issue in that matter has nothing to do with any sort of local policy change on marriage, court-enforced or otherwise, and everything to do with local nondiscrimination law. It doesn't matter if Colorado is months, years, or centuries away from getting marriage equality, or if the cake in question is for some other tangential party (anniversary, shower, etc.) related (or not) to their loveā€”the nondiscrimination law prevents the sort of discrimination that the cake baker showed to the same-sex couple because it was based on WHO THEY ARE as customers (i.e. gay).

Now, people like Tony deny that and say, "oh, but he would've baked them a birthday or some other kind of cake." That changes nothing and absolves no one. If you gladly bake a cake for a customer's Super Bowl party yet deny his request for a wedding cake because he is marrying a woman of another religion, the second part is still problematic, even if the first cake was both ornate and delicious. As long as the customer puts in a request and is denied the request specifically because of who he or she is (e.g. a human customer who loves humans of the same gender), then you might just run afoul of your state's nondiscrimination law. This fair treatment of customers does not hinge upon a change in state marriage policy, and it sure as frosted roses doesn't "prove" why expanding marital freedoms is a bad idea.

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