RECENT  POSTS:  » Man who insinuated it's better to be thrown into sea than support homosexuality attended #SB101 signing ceremony » Considering vast (and frankly odd) amount of time he spends talking about us, no wonder Tony Perkins thinks we're 'special' » FRC keeps lying about where majority of Americans stand on marriage equality » Audio: Indiana restaurant owner openly discriminates against gays, glad to have added protection to do so » Indiana legislature, Gov. Pence awaken a fierce, powerful, anti-discrimination giant » Eleven Republican US Sens. give anti-gay conservatives a taste of a near and less divisive future » NOM proudly touts #March4Marriage backers who believe homosexuality 'should be treated by society as immoral, dangerous perversion' » Video: Gee, with compelling videos like this one, I just can't imagine why the anti-gay right is losing in court » #TBT: Even after legal equality, Americans—and particularly religious Americans—struggle to accept certain marriages » Indiana threatens its commerce, tourism dollars, reputation, general welfare of its citizenry  

« 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 love—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