AFA's Bryan Fischer pens his most anti-intellectual column yet
Bryan Fischer doesn't believe that Michael Sam's NFL future is at all determined by his sexual orientation, but rather by his athletic prowess. And yet after arguing that point, the American Family Association's most anti-gay, and therefore most visible, senior analyst argues the very opposite when it comes to wedding vendors and their supposed "right." A snippet:
Now if Michael Sam and his boyfriend decided to get "married" and came not to the St. Louis Rams but to a Christian wedding vendor, he would and should be treated in exactly the same way. Wedding vendors might like him, even like him a lot, but be unable to do business with him because they have deeply held standards of behavior that they will not compromise for the sake of political correctness.
Would this mean that the wedding vendor would be discriminating against Michael Sam? Of course it would. Just like the St. Louis Rams discriminated against him, and for the same reason: deeply held convictions about behavior. In the Rams' case, it's athletic behavior. In the case of the wedding vendor, it's sexual behavior.
FULL: Homophobia alert: Entire NFL refuses to do business with homosexual player [AFA]
This apples/oranges conceit is beyond ignorant, even for Fischer. The Rams' business decision isn't an exercise in "deeply held convictions;" selecting the football team that they believe will best help them win is actually what they are supposed to do. It is the team minders' job to perform this duty, and they base their decisions on the performance of the commodities (i.e. the athletes) that make up their brand. Yes, the decisions involve their discriminating tastes, in the sense that all evaluations of performance involve weighing distinctions. But recruiting, promoting, and cutting paid employees of a merit-based job is not discrimination.
Wedding vendors, on the other hand, are tasked with selling the products that they themselves claim to sell. When they turn away a gay couple, it is not because of valid reasons why a business owner might turn away a customer (e.g. inability to pay, request for items the business doesn't offer, no available appointments) but rather for their own personal condemnations of the customer on the basis of who he or she is as a human being. These vendors are limiting their goods and services because of customer characteristics that have nothing to do with the commercial exchange. These discriminating business owners are using their own judgement to determine whose dollars are of no worth within their establishment. This is called discrimination, as Bryan accurately notes, and we as a society recognize it as a great and unfortunate wrong.
Bryan is arguing against himself here. I'm seriously beginning to believe if this gay-obsessed personality is just trolling us all (his own employer included).
comments powered by Disqus