Tolerance is not Enough!

You. MUST. Approve or be punished.

I wonder how many boycotts can be organized in the attempt to punish people for refusing to capitulate to the lie of gay “marriage”? I wonder if all of them will be the huge flop the Chik-Fil-A protest has been. Seems like resisters could have fun multiplying refusals to knuckle under and forcing the Tolerance Visigoths to play whack a mole. The comboxes at this link are already swelling up with a) Tolerance Visigoths hoping the owner will have a heart attack and die like the Chik-Fil-A exec and b) people talking about order from the guy by mail. He may make a fortune off this. Should be fun.

Update: the Usual Suspects are  in the comboxes, making the usual claims that this was a civil rights violation and that that the owner of the business is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. It’s not about sexual orientation.  If they’d asked for a birthday cake, he would not have refused.  Conversely, if a white Evangelical Christian had come in asking for a cake with the inscription “Death to Catholics!  All Hail James Holmes!” he would have been perfectly within his rights to refuse.  The issue is not who was buying the cake, but the immoral position the owner was being press-ganged into supporting.  Gay people can buy from him.  He does not, however, have to knuckle under to their demand that he pretend there is such a thing as gay “marriage”.

  • Rosemary Denshae

    It’s called exercising your freedom not to support a business that you feel is acting in an unjust manner.

    • Chris M

      It goes beyond “not supporting” when you’re organizing protests geared towards depriving a person of their livelihood and also trying to utilize the coercive power of the state to quelch their freedom of speech.

    • Dave G.

      That’s fine and dandy, but I remember back in the 80s and 90s, when it was Jerry Falwell or the Southern Baptist Convention doing such things, we were always reminded that it’s because they weren’t enlightened about the joys of a tolerant and diverse society. So, is that still true about those who organize boycotts?

    • S. Murphy

      It is their freedom; as long as it’s a group of citizens, and not the government. It’s still based on the premise that holding certain opinions disqualifies you from earning a living, or keeping a business that you’ve built. I’d be more sympathetic if it was a landlord refusing to rent to gay couples – everybody needs a place to live; and if I rent someone an apartment in a 6-flat, I’m not materially cooperating with whatever they do in their bedroom besides sleeping: I’m renting them a place to eat, sleep, hang out, and keep their stuff. Sounds like the baker thinks similarly – perfectly willing to sell them a birthday cake, doesn’t have any desire to control their lives, but can’t, according to his conscience, materially cooperate with their mistaken concept of marriage.

    • KMT

      Rosemary, if you ever come back here to see responses, here’s an article that might interest you: http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2012/jul/28/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-donates-25-million-dollars-p/

    • Dale Price

      Which is true, at least to the extent it’s not threatening or nasty.

    • Mark Shea

      And I affirm that freedom. Gay people can patronize who they like. I simply note that opponents of gay marriage can too and I’m skeptical that the constant attempt by gays to punish people into affirming the lie of gay “marriage” will really win hearts or minds. There is a fascist streak a mile wide in gay politics. Good luck with that.

      • kenneth

        The history of every rights struggle in human history shows that “winning hearts and minds” is not about being liked. It’s about gaining respect. The arena of human society isn’t a knitting circle or PTA. It’s more akin to a prison yard. You don’t win respect by begging or appealing to pity or negotiating from a position of weakness. You get it by never, ever backing down. That doesn’t mean you can never be civil, or ask nicely, or appeal to people’s better nature, or pick your battles. But when it comes down to that red line of who you are and your right to live as yourself, you don’t run, and you don’t settle for scraps.

        This country wasn’t formed by begging for sympathy in Parliament. Apartheid didn’t end because Afrikaners suddenly got the warm and fuzzies for their farmhands. Irish Catholics didn’t secure their status as Real Americans by resigning themselves to the WASP portrayal of them as drunken unclean papist agents. All of these groups got where they did because of a two part strategy. They made themselves visible as ordinary people with ordinary aspirations. The second part of the tactic was simple carrot and stick: We WILL have our rights, or we will make your situation as oppressors politically, economically and personally untenable.

        • Mark Shea

          Yes. But the history of every dick who claims to be a great hero and visionary and is really just a dick is also not about being liked. Just because somebody acts like a jerk doesn’t mean they are a hero. And the more a jerk claims to be a hero, the more certain it is he’s just a jerk. Just as every Christian with anger issues is not Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers, so every gay human toothache who goes around trying to humiliate and destroy somebody for failing to approve of gay marriage is not a champion of truth and justice but is just a gay fascist bent on smashing the weak.

          • kenneth

            I wouldn’t characterize this baker as “weak.” By now, this guy probably has the Alliance Defense Fund and every other conservative foundation tripping over themselves to help and a defense fund that will probably swell to six figures within a day of launching a social media blitz. His business now has global exposure and probably more business from political sympathy in a week than he had his whole lifetime from regular demand.

            More to the point though, I’ve often said that all revolutionaries are misfits but not all misfits are revolutionaries. Some are just misfits. History has a wonderful way of sorting this out in the end. In every real cause, there are loons pressing marginal or silly claims. If this couple’s suit has legs, it will affirmed by courts and upheld as good precedent over time. If it’s ludicrous, it will be dismissed and wind up as a footnote in the eye-roller cases only law students and historians learn about.

            • Mark Shea

              In other words, the attempt to bully him failed because others came to his defense. Yes, bullies don’t like that. And yes, gay fascist intimidation campaigns do often backfire due to the “Dear Gay Fascists: This is why people hate you” phenomenon. Moral: stop trying to bully people into approving of homosex and settle for tolerance. But homosexuality and narcissism are like peas and carrots and a lot of gay simply cannot *stand* to settle for tolerance. They cannot rest until disapproval is smashed and approval is forced. That’s why they will continue these stupid bullying pogroms. Sin makes them stupid.

    • Chris

      Can we at least have a law that keeps pro-gay marriage activists 100 feet away from bakeries?

      • Gary Keith Chesterton

        Oh, man. +1.
        .
        .
        .

    • http://austrolibertariancatholic.wordpress.com Martial Artist

      @Rosemary Denshae,

      Yes, that is what it is called, just as choosing to start patronizing that business is exercising your freedom to support a business you feel is acting in a morally correct manner in accordance with the freedom of conscience of the proprietor of that business.

      It would appear that we are in agreement about the ideas of boycotting and anti-boycotting. Personally, I am glad to know you support individual freedom with regard to giving material form to the support of those with whom one agrees. The fact that you see it as an injustice is diametrically opposed to what I understand concerning what the Church teaches on the subject. We are neither to affirm nor celebrate sinful behavior, while still always respecting the dignity of our fellow sinner. Would you not agree?

      Pax et bonum,
      Keith Töpfer

      Pax et bonum,
      Keith Töpfer

  • http://agapas.me Bob LeBlanc

    The first line is a lie: “Chick-fil-A’s president spoke out against gay marriage last week.” What is true is that he spoke in favor of marriage as traditionally understood, until this generation went bat-shit crazy (my apologies to all the bat-shit crazy people I’ve just insulted).

    • Andy, Bad Person

      What’s even crazier is that he didn’t rant or pontificate on the matter. He very simply answered a direct question, and the Tolerance Inquisition has extrapolated his “hate.”

      Also, they found out they support Focus on the Family, which we all remember from the Tim Tebow fiasco, is simply heresy in their book.

      • Nate

        Right. That’s one of the weirdest things about this whole thing with the fried chicken place. You read the stories, and you’d think that the dude who runs the place is out tirelessly crusading against the gays, and doing radio shows on it every chance he gets, and holding rallies, and banning gays from his store, and giving discounts to people who hold Fred Phelps-style picket signs by their tables in the restaurant.
        That if you ask him about his fried chicken, he’d respond, ‘Who cares about my fried chicken! You know what I care about? Squelching gayness!”

        This story is seriously fubar.

        I turn on the news and I hear that a fried chicken place is being told not to set up shop in a city because the owner blah blah blah. Then I turn the channel and I hear a story about how the terrible-in-every-way Obama said ‘you didn’t build that’ can you BELIEVE he SAID that OMG!

        I’d link to a pic of Captain Picard, but there isn’t a powerful enough facepalm meme out there that signifies my disdain with the media and our own silly political preoccupations.

        Ugh.

    • Ted Seeber

      The bat-shit-crazy started at least 4 generations ago

      • LUKE1732

        Ted, just curious – why 4 generations? Is there some particular watershed event I’m not thinking of?

        • Ted Seeber

          No one watershed event, but the two most obvious ones would be the end of the Comstock Law legalizing contraception for interstate commerce, and of course, WWII.

          “How you gonna keep them down on the farm, after they’ve seen gay Paris?” wasn’t about chaste USO approved parties with modestly dressed young dance partners.

          But that’s also why I said “at least”. It may have started much, much earlier. Some paleoconservative theologians claim it started with the moral relativism of the Protestant Rebellion.

          Every generation since then has demanded, and received, more freedom in the twin vices of lust and avarice. Gay marriage is very close to the BOTTOM of the slippery slope, not the top.

  • Dennis Mahon

    I think this illustrates things pretty well:

    http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/362/063/0c3.jpg

    • Dennis Mahon

      I just realized some of the language in that image is NSFW; view with discretion.

      • nate

        WIN.

        (For WordPress: WIN times infinity.)

    • Marion (Mael Muire)

      Whoops . . . the above link is not safe for work.

      • http://www.SwanseaAcupuncture.net Dr. Eric

        Pictures with cuss words on them are considered NSFW?

        I’m my own boss; unless you ask my kids, who will say that Mommy is the boss, so I guess I don’t have the NSFW problem.

    • ivan_the_mad

      That is quite amusing.

  • Chris M

    I keep seeing all the pro-SSM groups on Facebook posting their ‘clever’ photos and blurbs and posters and they all have in common one thing: they accuse Chik-Fil-A and anyone opposing SSM of hatred.

    Hate. Hm. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    • dpt

      “Hate. Hm. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
      You are correct and they need to take a good hard gaze into a mirror to grasp hatred.

  • EcoD

    Well, according to the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, “places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person’s sexual orientation or transgender status.” http://www.dora.state.co.us/civil-rights/August%202010SexualOrientationFAQBrochure.pdf
    Am I missing something, or is this guy breaking Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws?

    • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com JoAnna

      He’s not denying them services based on their sexual orientation. He’s denying them services based on their desire to enter into a marriage that is not legal in Colorado. If he refused to bake the guy a birthday cake just because he’s gay, then yeah, that’d be discrimination against him due to sexual orientation. But baking a wedding cake is asking him to participate in celebrating the BEHAVIOR (marriage), which is a different situation.

      What about the Wal-Mart baker who refused to bake a cake for the kid named Adolf Hilter? Everyone applauded that guy for discriminating against a kid based on his NAME (like it was his choice to be named after a genocidal dictator — IIRC the poor kid was only 6 years old). How is this situation any different?

      Or, think of it this way — if the baker was a faithful Catholic who refused to bake a wedding cake for two divorced Catholics who were attempting remarriage without receiving declarations of nullity from their respective former spouses, would you say he was discriminating against them because they were heterosexual?

      • EcoD

        That’s quite the justification. I guess you’re right, though; I haven’t heard anybody else making the argument that he violated civil rights law.
        So a guy who refuses to provide a cake for a bar mitzvah is also justified in doing so? Or a baptismal?

        • Ted Seeber

          If he’s an atheist, YES.

          • EcoD

            What if he’s Jewish? Or Catholic?

            • Therese Z

              He’s justified in not offering his service to anyone. It would be stupid of him to say why he was turning down the bar mitzvah cake, but he could.

              When I was planning trip once, I called a bed&breakfast in a small town in the area we were travelling to. I had questions about location, timing, reservations. The woman on the phone suddenly sputtered “You ask too many questions! You can’t come here!” and hung up the phone.

              Wow. Had I been rude? I don’t know, but she could turn me down and I would never have thought of doing anything about it. I still think she was justified, even if I was the nicest caller in the world.

              The overreaction by these “couples” points to an unhealthy mental compulsion on the subject.

              • EcoD

                No, he’s not legally justified in not offering service to anyone. There are anti-discrimination laws in place that prevent businesses from refusing service based on things like race, age, sex, and (in some states, including Colorado) sexual orientation. To my knowledge, asking too many questions isn’t currently protected, but that does seem a bit of an overreaction on the part of the B&B owner. Businesses still have a great deal of freedom, but they can’t put up a sign that says, “No blacks allowed.”

                • Mark Shea

                  It’s not about sexual orientation. If they’d asked for a birthday cake, he would not have refused. Conversely, if an Evangelical Christian had come in asking for a cake with the inscription “Death to Catholics! All Hail James Holmes!” he would have been perfectly within his rights to refuse. The issue is not who was buying the cake, but the immoral position the owner was being press-ganged into supporting.

                  • EcoD

                    Yes, I understand that. JoAnna made that point. I was commenting to Therese Z who said he’s justified in not refusing his service to anyone (I’m not sure who “he” is at this point). That is not correct, because of civil rights laws. Apparently, those laws do not apply in this specific case, however, they do still exist. And protesters can do whatever they please, as long as it’s legal. Just ask the Westboro Baptist Church.

                    • Mark Shea

                      Where would gay fascists be without Westboro Baptist Church?

                    • EcoD

                      Not being gay or fascist (and certainly not both), I can’t really speak to where they would be.

                    • Mark Shea

                      Given that a favorite stupid gay polemicist trick is to point to Westboro Baptist as The Representative Christians (even though they, by their own testimony, deny that they are Christians and insist they are something called “Tachmonites“), it was no doubt a mere coincidence that you chose to point to them as somehow significant or germane to the discussion.

                    • EcoD

                      I was merely referring to a group with unpopular protests that are legally protected.

              • Ted Seeber

                One of my favorite restaurants a few years back was called Crazy Chef Sato’s. Very nice Japanese couple in their 50s ran the place- though it was a bit odd because *he* (Chef Sato) was very nice and humble in a Zen sort of way (even printed on the cover of his menus “Eight out of ten people are normal. Maybe one a genius, maybe one Crazy. I’m not normal and I’m not a genius”). SHE on the other hand, never knew her name past Mrs Sato, was that kind of Japanese Stoic who never smiled, never cracked a joke, and no matter what you ordered the voice as she shouted the order back to her husband in Japanese made you feel that somehow you were wrong.

                I ordered everything on the menu at one time or another, and never got any better treatment. But the food was fabulous- just the right mix of Japanese-American fusion to be downright divine (and I’ve never found another restaurant that serves Chicken Cheese Katsu again).

      • enness

        As someone whose job brings me to a lot of weddings, I won’t knowingly get involved in a gay wedding. I’m saying that here because y’all don’t know who I am — it’s not like I go out of my way to explain or create an awkward situation. It’s not out of any personal animus against certain people. If it were a birthday party, etc. it would be a different matter.

        The law can only go so far in making people play nice with each other. It’s like when people claim that public school socializes children and teaches them to work with people they don’t like — then I remember the cliques, and how much I couldn’t stand group projects (I still can’t), the simmering resentment. It all seems so phony at times, I think it would be simpler if businesses were free to serve or not serve whomever, and everyone else was free to consider them the scum of the earth and vote with their feet and wallets. Maybe not entirely possible, I dunno.

        • Cantor At Large

          Ditto – as a singer who’s done plenty of weddings over the years, I’m afraid to advertise my services in bridal boutiques and wedding shows for fear that some litigation- or camera-hungry lesbians will ask me to sing for their ‘wedding’ and sue me when I won’t – like the photographer in New Mexico who was brought up before the county human rights (ha) commission and fined, even though NM doesn’t have gay ‘marriage’.

          I have had the strange experience of singing for the funeral of a man who committed assisted suicide, though. An acquaintance told me her father-in-law had passed away and asked me if I would sing for the funeral; after I said yes, she explained the circumstances of his death. (Though I felt awkward, I felt that participation wasn’t material cooperation, since the man was already dead and the family was just trying to bury him. I have a dim memory of checking this out with a priest at the time.)

          It was at a Lutheran church, and among the hundreds of funerals I’ve sung for in the past decade or two, it ranks among the most tragic and least Resurrection-oriented. As the family told their stories, so much rationalization and second-guessing and creeping doubt was expressed that I was convinced even more deeply of the wrongness of assisted suicide. A difficult experience I don’t want to relive, but I’m glad for the lesson learned.

    • Ted Seeber

      I damned well hope so. That’s a stupid law.

      • EcoD

        Which part of it is stupid?

        • Ted Seeber

          The part about forcing associations between people who don’t want to be associated, thus completely destroying the free association clause of the First Amendment. You should have the right to associate with whomever you wish- but you do NOT have the right to force them to associate with you, regardless of the non-discrimination limitations enacted over the last 70 years or so.

          • EcoD

            Your argument is with the legislature. Good luck with that.

            • Ted Seeber

              It’s more than just the legislature- it’s the whole bloody mixed salad model of multiculturalism that seems to have replaced our American Melting Pot.

  • kenneth

    This is exactly how the marketplace of ideas should work in a democracy. People put their deeply held beliefs out there, and everyone is free to give or withhold their support in words or material support. So long as protesters obey the law and do not obstruct traffic or physically harm or threaten anyone, ring the bell and let the “trading floor” in this market remain forever open! The only other out of bounds action is when public officials abuse their elected position to interfere with businesses based on ideology. The mayors and aldermen who threatened such actions in Boston and Chicago were out of line and need to walk that back.

  • Rick

    Back in the olden days, I had a sign that read, ” I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone I desire.”. It hung on the door to the bar in Pensacola. You became a pain, you were shown the door (i.e. you were 86′ed). A person that was 86ed, was never served again.
    Perhaps we need to bring back the sign.

  • bob

    It’s amazing how fast this social experiment came to the top of the list of weird things that must be accepted and loved. No Nicene Council, nothing. I went to bed one night and woke up a nazi because I don’t approve.

    • Ted Seeber

      I’m even worse than that- I went to bed an empty headed liberal on March 1, 2002 because I supported the concept of separation of civil unions and religious marriage; and on March 2, 2002 4 county commissioners in a county I didn’t even live in got together in a private phone conference and decided I was a Nazi for suggesting that civil unions could possibly work in Oregon.

  • Ted Seeber

    So basically the story is: Gay couple are idiots and failed to check Yelp for previous customer rules before selecting a bakery and get mad at the owner for doing what he’s always done.

  • Paul H

    Regarding the update to your post: Another good analogy would be that a pro-life bakery owner should not be required to create a cake with a pro-abortion message. Likewise, a pro-choice bakery owner should not be required to create a cake with a pro-life message.

    In other words, it’s about the message that the bakery owner is being asked to support, not about any attributes of the customer himself or herself.

  • EcoD

    In regards to your update, what comboxes are you talking about? The ones here? Because there was only one person mentioning civil rights violations on here, and that was me. And I wasn’t claiming that this particular case was a civil rights violation, I was ASKING if it was. There’s a pretty clear difference between those two. Somebody replied and pointed out the distinction between discriminating against a group and discriminating against a practice, and how the laws don’t cover this, and I agreed with them. So what exactly are you railing about?

  • Irenist

    One of the root causes of misunderstanding here is the attempt to conflate a homosexual orientation with homosexual acts, and to conflate disapproval of the latter with things like sexism and racism. Prior to the passage of (Title II of) the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was legal to refuse to serve people merely because of the color of their skin. What gay marriage advocates are trying to do is argue that anyone who disapproves of gay marriage is as bad as a racist, and that therefore any baker, wedding photographer, caterer, etc., who does not wish to be involved in a sinful same sex wedding should have the full force of something like the 1964 Civil Rights Act brought down on them. In other words, the gay marriage debate has gone from “how does my marriage affect you?” to “if you do not participate in my gay marriage, you either need to get out of the wedding business, or expect to be as socially marginalized as some KKK troglodyte.” Asking to be left alone to enjoy the civil benefits of marriage is one thing. Asking traditional Christians to accept a future of being pushed to the margins of society with Klansmen and neo-Nazis is quite another. The first request I (personally) have no problem with. The second demand is going to produce a lot of justified backlash. As the first request is seen by many to be a mask for the second demand, you will see many of us in the middle cease to support gay marriage. Quit pushing your luck.

    • Paul H

      Hear hear! Well said!!

    • kenneth

      “Asking to be left alone to enjoy the civil benefits of marriage is one thing…..”

      Well how do you do that if everyone reserves the right to treat you as a second class citizen even in public accommodations? You can be yourself as long as you’re not uppity about it. Separate but equal. Quit pushing your luck. Take what we give you and go to the back of the bus and eat and go to school with your own kind, where you’re better off anyway.

      Where have we heard that before? Apart from the issue of how and whether ssm discrimination is covered by federal civil rights law and/or local law, there is the matter of social marginalization. If a majority of society, or even just one’s target market, decides that your practices as a business owner are odious, that’s how the ball bounces. Freedom of expression does not guarantee acceptance of one’s views.

      • Irenist

        Kenneth, you are providing an example of the kind of false equivalence between racial bigotry and principled opposition to same sex marriage that I complained of above. No one is asking gay people to “go to the back of the bus.” Instead, gay marriage advocates are saying that people who do not wish to personally participate in catering gay weddings have to get out of baking, catering, photography, and other wedding-related businesses, or the force of law will be brought to bear to take away their livelihoods.

        “Apart from the issue of how and whether ssm discrimination is covered by federal civil rights law and/or local law, there is the matter of social marginalization. If a majority of society, or even just one’s target market, decides that your practices as a business owner are odious, that’s how the ball bounces. Freedom of expression does not guarantee acceptance of one’s views.”

        This is not a matter of boycotting a business you disagree with. This is a matter of a baker in Colorado, or Chik-Fil-A in Boston, being denied the right to operate unless they violate their conscience. No one is asking that gay people “accept the views” of the baker. What is being asked is that gay couples in Colorado not sue under Colorado civil rights legislation out of anti-Christian spite. They can buy their cake for their sham wedding elsewhere. *Their* freedom of expression should not be an excuse for them to ram acceptance of their views down the throat of bakers, caterers, and photographers.

        The gay marriage advocacy community is used to thinking of itself as oppressed people fighting the power. But here, they are attempting to use the power of the State of Colorado to oppress others. Oppression is wrong. Even when “diverse” people do it.

        • kenneth

          Seeking a redress of grievance through law is not oppression. It is THE foundational right of democracy and really of any civil society. That’s the entire idea behind “rule of law” – that everyone has access to justice, not just those in favor of the sovereign or demographic majority or who have the force of arms to press their claims.

          The ability to buy a wedding cake from a particular vendor is, on it’s face, a trivial enough matter. But civil rights law is not really rooted in an access to markets problem. Black folks were not starving to death because white lunch counters weren’t seating them. There were pragmatic choice and quality issues from housing discrimination, but civil rights law is anchored in something more fundamental. That something is the idea that no American, nor anyone under the protection of our law, should face the indignity of being told “we don’t serve your kind” in a public place of commerce.

          That sort of humiliation is un-American to its core, and preventing it is so important that it outweighs the rights of business owners to express their views through refusal of service. If you do think a baker or wedding caterer should be able to discriminate at will, should that go for all professions? If bakers can refuse service based on the “lifestyle” of a client, what about realtors, or mortgage brokers? Landlords? Ambulance drivers? Should the perceived importance of one’s profession and its relative impact on life and comfort dictate when a business person can exercise an absolute right of discrimination or be forced to knuckle under? Where would you draw that line?

          As to the equivalence of orientation and race in this issue, that attempt to de-legitimize rights has been used in every last struggle in recorded history. When people were pressing for racial equality, they were told they had no proper claim. They were just political agitators trying to force a social engineering agenda on others.

          • Mark Shea

            THE foundational right of democracy and really of any civil society is the right to life. The next right is the right to property. Also, freedom of religion. After that, in a democracy is the right to vote. We do eventually get to due process and redress of grievances. But it’s not THE foundational right.

            By the way, have you noticed that in your hurry to get back to spray painting your old Catholic stomping grounds you *still* haven’t dared to try to answer that really dreadful drubbing YOS gave you? It’s a habit of yours to only heckle Catholic belief while never seriously defending your own. Why is that, do you think?

          • Irenist

            Kenneth, you’re making a good point here. I can see how it would feel to a lot of gay people like “we don’t serve your kind here.” But if the gay people had gone in to ask for, e.g., a birthday cake, they would not have been refused service. It is their *behavior* that the baker does not wish to condone, not their inborn orientation, which need not prevent them from being celibate.

            • Irenist

              –continued due to spam filter not allowing longer post–
              That said, I do think that the kind of application of civil rights laws that you’re advocating is a likely outcome of gay marriage, which worries me. Rod Dreher has posted on this, and you are making his arguments seem a lot more persuasive to me. In the past, I have thought to myself “I agree with the bishops (of course) that gay ‘marriages’ are sinful, but I’m not sure I agree with their prudential judgment that they ought not to be legal.” What people like you are doing is turning me into a gay marriage opponent. If the necessary outcome of gay marriage legalization is the use of civil rights laws to force Christians in the wedding industries (baking, etc.) to participate, then I will heavy-heartedly become a gay marriage opponent.

              • Irenist

                –continued due to spam filter not allowing longer post–
                I was living and studying in North Carolina until my recent graduation and move back to Texas. When the anti-gay marriage amendment to the NC Constitution showed up on the Republican ballot I had taken (so I could vote for Ron Paul), I voted against it. I figured that compassionately allowing gay people to go their own way might let them learn the error of their ways and feel less hated by Christians. You are making me regret my vote. And I don’t think I’m alone here in my response to your argument, and to events like this one in Colorado.

                As a gay marriage supporter, many of the swing voters you need to court on your issue are people like me–Christians who are uncomfortable with sodomy, but also don’t have any desire to make gay people miserable by stopping them from legally solemnizing relationships that they plan to persist in because they have no use for traditional morality. So while I can understand why you are making the civil rights argument you are making, I think you need to understand that you are pushing allies like me away. And there are enough people like me out there that you might want to rethink that.

            • kenneth

              Why on Earth should they be forced to lie or come up with a “cover story” for a cake? Would you put up with such a situation if your baker didn’t like Catholics and you felt pressured to say a confirmation party was a bar mitzvah or birthday party?

              How does this guy know the couple in question is NOT celibate? If I read right, the cake was to celebrate a wedding, not a consummation or prima nocta or something. Is the provision of a cake a specific endorsement of sodomy? Is it a necessary instrument in completing such acts?
              Why would any well-adjusted adult even want to enmesh themselves in that aspect of a stranger’s life?

              • Irenist

                You’ve lost me, Kenneth. I wasn’t saying they should lie and pretend it was a birthday cake. I was saying that if it had been a birthday cake, this wouldn’t have happened.

                Obviously, a wedding cake is not (one would hope) part of the sodomistic act. However, a wedding cake for a gay wedding is cooperation with a ceremony that affirms a lifelong sexual partnership between two same sex adults–in other words, it is cooperation with a ceremony legitimizing sin, and therefore illicit for a Catholic to aid.

                As to your question of what I would do if my baker didn’t like Catholics: I’d take my business elsewhere. The situation in modern America w/r/t gay people is not like that of black people in the South in the 1950′s. Back then, it was hard for them to find *any* business that would serve them if they were, for example, traveling on the interstate highways. (See, e.g., the Heart of Atlanta Motel case). However, if a baker doesn’t approve of Catholicism or gay weddings or whatever, the Catholic or gay potential customer can go to just about any other bakery and get service. Why force the minority of serious, devout Christians to cater to the whims of gay people when most business owners don’t care enough about this to deny service, and the gay wedding customers can just go to them?

              • Mark Shea

                An excellent question to ask the next gay fascist who demands approval from total strangers for his bedroom activities under the penalty of law.

              • Paul H

                “Would you put up with such a situation if your baker didn’t like Catholics and you felt pressured to say a confirmation party was a bar mitzvah or birthday party?”

                That’s an interesting question. As you know, there still are some fundamentalist Christians who are very opposed to Catholic beliefs and practices, who think that the pope is the anti-Christ, that Catholicism is more pagan than Christian, etc. Suppose that one of these fundamentalists owned a bakery, and refused to bake a cake for me to celebrate my son’s Confirmation, because he thinks that the Catholic sacraments are evil pagan rituals or some such.

                I certainly wouldn’t be happy about the refusal, but I WOULD be happy that my money wasn’t going to that business. And I would simply get the cake somewhere else. I can’t imagine that I would call for a major boycott of the business or anything like that, especially if the owner was very polite and made it clear that he wasn’t trying to be mean-spirited, but that this is just his sincere belief.

          • Paul H

            “If bakers can refuse service based on the ‘lifestyle’ of a client”

            But I don’t think that that is exactly what is happening. The baker isn’t saying, “I don’t approve of your lifestyle, therefore I won’t serve you.” Instead, as I understand it, he is saying, “I believe that same-sex unions are immoral, and therefore I will not make a product that explicitly celebrates such a union.” In other words, the refusal is not based on the person(s) requesting the cake. Rather, the refusal is based on the nature of the EVENT that the cake is meant to celebrate.

            • Chris M

              exactly. If they wanted to order an orgy party cake or a female circumcision cake or asking an African American run bakery to make a cross-burning party cake.. well.. they’d be within their right to refuse. Now, if they said “I won’t make a birthday cake for you because you’re gay” THEN you and I (and the law) would both have a problem with it.

              • Paul H

                “Now, if they said ‘I won’t make a birthday cake for you because you’re gay’ THEN you and I (and the law) would both have a problem with it.”

                Agreed 100%.

  • SteveP

    This situation is indeed troubling. Apparently while the keystone of “gay marriage” is mutual consent, one cannot not consent to participation.

  • kmk

    Re: Westboro baptists. At a recent local homeschooling conference, we had some “Matrimony: (and then a depiction of a triangle with God at the top, husband on one lower corner, and wife on the other corner)” at our “Catholic ministries” used book table to sell/give away.
    Overheard exchange between a couple as they read the magnets:
    Man: “Wow, what is this, the Westboro Baptists or something?”
    WOman: “Well, I’m not going to buy anything from BIGOTS!”
    See? THAT’s the way it should happen in this country! They didn’t try to shut down our table (although we DID find Jack Chick booklet catalogs in our freebies bags!), they just agreed not to patronize us.

  • JB

    If I were a baker, I would offer Gay Wedding cakes topped with little statues of two naked grooms attempting an approximation of consummation of their marriage using one of the two orifices available to them, and then leave it to my gay customers to explain why this is offensive.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X