Those Who Live out Their Christian Beliefs About the Sinfulness of Homosex…

will be targeted and smashed by the Gay Legion of Menacing Visigoths for Tolerance.  This is a militant, persecuting religion that will give no quarter to Christian conscience.

  • Bob

    Most states that have laws on their books prohibiting discrimination on the basis of things like race and gender, and some have added gays to the list of those protected from discrimination. But I don’t think most states, when they included gays on the protected list, imagined future scenarios of same-sex weddings.

    They’re going to have to amend these laws to include conscience provisions so that people who hold a sincere moral or religious objection to participating in a particular event may decline to do so, but the provisions will need to be narrow enough so that they can’t be used by garden-variety bigots looking to, say, deny service to a mixed-race couple looking to buy a wedding cake.

    • vox borealis

      There is no need to make laws any narrower. Not selling a same-sex wedding cake is not comparable to not selling a wedding cake to a mixed race couple, for the simple reason that in the first case the service is NOT being denied on the bases of sexual orientation but rather the ceremony itself is being rejected (i.e., a two heterosexual men could, for cynical purposes, apply to get “married”—the baker would deny selling them a wedding cake because s/he does not believe in same-sex marriage, regardless the orientation of the participants). In the second case, the mixed-race couple is being targeted because of who they are, not because of the ceremony per se.

      • vox borealis

        Part ii (I had to break this in two sections, since the spam filter was recognizing the following paragraph as “spammy”:

        Opponents of same-sex marriage must keep pushing this. There is NO marriage “inequality” in the traditional definition of marriage: any man regardless of race, color or creed can marry any woman regardless of race, color or creed; the state recognizes any such marriage. (Civil) Marriage is not a right, it is a recognition of a status, no more. No one has the “right” to be married. Rather, the state simply recognizes the status for a variety of reasons.

      • Bob

        Good points. But this is an interpretation of existing law that would need to be 1., clarified in statute, or 2., simply accepted as correct by whatever enforcement authorities exist; or 3., clarified by the courts when someone like the baker is sanctioned by an overreaching civil authority, and then appeals in court.

    • Blog Goliard

      As icky as refusing to sell a cake to a mixed-race couple is…does the State really have a compelling interest in forcing a private citizen to sell that cake?

      In the specific context of the Jim Crow South–where allowing one business to decline service for racist reasons would result in most or all businesses declining service for racist reasons, thereby reinforcing state-sanctioned racial oppression–I believe it did amount to a compelling interest. But in 21st century America?

      I think the righteous memories of the civil rights movement have allowed government to arrogate to itself more general, wide-ranging powers to force citizens and private businesses to not do things that the bien-pensant class views (rightly or wrongly) as icky. Under this current practice, I see no way for those who object to same-sex marriage (and whatever else comes down the pike next…because with progressivism, which has no limiting principle, there’s *always* something coming next) to avoid compulsory full participation in any and every thing associated with it, whenever anyone asks them to do so.

  • IB Bill

    Let me ask a different question:

    I would have made the wedding cake for the lesbian couple, if I were a baker. Not for any particular reason other than they patronized my business and they were a repeat customer. Would I have been wrong, as a Catholic trying to be obedient to Church teachings, to bake the wedding cake?

    Now I am a freelance writer. I would not accept gigs from any organization specifically aligned against Church teachings. I can’t explain why they are not analogous, but for some reason in my mind they are different.

  • Tim S.

    Mark- can you send out a special note to all Catholics who live in this poor guy’s area to make a special point to do their business with him- weddings especially- time to show solidarity through economic means as well..anyone know any good priests in the area who could help spread word about directing some commerce his way to give him a nice surprise from the Catholic community!

  • http://ontheotherfoot.blogspot.com Joel

    The question is whether or not a same-sex ceremony is necessarily a wedding. Aaron Klein makes wedding cakes. He does not make blasphemous sham cakes. So unless the law defines this particular occasion as one and not the other, his refusal isn’t discrimination.

  • Ed the Roman

    “In the specific context of the Jim Crow South–where allowing one business to decline service for racist reasons would result in most or all businesses declining service for racist reasons,…”

    The point of Jim Crow laws was not that they allowed discrimination. It was that they compelled it.

    • Blog Goliard

      The point of cases like Katzenbach v. McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States was precisely whether private businesses should be allowed to discriminate, not whether a state should be allowed to compel discrimination. That is why they are the relevant precedent here.

  • “joe”

    OTOH, the couple are living their beliefs about relationships and legality in the face of unceasing christian condemnation.

  • L. Legault

    Although I believe businesses should have a right to refuse to do business as they see fit, I have to say that I think it is a mistake for businesses to take a stand on matters of conscience by refusing services that they would ordinarily provide. Why?
    1) It’s uncharitable, often in the most painful way. It must be very unpleasant to go to a hotel and find one’s booking cancelled when one turns out to have a same-sex partner.
    2) It serves no purpose, in that refusing to bake a cake for someone, or refusing them a room, or whatever, does not actually prevent the legal fact of which one disapproves – gay marriage.
    3) It fosters hostility and social division without actually doing anything about their original cause (see #2). Think of how the segregationists looked from the outside – although again, I think that segregated businesses ought to have been allowed to carry on as they wished; customers could learn to avoid them if they wanted. Which brings us to #4) It can easily be turned against those who wield this tool. The business owner might be boycotted (admittedly a self-interested reason to avoid it), but beyond that, any Christian could, in theory, find that he was refused service by businesses whose owners disapproved of his beliefs. This could get really inconvenient for everyone and yet, I emphasize again, what would it accomplish? I think believers should avoid this kind of refusal except if the business involved were actually church-owned and operated, while insisting on people’s *right* to refuse business if they want.

    Refusing to provide services of this kind is not quite the same as health-care providers refusing for reasons of conscience to provide contraceptive and abortion coverage, which directly facilitates a grave evil. Even if the issues were identical, one could argue that the money is Caesar’s and perhaps Jesus would recommend handing it over and finding some other way to fight Caesar’s evils.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X