I ran across this very well written article. It poses some thought provoking questions much better than I ever could.
He is drawing a clear distinction between a business that gladly serves gays every day and being asked to cater a gay wedding.
As he points out here there are situations that legitimately conflict with principles of their faith. A example I thought of would be asking a Jewish deli to cater an event. Then demanding they serve ham. If the person is an observant Jew that conflicts with their most basic beliefs.
He also points out a slash and burn policy is detrimental to the gay rights campaign. Something I agree with. Destroying the owners of a small mom & pop business will not change their beliefs. Instead what was a religious and faith based decision can easily escalate into out right hatred. That is a real setback for gay rights.
Quite an interesting and brave article. One that will certainly lose him friends among the more extreme gay activists. I’d hope the moderates within the Gay community see the point that he’s trying to make.
Absolutely. The only thing these kind of people worship is the Almighty Dollar in the first place, so showing them that their god disapproves of their actions is the only way they’ll learn.
This isn’t a good example. No one is saying that a business has to provide a particular service. Businesses can certainly choose this. What they are saying is that if you are going to provide a service, you have to provide it to everyone.
The problem with this is that we have an excellent case study of letting the market handle it - the treatment of blacks in the South up until the 60’s. And it was a clear failure, creating separate classes of citizens. If you want to use this argument, explain why it will work so much better this time.
There was a restaurant in my hometown that wouldn’t cater parties where alcohol was served. He and his staff (family members) were deacons in my Baptist church and they felt very strongly about alcohol.
People did have the option to pick up the food at the restaurant, set it up at the parties or event and serve themselves.
They wouldn’t have catered any event that conflicted with their beliefs. However, they served anybody that came into their restaurant.
“We don’t carry ham on our menu”
and
“We have ham, but we don’t serve ham to people like you”
I can’t go into a cake bakery and demand they bake me a pizza if it’s not on their menu, then sue if they refuse to bake me a pizza. So, Jews being forced to serve ham couldn’t happen in an equivalent way to the gay rights issue. They refuse to sell ham, period, so it’s not an issue of a protected class of citizen. They’re discriminating by what they sell, not who they sell to. Entirely different things. You can pick and choose what you want to sell all day long.
Remember when Chick Fil A (sp?) was in the spotlight a few years ago?
And that guy got in the drive-in and was an absolute ASS to that poor young girl at the window. And he posted it on youtube (and his shitty non-apology awhile later)?
He lost a 200k a year job. Still can’t get a job worth shit. His family is on food stamps.
Personally I thought he was first class dick and was glad he lost his job. But now even I feel a bit sorry for him now.
THATS the “market” in action for you.
Or at least the market in combination with the internet and social justice.
And that is the problem. The combination is too powerful and unforgiving IMO.
As the old saying goes “with great power comes great responsibility”.
do you really? AFAIK you (as a private business owner) can refuse service to anyone you like save for those who are in a “protected class.” and even then, the onus is on them to prove you denied them service because of who they are.
Gay rights have progressed quite rapidly in my lifetime. I vaguely remember the early Pride events in the early 70’s. A lot has been accomplished. Gays are a protected class. They are being represented positively in the media. Probably within the next ten years gay marriage will be recognized at the Federal level (either by Congress or the Supreme court).
The next step is simply going to take time. The people living today have preconceived ideas that simply won’t change. That’s true for the churches too. Life will be much different for future generations. I think even the churches will soften their position.
But for now we’re in this transition period learning new rules of tolerance for race and sexuality. Humans simply can’t discard strongly held beliefs overnight.
Using a term like “destroyed” poisons the well a bit. No, I don’t think they should “be destroyed,” but I do think they should be required to serve all customers. They have choices in the matter: they can serve the customers and hope their god is a forgiving one, they can find other ways to handle the customer (for example, hire another chef as a contractor to cater this particular wedding), or they can close their business because they aren’t willing to operate under the law.
I get the appeal of the soft and gentle approach, but it also reminds me a little of old complaints about “uppity blacks.” So let’s say you do think businesses should not be able to discriminate, but you don’t want to upset a prejudiced business owner. What next? Either you just let them get away with it, or you have to impose consequences and those consequences must be significant enough that they change behavior.
That said, I fully agree that shaming and insults are not productive.
Yes, you are correct. I was using a bit of shorthand there, but all these anti-discrimination laws apply to membership in a protected class, not just anyone.
That had nothing to do with the market. There were laws in place that kept businesses from serving blacks even if they wanted to. That was because the market imposed a cost on those unwilling to serve blacks and benefited those who would. That is the reason laws were necessary.
There is an saying among conservatives, you don’t have to scratch a liberal very had to find a totalitarian.
There is an saying among liberals, you don’t have to scratch a conservative very had to find a Fascist. (William F Buckley, I miss you!)
The laws should prevent this particular sort of discrimination. Whether they do nor not, I prefer to spend my money at non-bigoted establishments. Mom & Pop or Hobby Lobby–makes no difference.
Good grief, now you’re just being pedantic. If you don’t understand what is meant by “you can’t discriminate based on membership in a protected class” then all the discussions about SSM are going to be confusing.