Skip to comments.Celebrate Gay Marriage—or Else: Why is Government Coercion Necessary?
Posted on 02/28/2014 6:57:36 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Future historians will likely be flummoxed by the moment were living in. In what amounts to less than a blink of an eye in the history of Western civilization, homosexuality has gone from a diagnosed mental disorder to something to be celebrated or else.
Indeed, the rush to mandatory celebration is so intense, refusal is now considered tantamount to a crime. And, in some rare instances, an actual crime if the right constable or bureaucrat concludes that you have uttered hate speech.
Or, if you refuse to bake a gay couple a cake for their wedding. That was the horror story that sparked much of this foofaraw.
Arizonas proposed SB 1062 would have amended the states 15-year-old Religious Freedom Restoration Act in a minor way so as to cover businesses. Arizonas religious-freedom statute was modeled on a similar federal law signed by Bill Clinton after passing with large bipartisan majorities in both houses. It would have allowed small businesses to decline work that violated their consciences, unless the government could show a compelling reason why such refusal was unreasonable or unjust.
Speaking of unreasonableness, according to ESPNs Tony Kornheiser, if Arizona allows bakers to refuse to bake cakes for gay couples, gays may have to wear yellow stars like the Jews of Nazi Germany. It would be Jim Crow for gays according to, well, too many people to list.
Now lest you get the wrong impression, I am no opponent of gay marriage. I would have preferred a compromise on civil unions, but that ship sailed. The country, never mind the institution of marriage, has far bigger problems than gays settling down, filing joint tax returns, and arguing about whose turn it is to do the dishes. By my lights its progress that gay activists and left-wingers are celebrating the institution of marriage as essential. Though I do wish theyd say that more often about heterosexual marriage, too.
But I find the idea that government can force people to violate their conscience without a compelling reason repugnant. I agree with my friend, columnist Deroy Murdock. He thinks private businesses should be allowed to serve whomever they want. Must a gay baker make a cake for the hateful idiots of the Westboro Baptist Church? Must he write God hates fags! in the icing?
The ridiculous invocations of Jim Crow are utterly ahistorical, by the way. Jim Crow was state-enforced, and businesses that wanted to serve blacks could be prosecuted. Let the market work and the same social forces that have made homosexuality mainstream will make refusing service to gays a horrible business decision particularly in the wedding industry!
When August Gussie Busch, the CEO of Budweiser, bought the St. Louis Cardinals in 1953, he was vexed by the Brooklyn Dodgers success, which was due in large part to Jackie Robinson. He asked Cardinals executives how many blacks they were cultivating, and when they said None, he was appalled. How can it be the great American game if blacks cant play? Hell, we sell beer to everyone! he exclaimed. The next year the Cardinals had a black first baseman, Tom Alston.
In 2000, Jonathan Rauch, a (gay) brilliant intellectual and champion of gay marriage, wrote a wonderful essay on hidden law, which he defined as the norms, conventions, implicit bargains, and folk wisdoms that organize social expectations, regulate everyday behavior, and manage interpersonal conflicts. Basically, hidden law is the unwritten legal and ethical code of civil society. Abortion, assisted suicide, and numerous other hot-button issues were once settled by people doing right as they saw it without seeking permission from the government.
Hidden law is exceptionally resilient, Rauch observed, until it is dragged into politics and pummeled by legalistic reformers. That crowd believes all good things must be protected by law and all bad things must be outlawed.
As society has grown more diverse (a good thing) and social trust has eroded (a bad thing), the authority of hidden law has atrophied. Once it was understood that a kids unlicensed lemonade stand, while technically illegal, was just fine. Now kids are increasingly asked, Do you have a permit for this?
Gay activists won the battle for hidden law a long time ago. If they recognized that, the sane response would be, You dont want my business because Im gay? Go to hell, followed by a vicious review on Yelp. The baker would pay a steep price for a dumb decision, and wed all be spared a lot of stupid talk about yellow stars.
Speaking of homosexuals:
Rink Employee May Have Fondled Feet Of More Than 200 Underage Boys
February 27, 2014 12:55 PM
Folks had better prepare for the coming storm.
Link to the full-text Free Republic thread.
I am more interested in the Obama Administration’s take on Civil rights.
Obama Inc. Sues Trucking Company for Firing Muslim Drivers Who Refused to Deliver Alcohol
If the Obama administration can sue a Transport company for firing Muslim employees for refusing to deliver alcohol, using violation of civil rights as the reason, why arent Christians being defended by Obama when they are forced to service gay weddings?
Muslims religious conscience now trumps Christian religious conscience?
Once he's gone (if he's ever gone), the country will snap back to its original belief (that being gay is a mental disorder).
Homosexuality isn't something new. It's been around forever and it never gains a real toehold in the civilized world because it is a perversion and nothing more.
“Muslims religious conscience now trumps Christian religious conscience?”
They have argued that there is nothing in Christianity that would prohibit baking things for a gay wedding and if you use that as an excuse why dont they refuse cakes for other sins or divorced people. I think fighting it on a personal freedom argument would be more effective. Better yet, I have advocated telling the couple you would make them a cake, but would then contribute their payment to an anti-gay marriage organization. That should dampen their enthusiasm to do business with you.
Alternatively, a contract requirement that the buyers display placards by the baker — just like many construction and renovation companies require — that say something like:
Proudly Baked By Alpha & Omega Wedding Company — May God Bless the Union of This Man and Woman in Holy Matrimony
A hefty liquidated damages clause for damage to reputation for failing to display or for defacing the sign, along with notice that the profits will be sent to a pro-traditional marriage group would stop the problem.
My dad was a psychologist during the period when homosexuality was treated as a mental disorder. The APA etc., was bullied by activists to change this view, per my dad's experience.
I choose else.
The old adage of “Be careful or you may get what you want” may apply to gay marriage. I see there now is no obstacle to legalizing plural marriage, child marriage etc. The gay community might find it harder to get their wedding cakes baked when bakers are now busy making very large cakes for plural marriages. I fully expect that polygamy will be legalized in 5 years likely by the decision of an unelected federal judge.
RE: I choose else.
You realize that if you choose else, as a businessman, you might be fined, jail and your business possibly closed down...
Or, in the words of Canadian journalist Robert Davies, “The love that dare not speak its name has become the love that won’t shut up.”
Thank you, Jonah.
I do not own a business and I’m never going to.
I find as the months and years go by I no longer want to participate in this society’s way of life.
I see where this society is bringing us, and it looks like Hell to me.
I don’t want to go there.
I create happiness from very simple pleasures that cost little money. I am mostly unplugged from the American system now, and I think I am going to try to perfect that way of life even more.
One of the key sources of happiness having the freedom to do what I want, and not what someone else tells me that I should do.
Whatever happens in my future, or doesn’t happen, I am going to leave this rock a free man.
This cultural embrace of homosexuality is a symptom of our descent into depravity. There are plenty of other sins, but this one proves that God has given them up to nonfunctioning minds. And all those who support this abomination are just as damned as those who participate in it, because they call God a liar in their support of it.
Nations who reach this level are unlikely to step back from the wrath God will pour out on them. They hate God and His rules and they’re destined to see His profoundly merciless side.
This isn’t a difficult formula: Obedience to God’s rules and faith in Christ = blessing; disobedience and hatred of God = wrath. But modern America prefers sin and wrath over obedience and blessing.
The idea of “hidden law” reminds me of the status of abortion prior to Roe v wade. I may get flamed for this, but it seems that in those days conservatives - and most of the public - wanted abortion officially proscribed, but were not particularly concerned about tracking down abortionists and prosecuting them, much less prosecuting women who had abortions. In other words, people wanted society to officially prohibit and condemn abortion, but were able to tolerate it a bit around the fringes of society. But now, of course, it has become mainstreamed and glorified as a constitutional right, subsidized with hundreds of millions of tax dollars, and promoted in the public schools.
there will be a back-lash and I don’t think it will be pretty...
This cakes for other sins is nonsense. It isn’t about not serving gay people. It is about serving them a particular cake for celebrations the bakery does not wish to participate in. I would think it is the baker’s right to turn down a cake for a porn shop’s 20th anniversary celebration just the same. or a Free Mumia cake. Does anyone buy a cake for divorce celebrations?
I find as the months and years go by I no longer want to participate in this societys way of life.
Wow, exactly how I feel. I am newly retired and have pretty much stopped participating. Other than this forum and a couple of others, I just do my own thing. Live in the boonies, wood heat, no cable, make things and sell them if I need more money.
I sort of have experience with this when I was younger at my grandma’s fishing camp in slidell, la.
only heat was a wood burning stove or the bonfire out back. Shower was a cold water hose hooked up to an metal portable shower head. Food was caught from the water.
As a kid I thought that was boring sometimes, but as an adult I sort of look back on that longingly.
For me the best sort of happiness is time spent with dogs. It has come down to a point where I like dogs a lot better than I like people, so I spend more time with them.
Other than that I love walking, going to the beach and swimming, bike riding and a few other very simple activities.
I don’t need a yacht or a mansion or a sports car. I don’t need a trophy wife or power over others or a vast, personal fortune.
Freedom is being able to do what you love, and happiness is loving what you do. That is where I want to be on this earth. If I cannot have that, then I’ll be ready to leave.
race is a TOTALLY different issue from a behavior.
Race is immutable and you can not conceal it.
A sex fetish is a conditioned behavior and nobody need to know about it.
There is no comparison.
Homosexuals use the “love” test for marriage because the original anti-mixed marriage laws were about children/reproduction. Two homosexuals can not “pair” and reproduct without the intervention of the opposit sex. (somehow)
That’s what it appears to be and I believe is the ultimate objective of this Muzzie in the Whitehouse.
Government coercion is government coercion. You know what they say about the camels nose.
Problem for him though, is that we are armed.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. “Behavior” is not pigmented. That is why I find comparing this to the Civil Rights Act so offensive.
And you demonstrated this by posting a photo of the government protecting the rights of its citizens?
There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’, it is ‘homosexuals’ and two men cannot possibly be married.
How is using armed Federal soldiers to end Freedom of Association protecting the rights of its citizens?
If this were a private pool, or a private softball league on a private field, or a private country club, then I'm prepared to bring Freedom of Association into the argument.
If it's a public pool supported by public funds, I don't believe Freedom of Association permits denying use by Jewish citizens; I don't believe Freedom of Association permits a municipal softball league to deny participation by a Buddhist team; and I don't believe Freedom of Association permits a public school to deny access to black students.