Posted on 02/23/2015 7:15:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A homosexual couple goes into a known Christian bakery and asks for a wedding cake for a same-sex “marriage,” is refused and then files a government complaint or sues. “Intolerance! Bigotry! Equal access!” is the cry. Many Americans have read of such stories in the news. Often the attempted purchase is a set-up, with activist-minded individuals targeting bakers whom they know will decline the request and then be vulnerable to state persecution by zealous bureaucrats.
It’s a new front in the war on faith, legitimate freedom and private property rights. Many point out that it constitutes an unprecedented trampling of religious liberty, and this is true. It also violates the principle of freedom of association, which isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but should be upheld. But neither of these arguments should be the centerpiece of the fight against the tyranny in question. There is another, far more powerful argument:
Freedom of speech.
Usually missed in the commentary on this subject is that the bakers in question are not refusing service to a type of people — they are refusing to be party to a type of message. This is not debatable. When you put writing on a same-sex “wedding” cake, you’re crafting a message; if you place figurines (of two men, for instance) on that cake, you’re erecting symbols relating that message. Note here that the Supreme Court has already ruled that “Symbolic Speech” — a legal term in U.S. law — is protected under the First Amendment; examples of such rulings would be that pertaining to flag-burning and the Tinker v. Des Moines case.
And can we compel people to participate in the creation of a message? Forced speech is not free speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The problem is that people on the other side are actually, with a straight face, arguing that you give up your constitutional rights when you start a business.
The whole argument is absurd to any rational person.
We have been tested like this by people. But in the law, it is pretty simple, whoever supplied the sperm is called the father, whoever the baby exited is called the mother. What the individuals want to call themselves after the birth is not important. Once it is determined that we are practical and down to earth, sticking to the law, the people suddenly don’t need us and can work out their own issues. We can’t make the dad disappear, we can’t make another adult the mom unless there is an adoption.
* later viewing.
The author here provides a principled argument - that’s good.
There’s also a practical approach one could use if a person wants to avoid all the hassle: offer only one, standard, one-size-fits-all wedding cake. Perhaps it might even include in icing a verse from scripture addressing marriage - it shouldn’t be hard to find one. And include on the bakery shop wall a sign that says “No custom cakes”.
If somebody wants the wedding cake without the Bible verse (no matter what their demographics) you point to the sign.
Which he should be free to do.
When the government can force a business to trade with people it does not want as customers, then there is no freedom of association any longer. Denying custom to ethnic minorities may not be smart, but poor business sense should not be a crime.
> The whole argument is absurd to any rational person.
Ones that have “real” wives and families that roll up their sleeves to do menial labor anyway...
Agreed. Under the first amendment, citizens have the freedom of association, but this has been undermined by feral “non-discrimination” laws.
Also, no government entity should discriminate, but with “affirmative action”, they discriminate the most.
Actually I have heard several “conservatives” make that argument.
your freedom of expression would cover anything you choose to do beyond being a lump.
what you choose to do for your work is an expression. you think only artists and journalists are covered by the first amendment?
the choice to not provide an expression is up to you and you alone.
to be forced to express yourself against your will is slavery by definition.
> To be consistent, the author also has to defend the rights
> of the bigot and racist who does not wish to service ethnic
> minorities.
Homosexuality is a behavior, not an ancestry.
For proof of this, look to the homosexual’s parents.
Alcoholism has far more genetic support for its appearance in a person’s life than homosexuality, yet we still do not condone alcoholism.
Homosexuality is a behavior, NOT an ancestry.
My mother was a caterer and in 30 years of business, I never saw a wedding cake with writing on it.
For “Symbolic Speech” to be protected, it’s meaning must be obvious and understood by the audience. I’m not sure anyone could make a case for that with a cake.
I believe that it is a better plan for us to simply let them know we are Christians by our example and love. Let them know you disapprove and then shower them with Christian love and generosity. You’d be surprised how much better example works compared to confrontation.
These days, I’m good with that.
Actually I have heard several “conservatives” make that argument.
Thing is, I think businesses should have the right to say who they do business with. Yep, that even means the old “coloreds only” stuff in the old south. It was dying without government intervention anyway. Can you imagine a business today announcing that they refuse to do business with blacks, or shuffle them into a “separate but equal” space? It didn’t fly in most of the US and it was being vanquished in the deep south as well in the 50’s and 60’s.
The problem is that the laws it gave us ushered in the concept of “group rights” when the constitution is founded on the concept of “individual” rights. And now “groups” are demanding “special” rights by virtue of their being in a group.
The funniest is the “same sex marriage” issue. They argue they don’t have the same rights as other “groups” but the fact is they have always had the exact same rights as ALL individuals. Each of them was ALWAYS allowed to marry as another person of the opposite sex that was not already married and not a close relative.
They just wanted “special” rights.
And here we are with bakeries losing their businesses.
Could I order pork chops from a Jewish kosher butcher or Muslim halal butcher and then sue for religious persecution if they didn’t provide? How about from a vegetarian?
Can a Tea party owned supplier refuse to make T-shirts for a Democrat? Can a liberal business refuse to make T-shirts for the T-party?
Can a printing company refuse to make fliers or brochures for a religious or political group with which it disagrees?
If there are court cases that are a resounding “yes” on these cases, then we can argue free speech in the florist case. If the answer has been mostly no, then speech trumping accommodation may not stand.
Just ask the liberals and queers if they think a black baker should be forced to bake a cake for the KKK?
Would they force a Jewish baker to bake a Nazi cake?
Should a black southern BBQ be forced to cater a Klan rally?
Homosexuality is a behavior and they chose not to provide a service based on a behavior they disagreed with – not based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity (which is illegal). A lawyer doesn’t have to represent clients that engage in activities that he finds morally repugnant (behavior) — a plumber or electrician can make the same choice. A restaurant may refuse to deliver pizza to an abortion clinic or may refuse to let patrons bring alcohol to drink with dinner even if the restaurant’s motivation is moral disapproval (behavior). Businesses impose dress codes on patrons and refuse to allow patrons who wear T-shirts containing messages that they see as repugnant (behavior). Refusing service based on behavior is not illegal - it is common.
[ Thing is, I think businesses should have the right to say who they do business with. Yep, that even means the old “coloreds only” stuff in the old south. It was dying without government intervention anyway. Can you imagine a business today announcing that they refuse to do business with blacks, or shuffle them into a “separate but equal” space? It didn’t fly in most of the US and it was being vanquished in the deep south as well in the 50’s and 60’s. ]
In the south a lot of discrimination was STATE MANDATED, now they want the the STATE to MANDATE the OTHER WAY AROUND this TIME.
Using STATE POWER to COERCE BEHAVIOR is WRONG even if it is for GOOD INTENTIONS, because the road to HELL is paved with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.