By now we all know the story. A gay couple asked a religious baker to make them a wedding cake, and he responded he would do anything else but that his religious beliefs prevented him from baking a cake.
The result was a law recently vetoed in Arizona which if passed would have allowed private business to refuse service, employment or what not.
Having grown up during the 50’s I have a certain negative feeling about that. I see in my mind the lunch counters, the buses, the marches over the bridges, and the fire hoses, and most of all, the lynches and the bombed out churches which lasted till just past the mid 60’s, finally encompassing me.
But this nation is NOT that nation.
To my knowledge, in the modern world, only the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa attempted a religious belief argument in favor of this discrimination, by some truly tortuously wrought ‘logic’.
But these struggles were not about the BENEFIT of purchasing a wedding cake. These struggles were to deny equal opportunity to all, or to ensure it.
Beginning with AT LEAST World War 1, the USA recognized the idea of a conscientious objector to war. In this link remains the official US govt position on becoming a CO. To become a CO was not easy. HERE is Wikipedia’s blurb on this.
As a citizen I fail UTTERLY to see the civic purpose of any person group or couple using the vast coercive power of govt to compel a contract on another private citizen who truly has RELIGIOUS, AND THEREFORE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION, in this manner.
In fact this action has taken someone (me) who believes that any two adults should be able to construct any kind of relationship they want, and call it anything they want, and to hell with the rest of the planet, and instead brought me down squarely against the idea of COMPELLING someone to do your particular bidding if you feel set upon.
Some people cannot wait to feel grievance, and then act on it to force others to relieve their personal issue. Such people can easily GO TOO FAR. As a former proud outside agitator, I have to tell you, THIS is too far.
Gov Brewer did the right thing in vetoing a law which might have allowed refusal of employment to certain people based on PREJUDICE, but now we also have an untenable situation.
No law should bar employment by personal discrimination, nor should it allow a class of any sort to be set upon, but this action to make a contract compulsory is a great wrong, IN THIS CASE. I am certain there are those who have true religious objection to people of the same sex marrying. I know there are those who also feel abortion is murder. That is faith, not fact, but must be respected and more importantly TOLERATED. Certainly we can devise a legal, short test for this and exempt such conscientious objectors from compulsory service.
If we allowed those who had such objection to be exempt from defending the nation and our families, certainly we can find a simple process to exempt people from being compelled to BAKE GAY WEDDING CAKES.
REALLY, people.
12 comments:
This nation IS NOT THAT nation, agreed. A thought did however cross my mind as I read EPA's essay.
Could THAT nation's racism originate in recognition of the Islamic element eminating from the African continent? During the period of slaving, the ships crew were not likely educated and were what we call 'street wise' today. Almost NONE of the colonists had any interaction with the Muslim culture. Was THAT nation's racism all restricted to skin color? or Is it possible that part, even a small part of THAT nation's racism originated in a response to the imported and detestable culture of Islam and their institutional process of slaving? Did you know that there were MANY black men in Congress BEFORE the Civil War?Care to guess which political party these brave men represented?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jcEuLX8Btc
It's difficult to argue with Congressional records which uniformly demonstrate through the 1960's, Democrats voted against EVERY opportunity to provide equal rights for African Americans.
Epa,
The last three paragraphs of your essay are excellent. Absolutely excellent.
If a gay couple wanted this particular bakery to bake the wedding cake, why didn't that couple have the cake baked without the topper (the gay couple) and put that topper on for themselves?
For me, this question is pretty complex. And for that reason, I have yet to have been able to form a coherent opinion on the subject.
1) A wedding cake is not a hamburger, fries, and a coke. A wedding cake is a work of art. Arranging a wedding is also a work of art. Flowers, they are a work of art. Composing a symphony, a wedding song, or wedding photos, those are a work of art. No artist should be compelled to create art for which he does not have a personal feeling. To do so is to violate his Freedom of Speech.
THAT SEEMS EASY, RIGHT?
IT SEEMS LIKE PASTORIUS HAS FORMED A COHERENT OPINION.
nope.
2) Islam - If we know Muslims - AND WE DO - they will not want to serve women, infidels, those who drink alcohol, black people, a non-muslim marrying a muslim, a Jew, etc.
I mean this is the way it is.
You refer to it as a layer cake, and that is funny, but it is demeaning to the actual situation.
Artists should not be forced to create art that is in opposition to their personal aesthetic.
HOWEVER,
Muslims do not play fair.
The "Conscientious Objector" status will not solve anything, because Muslims will be conscientious objectors to any and every thing they damned well feel like conscientiously objecting to on any given day and they will use that power to control those around them and compel the Infidel to dance through hoops that will tie up everything.
I think my #1 thought here probably would cover against Islam using conscientious objector status, except in cases where the services, or product requested is a piece of art.
BUT,
I'm not sure it would.
Hence, I am very concerned about this law and this problem in general.
Pastorius,
I agree with you about the Conscientious Objector-Muslim connection.
However, if I go into a restaurant owned and managed by Muslims and pork is not offered on the menu, should I be able to demand that I be served a dish including pork?
PS: I realize that my analogy is imperfect.
AOW,
No, I don't think you should be able to demand pork.
But I don't think companies should be forced to hire Muslims who will not sell alcohol, and I don't think Muslims should be hired to serve in positions where they have to deal with the opposite sex, unless they agree to do so, and the second they disagree, they should be fired.
I (should) have the right to serve who I want in my business, or hire who I want for my business. Freedom OF association and freedom FROM association, end of story.
REALLY, dumbass, what kind of kumbaya homo are you?
I totally agred with the veto. I feel this bill would have opened a whole can of worms that we do not want to ever have opened again.
In my opinion, discrimination is discrimination, period. k\It could allow other people who have other types of issues, such as being against interracial couples to try and stand their ground.
We cannot allow this to start. Unless a customer is acting in an inappropriate way, they should be allowed to be serviced period.
If the religious baker had been a muslim he will be able to get away with it on religious grounds and what is more he'll have the backing of Holders department of injustice.
Gary,
Agreed.
Selective enforcement.
Orwell in Animal Farm: "Some animals are more equal than others."
Muslims working for the Star Transport company refused to transport some alcohol because of you guessed it, religion. The twist here is that Obowma's adminstration is suing the transport company for violating the head banger's freedom of religion. There is more at BNI.
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/03/01/never-hire-a-muslim-reason-114-obama-sues-to-allow-illinois-muslims-to-refuse-to-perform-their-designated-job-for-religious-reasons-and-not-get-fired/
Post a Comment