To make a point, Alan Sears, head of the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is leading the legal battle on behalf of photographers, florists, cake decorators and others sued for refusing to create products for same-sex weddings, found a Southern California photographer who refused to take a Christmas card photo of his family after he identified his affiliation. The photographer explained in an email, “I oppose the goals and objectives of your organization and have no interest in working on its behalf.”
And that was the point Sears wanted to make, as the Washington Times reports:
“We’re talking about human dignity. It violates someone’s dignity to require them to create images that violate their core beliefs,” Mr. Sears said. “I think I’m a pretty nice guy, and my family are kind folks, but to require this woman to portray me in a loving, family-centered way that is contrary to her views and her conscience, I think it would be an act of violence against her dignity.”
The article also notes:
Those filing friend-of-the-court briefs in favor of the ADF’s position include some high-profile supporters of gay marriage, including Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute legal counsel; Eugene Volokh, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law professor; and Dale Carpenter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. …
“The vast majority of same-sex couples do not want the service providers who disagree with participating at their celebrations, but there is a small number of highly political activists who will do so to make a point,” said Mr. Carpenter. “And they will create conflicts that do not need to exist.”
For those who might not know, both Dale and the Cato Institute have a substantial history fighting for gay legal equality, particularly in overturning sodomy laws (Cato’s brief was cited by Justice Kennedy) and marriage equality.
35 Comments for “Freedom of Expression Is Worth Defending”
posted by Mike on
I have some sympathy to this argument but, where does it stop? A bespoke photographer might be an “easy” case – but could a Christian plumber refuse to fix a gay person’s sink? Or could the owner of a restaurant that serves the general public refuse gays service? If we are going to carve out exemptions in anti-discrimination law we must be very careful we don’t open gaping holes.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
My view is that we should make reasonable accommodation for personal conscience objections in public accommodation laws, including non-discrimination laws.
But to meet the “equal means equal” test, the accommodation must be (1) issue-neutral, in the sense that the accommodation applies to all laws of the category (for example, with respect to non-discrimination laws, the accommodation should apply to personal conscience objections to serving individuals because of their religion, gender, race, ethnicity and so on, and, for example, with respect to personal conscience objections to marriage, the accommodation should apply to any and all marriages objectionable to a vendor’s conscience), and (2) religion-neutral, in the sense that the accommodation protects personal conscience objections of all origins, religious and non-religious alike.
I also think that the accommodation should allow exemption if and only if the vendor posted the service that the vendor will not perform at the entrance to the vendor’s place of business and in advertising, so that the free market could operate in the sunlight, giving potential customers the ability to chose whether or not to patronize the business.
I don’t know if a law meeting these criteria will ever be acceptable to social conservatives (in Wisconsin, a proposed constitutional amendment meeting the “equal means equal” test is going nowhere fast, because social conservatives are running away from it like scalded cats), but I have a real problem with protecting a single type of personal conscience objection with respect to a single issue (conservative Christian religious objection to same-sex marriage), and I refuse to go along with it, Cato or no Cato.
Protecting the personal conscience of some citizens while not protecting the personal conscience of all citizens violates “equal means equal”, as does providing an exemption for personal conscience objections on a single issue or with respect to a single group.
posted by Houndentenor on
One thing that always bugs me in these kinds of discussions is the insinuation that only fundamentalist Christians have “values” or consciences. We all have values and we all have to do things for our jobs that we don’t particularly like in order to keep those jobs. (Quitting isn’t always an option depending on the job market at the time.) I got out of there as quickly as possible, but I did them. Is my conscience less important than that of an anti-gay bigot or a racist? Seriously?
posted by Lori Heine on
Those are very compelling suggestions. Definitely something to think about.
In principle, it is wrong to force businesses to serve us if it offends their tender little sensibilities. It is transparently, however, an attempt to “game” a free society to afford themselves another way to crap on us.
How do we deal with this without ruining freedom for everybody — which is the direction heavy-handed legislation, aimed at remedying the injustice, often does?
You’ve got some ideas here that are worth looking into. And may each and every one of the bigots who fear for their eternal souls if they bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple end up getting dumped out of a taxicab, at rush hour, by a Muslim who refuses to drive a Christian.
posted by Doug on
Apparently Stephen wants to live in a world where anyone can discriminate against anyone and everyone for whatever reason one can dream up. That’s called anarchy and would be the end of civil society as we know it.
posted by Houndentenor on
My problem with this is that it’s a special carve-out for anti-gay bigots. Does the proposal allow photographers to refuse based on the denomination of the church where the wedding is held? Could they refuse to make a cake for an interracial couple?
If the argument is that businesses should be able to refuse to serve any customer for any reason, then they can make that. I don’t think that would be very popular but at least it would be honest. A special right for Christians to discriminate against gay people (but one presumes NOT a right for gay businesses to discriminate against) is wrong. What would the anti-gay florist say if the gay-owned business that supplies them with certain kinds of flowers decides to drop them as a customer because of their refusal to take on gay weddings? Are they okay with that as well?
posted by Mike in Houston on
Not this tired trope — again.
Really, Stephen — you’re starting with the ADF? An organization that not only opposes marriage equality, adoption by same-sex couples, removal of kids from the homes of gay parents, and calls for gay kids to go through “reparative therapy”? An organization that wrote an amicus brief for upholding sodomy laws in Lawrence v Texas and recently Virginia’s aborted attempt? An organization that is exporting its efforts at criminalizing gay sex globally?
The ADF has argued this religious freedom nonsense not only for florists, bakers and photographers but also for county clerks, government officials, hospital staff, pharmacists and more.
Carpenter, Volokh & Shapiro aside — and Carpenter is a contrarian always, even to positions that he’s previously held — the example that you show here is one where that particular photographer should be prosecuted for violating California non-discrimination laws based on political or religious viewpoint…
But to have someone from the rabidly ADF hold that up and talk about it being an affront to his dignity — never mind that he doesn’t see the irony in the loss of dignity for the potential customer — is pretty rich.
Look — if you want to be a photographer or baker or florist that caters to only certain people, you can without violating public accomodation statutes. You take your business private and by appointment only… but that’s not what these folks want. They want full access to the public – open! – market to maximize their income, but want to discriminate without paying any price for closing off said public market for certain customers.
This is the last gasp of people who have enjoyed a certain range of ‘privileges’ that our society as a whole has deemed incompatible with the average citizen’s dignity (gay or straight).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
They want full access to the public – open! – market to maximize their income, but want to discriminate without paying any price for closing off said public market for certain customers.
And that’s why the idea of requiring businesses to post a list of people/events they won’t serve at the business entrance and in advertising so that potential customers can make decisions about whether or not they want to patronize a business that discriminates is anathema.
The solution to this doesn’t require a religious exemption, when you get right down to it. If business that wants to discriminate is required to make the discrimination public before the fact in order to discriminate, then the group(s) discriminated against and others who object to the discrimination would not patronize them, and no one would have to be turned away.
But that is anathema to conservative Christians. Conservative Christians want to have their cake and eat it, too — to be allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians without losing any business from other people as a result.
I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for the several dozen businesses our area — rural, and not particularly gay-friendly — who put a rainbow sticker by the door a few years back. Unlike conservative Christians, these folks are willing to stand up for what they believe and lose some business over it. I make sure that they get my business and all the business I can steer to them.
posted by JohnInCA on
It’s a false comparison anyway.
There’s a difference between refusing service because what someone *is* and refusing someone service because of the things they *do*.
Turning away Joe Black because he’s a Muslim? Sorry, not gonna fly. Turning away Joe Black because he broke my sister’s heart? Sure.
posted by Jorge on
Considering that people in gay relationships fall into both categories simultaneously, it’s hard to see what direction you’re coming from.
posted by JohnInCA on
For that statement to be taken seriously then celibate straight men would have to actually not suffer discrimination.
But face it, whether you’re actually sexually active or not has never really entered into any bigot’s mental calculus. Look at the way gay teens are handled. Oh yeah, it’s just about the actions, not at all about identity.
posted by Jorge on
One thing that always bugs me in these kinds of discussions is the insinuation that only fundamentalist Christians have “values” or consciences.
This is not about fundamentalist Christians. The vast majorty of Christians in the United States belong to denomenatins, fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist, that condemn gay sex and gay marriage. Being faithful to the tenets and teachings of your religion does not make you a fundamentalist.
I’m far from being a fundamentalist, in fact I occasionally term myself a heretic, but that makes me no less fanatic.
If you do not believe it is important to stand up for your values, then it is hard to assert that they are values. People who are willing to stand up for their values are and should be treated differently from those who have weak values.
I find nothing in Stephen’s post to dissent from, but from your posts I will raise the question of ethical social service work.
To be a gay civil servant and a gay person in a helping profession is to regularly meet people whose beliefs and behaviors are an affront to my core beliefs. One is not generally assumed to be straight. Yet imposing my values on the public in any way that would have consequences would be a shocking abuse of power. Fact and evidence are needed.
This does not perturb me at all. In large part because I am never allowed to make a difference. If there were a situation I could not handle, I would ask my supervisor to let someone else handle it. Or else demand support.
No, this is different. You have a situation where the service itself imposes on the merchant’s or civil servant’s values. Let someone who has no objection do it.
You say equal means equal, Tom, but in truth, most people here do not support this idea, else they would support a result that makes the anti-gay marriage florist equal to the pro-gay marriage florist, rather than one in which the sole difference between someone who gets punished and one who does not is their religious beliefs.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You say equal means equal, Tom, but in truth, most people here do not support this idea, else they would support a result that makes the anti-gay marriage florist equal to the pro-gay marriage florist, rather than one in which the sole difference between someone who gets punished and one who does not is their religious beliefs.
I have no idea what you are talking about, Jorge, but “equal means equal” is shorthand for the idea that all citizens have a right to be treated equally under the law unless the government has a clear, important and rational purpose to discriminate between citizens.
In this context, I believe that “equal means equal” demands that:
(1) conscientious objection be afforded equal treatment under the law, whether the conscientious objection is religiously based or not, granting no special rights to adherents of religion;
(2) within any particular legal context, conscientious objection should not be permitted to the detriment of one class of citizens but not others similarly situated unless the government has a clear, important and rational purpose for discriminating between the classes (for example, conscientious objection to same-sex marriages should be afforded no more protection than conscientious objection to mixed race marriages or remarriages after divorce);
(3) with respect to any particular law (e.g. non-discrimination laws or public accommodation laws) conscientious objection should not be allowed against one protected class unless discrimination is allowed against all protected classes (for example, if an innkeeper can refuse to rent accommodations to gays or lesbians because of conscientious objection, then an innkeeper should be allowed to refuse to rent accommodations to African-Americans or Hispanics, or women traveling alone, and so on).
It isn’t complicated. Singling out gays and lesbians for special discrimination without a clear, important and rational basis for doing so violates “equal means equal”, just as much as singling out members of a particular racial or ethnic group, or members of a particular religion, would violate “equal means equal”. That’s why I object to the so-called “religious conscience” exemptions in question — all three of the “equal means equal” principles are offended by the proposed exemptions.
I’ll grant you your main point, though, Jorge. Most people do not agree with the idea that religion-neutral, issue-neutral conscientious objection should be afforded protection under the law, and conservative Christians seeking the proposed “religious conscience” exemptions are among the worst offenders.
posted by Jorge on
I have no idea what you are talking about, Jorge, but “equal means equal” is shorthand for the idea that all citizens have a right to be treated equally under the law unless the government has a clear, important and rational purpose to discriminate between citizens.
Seems to me, then, that the law should not be treating people unequally, giving one group of people a disadvantage, for no other reason than because of their religious beliefs. You cannot have it both ways.
The people who want that result want a situation in which people who disapprove of gay marriage for religious reasons are of a lower social rank than people who do not–which is fine. What is not fine is having the law enforce that social rank for no reason other than religion.
It isn’t complicated.
Indeed it isn’t. But the simple solution–repealing civil rights laws entirely on the basis of that, by your own admission, it is government discrimination that violates “equal means equal” under the law”–is not politically feasible.
That does not change the fact that there is an illegality and an injustice in “equal means equal” that must be rectified. That injustice is far greater than the harm inflicted on gay couples by devout wedding florists and photographers.
Therefore, it shall have to done the secondary, more complicated way.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Seems to me, then, that the law should not be treating people unequally, giving one group of people a disadvantage, for no other reason than because of their religious beliefs.
This is utter nonsense. The public accommodation laws are religious-neutral as presently written, putting identical obligations on all public businesses, whether owned by religious adherents or not. The laws require that IF a business holds itself out as serving the public, then it must serve all members of the public.
The laws in question make it illegal to provide wedding cakes for “traditional” weddings but not same-sex weddings. The laws in question make it illegal to provide wedding cakes for Jewish weddings but not Christian weddings or atheist weddings. And so on. All business owners are treated equally, and all members of the public are treated equally.
What you and other conservative Christians are arguing is that an exception should be made to “equal means equal” to accommodate conscientious objection. I have no problem with a conscientious objection exception for business owners, so long as the exception meets the “equal means equal” test I outlined in other comments to this thread.
The people who want that result want a situation in which people who disapprove of gay marriage for religious reasons are of a lower social rank than people who do not–which is fine. What is not fine is having the law enforce that social rank for no reason other than religion.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I’ve seen no evidence that conservative Christians are of “a lower social rank” than anyone else. I have seen evidence that conservative Christians have higher divorce and remarriage rates than the public as a whole, higher levels of domestic violence, and so on, but that does not equate to “a lower social rank”.
If you are suggesting that the laws currently in place, which treat all business owners equally, somehow discriminate against conservative Christians as a class, I’d be curious to hear the specifics, since right now, no business owner, regardless of religious belief or non-belief, is granted a personal conscience exemption.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The vast majorty of Christians in the United States belong to denomenatins, fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist, that condemn gay sex and gay marriage.
I would point out, without irony, that “the vast majority of Christians in the United States belong to denominations, fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist,” that teach that remarriage after divorce is adultery in many if not most cases.
Oddly, I don’t hear them squawking about a “religious conscience” exemption to cover that teaching.
posted by Doug on
The reason you don’t hear the vast majority of Christians squawking about ‘religious conscience’ exemption dealing with adultery is because they are ‘cafeteria Christians’ who want to pick and chose which ‘sins’ they deal with, not to mention the fact that many Christians indulge in adultery themselves.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m not Christian, so I’ll assume that there is a theological distinction that would make same-sex marriage so offensive that a religious exemption is needed, and remarriage/adultery not. I mean, there must be, just as there must be a theological reason why Christians redefined marriage from “one man, one woman, for life” to “one man, one woman” for the purposes of enshrining “traditional marriage” in our state constitutions. I just haven’t heard it stated yet.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
There is no theological or biblical basis for the Christian idea that marriage was ordained by God any stronger than the story of Jesus turning water into wine while attending a wedding as a guest, even then only at the nagging insistence of his mother. The Church played no active role in performing marriages until the 12th century, and it didn’t decide that marriages were sacred until the 16th century Council of Trent.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
There is no theological or biblical basis for the Christian idea that marriage was ordained by God any stronger than the story of Jesus turning water into wine while attending a wedding as a guest, even then only at the nagging insistence of his mother.
Mark 10:9 “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” provides a basis, I suppose.
But that verse and subsequent (Mark 10:11-12 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” makes ii even more odd, to my eyes, that conservative Christians are willing to go to the barricades to protect bakers, florists, wedding planners and the like from violation of “religious conscience” in the case of same-sex marriage but not in the case of remarriage/adultery.
I just have to assume that there is a theological underpinning. What it might be, I don’t know.
In any event, notwithstanding Christian sensitivities (or lack thereof), a personal conscience exemption would have to cover both cases in order to meet the “equal means equal” test, and I don’t see that happening.
posted by Jorge on
That wins you little from this Cafeteria Catholic but modifying the basis of the religious objection.
posted by Houndentenor on
Not that it’s any of your business, but in most of my moral dilemmas at work I was under a confidentiality agreement. I wasn’t about to have the weight of a Fortune 500 Company’s legal team come down on me if I blabbed about some of the things I saw. Your assumptions and judgments are out of place and just plain wrong.
posted by Jorge on
If you do not believe it is important to stand up for your values, it is hard to assert that they are values.
I’ll take you at your word that your answer was a difficult one.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… a result that makes the anti-gay marriage florist equal to the pro-gay marriage florist, rather than one in which the sole difference between someone who gets punished and one who does not is their religious beliefs …
The current law treats both florists equally — if the florist refuses to provide the service to all and sundry then he/she is liable under the law. It doesn’t make a whit of difference whether the florist is pro-gay or anti-gay. A pro-gay florist might have strong religious objections to a marriage he/she is asked to provide flowers for — marriage of a Christian to a Catholic, for example, or to the marriage of an African-American man to a Caucasian woman, for another — but non-the-less he/she has to provide the service or be held liable.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“People who are willing to stand up for their values are and should be treated differently from those who have weak values.”
Not if their “values” are in fact mere unfounded beliefs and not values. That I may not share someone else’s “values” does not make them worthy of my respect, or my own less valuable.
posted by Jorge on
That line of thinking finds no support in the Constitution.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Taking and selling a photograph, baking and selling a cake, or arranging and selling some flowers are not intrinsic acts of religious devotion or conscience. If you are one of the Sisters of Perpetual Adoration (who bake and sell communion wafers) and don’t want to sell me any for my gay wedding, I can cut you a little slack. But if you don’t want to sell me any of the gourmet flavors of popcorn (which the sisters also cook and sell). you better sell me your damned popcorn anyway or get out of the popcorn business.
posted by Doug on
Why is the religious right so intent on ramming it’s own religious bigotry down everybody else’s throat? We do not live in a religious theocracy. If I tried to ram my religious beliefs down their throats they would scream like scaled cats.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that it has to do with the ideas that (1) Christians have an obligation to save as many souls as possible, no matter what the cost; (2) anyone who does not adhere to their particular understanding of Christianity is doomed to eternal damnation, and (3) nations are punished for disobedience to God.
My immediate neighbor, with whom I have friendly relations on a personal level, is a non-denominational “Bible Christian”. He believes, heart and soul, that in order to be saved, a person must accept Jesus Christ as his/her personal savior and accept the Authorized Version of the King James Bible as the sole, inerrant word of God. He believes that Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and most other adherents to mainstream Christian denominations are not Christian.
He is unapologetic about his ongoing efforts to convert me to Christ (“You are my friend. I like you. I do not want you to spend all eternity in Hell. I want you to be saved. I hope you don’t mind.”).
I don’t mind at all, coming as I do from the religious tradition into which Christians are adopted. I work to try to remove his fear of God, and help him into a closer relationship with God, a relationship based on an understanding of God’s faithfulness, forgiveness and love, rather to shrink in fear from a God who punishes the slightest transgressions with eternal damnation. But I understand where he is coming from, and while it saddens me, it doesn’t bother me.
My neighbor is not of the kind that believes that Christians need to force adherents to God’s law in order to save the United States from imminent destruction at the hand of God, but I know more than my share of “Bible Christians” who do believe it. (That’s what comes of living in a rural area, knowing a lot of people, and being willing to talk things over with them.) I don’t believe a word of it (I think that their fear is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of God and his relationship to his chosen, both the Chosen and those who are adopted in), but I understand the depth and certainty of their conviction. They aren’t seeking power for their own sake, but for the common good as they understand it.
I think it appropriate to distinguish these sincere but mistaken people from the political charlatans who dominate the politics of the religious right. Men and women like Tony Perkins, Brian Brown, Bryan Fischer, David Barton and the like may or may not believe what they preach, but whatever they might believe or not is overwhelmed by personal pride, greed and lust for power.
I have never had much of an argument with the rank and file of conservative Christianity (who can feel anything but empathy for men like my neighbor, who is convinced that his mother, a faithful Catholic who raised more than a dozen children and has attended daily Mass for decades, is condemned to Hell, a matter that disturbs him to the bottom of his soul; if I accomplish nothing else in my friendship with him, I hope to bring him hope that his mother is not damned because of her faith), but I do have an argument with the charlatans and the policies that they promulgate.
A lot of the conservative Christians who are politically active are, in one way or another, dominionists. Christian dominionism is the belief that Genesis 1:26 (“Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.“) gives Christians temporal power over mankind, and in particular, over non-Christians. How they stretch that verse into that conviction is beyond me, but that is what they believe. But the belief in dominionism explains the theological underpinnings of what the rest of us see as rank arrogance.
Understanding the conservative Christian thrust to shape our country’s laws in their own image doesn’t make them less dangerous to us or to the Constitution, but in my case, anyway, it makes it easier for me to both empathize with them and fight them tooth and nail with a clear conscience.
I note that this analysis does not apply to the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church has its own basis for believing that civil law should conform to Catholic teaching, a belief that dates back to Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), who asserted that as the Vicar of Christ, God had set him over kings and kingdoms, as well as the spiritual power he held as Pope. Vatican Council II moderated this understanding of Papal authority, but old habits die hard.
posted by Jorge on
My neighbor is not of the kind that believes that Christians need to force adherents to God’s law in order to save the United States from imminent destruction at the hand of God, but I know more than my share of “Bible Christians” who do believe it.
A couple of months ago, I read all the way to the back of Leviticus, where it says, “If you do not obey my commandments, I will punish you, as you so richly deserve!” And it has all this horrible stuff God will do to Israel and its people again and again if they don’t repent, until they cannibalize each other and their very enemies quail at the desolation of their land. But I caught what others do not: “Then shall the land retrieve its lost sabbaths during all the time it lies waste… enjoying the rest that you would not let it have on the sabbaths when you lived there.” Really?
Is it *really* necessary to destroy an entire country on account of but five sinners? Isn’t it supposed to work the other way around? Protect the land and repent for the sinners. Holding a country hostage to the fear of being punished one out of a possible 2401-fold times isn’t really necessary.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
First off all, “freedom of expression” and “freedom of association” are NO WHERE to be found in the Bill of Rights. They have been ‘read into’ the Bill of Rights — particularly the First Amendment — but its worth pointing this out given the high number of folk who talk about these two rights and also oppose ‘activist’ judges ‘creating’ rights not found in the Constitution.
Second off all, If the “religious right” had said something to the effect of “Well, we will not oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage, if we have certain First Amendment provisions put into place” I would have more sympathy for these complaints. That could have been a worth wild (albeit highly unlikely) negotation-conversation (sic) for the “religious right” and “gay activists” to have had…sort of like labor and management setting together at the table.
Instead, we now get people who make the argument that freedom of expression/association should apply to them and only them. Sort of like saying that religious freedom is only the right to go to join your neighbor’s church or voting rights are the only rights to vote for the other guy’s candidate. I call “BS”.
Thirdly, it a fairly well established principle of private sector civil right laws to have exemptions based on the size of the business, its mission/affiliation, how essential its services/goods are and the like.
Last, but not least, you have to actually develop some consistent and workable legal principles as to when a business owner can claim exemptions and it cannot only apply to religious right types who want to discriminate against gays.
posted by Don on
The legal framework does not work on modern evangelical Christianity. They are answering a higher calling. They believe in the Constitution and its “divine” guidance much like that of the Bible itself. But if ever the two conflict, the Constitution doesn’t win.
My freedom to believe as I do? Absolutely unimportant unless I believe exactly as they do. And as Tom pointed out, they believe they are on a life-or-death mission. If a judge disagrees with their assessment, many believe that judge is dooming people to an eternity in the lake of fire. Not a metaphor. They aren’t joking. It’s a lake of fire, literally. And we are the fools who cannot see it.
How do you debate these people? I don’t see how. I prefer to persuade them out of politics by pointing out how the system is stacked against their beliefs. Because, frankly, it is. they can believe as they wish. but their belief that they have to get as many of us to believe as they do by any means necessary, especially by force of law, is obvious to them. and obviously unconstitutional.
so I think we would all be better off if the fundamentalists left the political sphere and simply tried to convince us on the streets. (or Tom’s back yard)
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—irony in the loss of dignity for the potential customer — is pretty rich.
I would agree, in large part with this statement. This is a group that has consistently showed no respect for the dignity of gay people. Although, having to shop around for a wedding caterer is not really a “loss” of dignity.
Yes, I can see theoretical situations were it might be — i.e. the catering initially agrees, takes the money and then objects at the last minute….or if it was the only cater that existed or their was catering cartel or monopoly afoot.
Everyone needs certain things in life to have a shot at success and happiness — i.e. food, water, shelter, health care, education, transportation — and these are probably a bit more essential then flower and water.
posted by Mike in Houston on
And I think this says it all — despite what Stephen says, it’s not about marriage it’s about disapproval of gays:
From Jeremy Hooper’s Good As You (GAY): http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2014/01/oregon-bakery-admits-truth-they-just-dont-like-homosexuality-want-to-save-gay-people.html
posted by Tom Scharbach on
From Melissa’s Christian wisdom: “Love is sometimes saying no. We tell our children no all the time. Is it because we hate them no not at all! It is because we love them.”
The current Christian meme comparing gays and lesbians to children is particularly condescending/disgusting, in my opinion.
The arrogance of the Christian ignorati is astounding.