A Balance of Rights

6 Comments for “A Balance of Rights”

  1. posted by JohnInCA on

    I feel like a broken record, but these anti-gay bakers would save themselves a lot of trouble if they showed the same fortitude and strength of conviction as 1960s segregationists and POSTED A SIGN.

    But when I checked their website two days ago, the only hint that they’d have a problem with gay clients was that they said “bride and groom” rather then more generic language.

    So when a lesbian couple calls them up, books an appointment, shows up at said appointment, and only then get told “we don’t serve your kind here”? Why, precisely, should I feel bad for the bakers? They had every opportunity to nip this in the bud. They could have posted a sign. They could have withdrawn from wedding-related services. They could have refused the appointment. They could have informed the couple the moment they showed up. But they waited until after all that and instead wasted everyone’s time and energy because they’re too chicken-shit to be open about their intentions.

    So c’mon assholes. We’re open about being gay. Can’t you be open about being anti-gay?

    Reply
    • posted by Doug on

      They don’t want to post a sign saying they won’t serve LGBT folks because it would cost them business from people who don’t want to do business with bigots. They want to have there cake and eat it too, so to speak. If they were proud of being anti-gay, they would shout it from the rooftops but they would rather discriminate under cover of darkness.

      Reply
  2. posted by Jorge on

    I feel like a broken record, but these anti-gay bakers would save themselves a lot of trouble if they showed the same fortitude and strength of conviction as 1960s segregationists and POSTED A SIGN.

    And gay couples could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they had shut up and just accepted whatever straight society decided to give them. We here on this earth must deal with human realities, not fantasy.

    Reply
  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    And gay couples could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they had shut up and just accepted whatever straight society decided to give them. We here on this earth must deal with human realities, not fantasy.

    That encapsulates the enduring conservative argument. I’ve heard the argument with respect to “equal means equal”, over and over again, since the 1970’s. At each step — starting with working to stop police raids on our bars all the way through the marriage equality battle — I heard that argument. If gays had listened, nothing would ever have happened.

    I heard that argument during the 1950’s and 1960’s, too, in a different context, when other Americans were fighting for equal treatment under the law.

    I think sometimes that young gays like you would benefit greatly from being transported, just for a month or so, back to the 1960’s, when I came of age, and experience the world as it existed then for gays. It would open your eyes.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      My point seems to have escaped you.

      It is the height of naivete to adopt an activist (“FIght! Fight! Fight! And keep on fighting!”) standard for one’s own side, and expect one’s own opponents adopt a “enduring conservative”, as you term it, standard, electing not to choose the risks and rewards of conflict.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      If that was the point you were making, it was certainly well hidden, much like the light under the basket.

      Reply

Leave a Comment