Skip to comments.Critics of Indiana’s religious freedom law are trying to have their cake and eat it, too
Posted on 04/05/2015 10:40:31 AM PDT by doug from upland
After all the heated rhetoric over Indianas controversial religious freedom law, this rights debate could ultimately come down to a cake war. Just as diners were at the epicenter of the fight over racial desegregation, bakeries have become a flashpoint today.
Conservatives in Indiana and elsewhere have objected to bakers (and florists and photographers) being forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding. While those conservatives have been rightly ridiculed for failing to explain how the Indiana law as originally formulated would not license bigotry, critics can be equally chastised for failing to explain where to draw the line between religious freedom and discrimination. Asked on CNN this week whether a Jewish baker should have to make a cake for a KKK couple, Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, insisted that theres a huge difference between having to write something objectionable on a cake and being asked to provide a cake for a same sex couple.
Of course, for some religious bakers, a cake with language or an image celebrating same-sex marriage is objectionable. In other words, critics may be trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Sorry, gays are, under the law, a protected group.
Republicans are not.
Hmmm, what is there was a homosexual member of the KKK? Could he force the Jewish baker to make the cake?
If Christian pizza shop owners can be forced to cater a gay wedding, so should a Muslim printer be forced to print copies of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. What would the sanctimonious liberals say about that?
Actually, they are not really a protected group. Lost in all of these media contrived nonsense is the fact that homosexuals have never been able to meet the basic three pronged test for a suspect class entitled to legal protections. Homosexuals have had thirty some odd years and one of the richest and most influential lobbies ever but they have never tried to pursue Thats because they know they would never be able to succeed. Instead they agitate in the courts of public opinion and get weak willed politicians to simply declare them a member of a suspect class. Everyone is so busy falling all over themselves to prove they are tolerant that they completely miss the the fact that they are facilitating special treatment of homosexuality which just exacerbates the problem.
How can it be legal to have ‘protected’ and by implication ‘unprotected’ groups under the law? Does not the Constitution require ‘equal protection’ under the law?
Federal employees in black robes are lawless tyrants that have overthrown the law and this concept of ‘protected group’ is yet anther example of how and why.
As for the issue at hand it seems yet anther cause of leftist being completely blind in their selfish definition of what is ‘offensive’ They have no concept of how deeply offensive sodomite mocking of marriage is to a good christian, or really anything who is honestly married.
If a business has not the right to choose whom they do business with or what kind of services they provide, then they really aren’t in business at all.
As far as bigotry goes, what people think is not and cannot ever be regarded as the legitimate domain of the law.
Frankly freedom of thought is even more fundamental than freedom of speech, and that includes necessarily ‘bigoted’ thoughts and speech.
For thoses in power to even try to shut down any speech much less thought because some find it ‘objectionable’ or even by some stretch of the imagination ‘unfair’ is a supremely arrogant, and ironically bigoted act in itself by the state officials making and enforcing said edicts.
After-all they they not the backer decided what ideas were acceptable not only for themselves but enforced upon everyone else as well. That is the very definition of bigotry: “Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself”
OK, should a gay musician be forced to perform at a wedding at the Westboro Baptist Church?
“If Christian pizza shop owners can be forced to cater a gay wedding, so should a Muslim printer be forced to print copies of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. What would the sanctimonious liberals say about that?”
Don’t point out leftist hypocrisy and bigitiy toward Christians, it only makes them and their lawless federal employees in black robes look like the bigoted nuts.
Just remind them of what their doing then point to the actual definition of bigity:
“ intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself”
There is unfortunately few in our population more bigoted than a leftist in a black robe. The truth is it is their actions that makes them what they are.
Depending on Kansas law, that might indeed be the case.
I’ve never really considered this as a “gay” issue, a “cake” issue, etc. I consider it either a contract law issue, or a slavery issue. slavery issue should be handled by the 14th amendment, so one should NEVER have to work against their will for someone, and contractual law should recognize that a contract entered under duress would not be valid.
Oddly, I never hear these angles argued on the left OR right.
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.