Posted on 11/28/2017 4:54:28 PM PST by Kaslin
Can people of good will believe that LGBT people should not be denied services based on their sexual orientation and, at the same time, support the rights of a baker such as Jack Phillips to refuse to use his creative talents in ways the violate his deeply-held religious beliefs? The answer is yes - because I support LGBT rights and Jack Phillips, too.
Eleven years ago, I helped lead a statewide campaign in Colorado to provide basic legal rights to the LGBT community. As a conservative Republican, I took at lot of heat, which I happily accepted — just as I will take a lot of heat for my opinion here. From then until now, it has been a constant concern where government would draw the line and protect those whose religious beliefs sincerely preclude them from endorsing same-sex marriage. It was an issue Justice Anthony Kennedy touched on in his opinion legalizing marriage,
It was only a matter of time before a case like that of Masterpiece Cakeshop sparked a national controversy. And while there is no question that there are many who say, “If you back the baker you hate gay people,” the issues are far more nuanced, no matter your political persuasion. Easy cases rarely make it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
While of little solace to the couple that was understandably angered by Mr. Phillips’ decision, the reality is that the tables have turned 180 degrees. Where not many years ago, refusing to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding would seem unremarkable, now it is a Christian such as Jack Phillips who finds himself facing down the power of government to force him to deny his deepest, most heartfelt identity and values.
In thinking about this, there are three questions that are complex and challenging but, in my view, end up tipping the scale ever toward Masterpiece Cakeshop. First, was the couple in question denied service solely because they are gay?
While the door at Masterpiece is open to everyone, you are not guaranteed any product for any occasion. Yes, Mr. Phillips won’t bake a cake for your same-sex wedding. But he also won’t bake a cake for your Halloween party (too bad, witches!) and if Grandma wants a couple of shots of rum in her birthday cake, you’re out of luck.
No Halloween. No alcohol. No same-sex weddings.
That is how his religious principles shape his menu because he believes that work must honor his faith in God. Faith isn’t one hour on Sunday mornings but as much a part of him, 24/7, as his skin and his bones. Are his principled limitations decidedly minority views among bakers? Of course. But different isn’t illegal, and it should not provide a route for government to get into the cake menu business and become the Office of Confectionery Compliance.
Secondly, isn’t a cake one more generic component of a wedding celebration, little different from the choice of limousine, for example? Initially one would agree and, frankly, guffaw at a cake being a type of artistic expression. Yet Americans marvel at the amazing creations seen each week on television’s “Cake Wars.” Here in Denver, a “sensual” bakery depicts body parts in very expressive and creative ways. Jack Phillips isn’t pulling down a box of Betty Crocker and whipping up the birthday cake Mom made in the kitchen; he is a creative artist who happens to be a baker.
The final question, then, is do we want the government compelling artists to create messages that violate their consciences? Or be required by government fiat to, by their presence and/or the offering of their talents, to endorse an event that they find anathema to their personally held religious beliefs?
To me, the answer is no, and represents the kind of overreach by government that was a worry a decade ago: a growing majority trampling on the legitimate rights and religious liberty of those who do not approve, and will not approve, of same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Court may decide that we, as a society, cannot strike a balance between ensuring that LGBT people are appropriately accommodated as they should and must be and the ability to appropriately dissent based on one’s religious beliefs. If that is the decision, the freedom of every American — gay or straight, religious or atheist — is diminished, not just that of one Colorado baker.
Suppose a law is put forth that LGTB must buy from Christians? I think if a business owner wants to refuse to serve me ; he or she should have the tight. Unless it’s the only supplier in town. I would be offended, of course. But I’m more offended that government wants to say who you serve.
Suppose a law is put forth that LGTB must buy from Christians? I think if a business owner wants to refuse to serve me; he or she should have the tight. Unless it’s the only supplier in town. I would be offended, of course. But I’m more offended that government wants to say who you serve.
Exactly what "rights" do these perverts think they are being denied in modern-day America?? They have the exact same rights I have, given to them by God, just like the rest of us - Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I am not a fan of Sean Duffy or his wife, Rachel Campos Duffy
Guy is living in a dream world. This was always about destroying Christian faith. The sob stories about gay people were concocted and publicized for that very purpose. And, no, there will be no similar stories about Christians victimized by their madness . . . even if they get thrown to the lions. (Just wait and see: the lions will be the victims!)
to me there is another principle. the freedom to associate with who you want to associate. I don’t believe the government should be telling anyone who they want to do business with.
I also believe that if a business chooses not to do business with someone and you don’t like it as an individual its up to you to spread the word and shun doing business yourself.
treat the customer poorly or refuse service and the community might decide not to buy your widgets.
“They” are entitled to no more and no fewer “rights” than any other American citizen.
Their demands are an attempt to normalize homosexual behavior to make access to molesting YOUR CHILDREN easier.
Refusing to bake cakes for these fake weddings should never be based on a ‘religious convictions’ argument. ‘Religious convictions’ can mean anything anyone believes with conviction, but is not necessarily the truth.
This is a matter of objective truth, what is the definition of marriage. It is not a definition involving mismatched parts, end of story. Reality its own defense. The LGBTQRSTUV crowd wants everyone else to suspend reality and embrace a lie. No.
A “gay” wedding is not only not happy, it’s not a wedding. Multiple oxymorons involved. The bakers are only guilty of not wanting to participate in lies.
How long before government mandates that veterinarians must provide services to those who identify as the family pet.
Affirmative action or equal rights should never have been applied to private businesses. It violates the basic right of association.
No one should be forced to associate with those he does not wish to associate with.
OTOH...bakeries,florists and photographers,being people who do *not* provide vital services,should be allowed to discriminate.That means a Jewish florist can refuse to service a Nazi wedding and a Christian florist can refuse to service a pervert "wedding".
Making it a “Right” to do evil, vile behaviors and make people act like it is “Good” when it is an abomination, and an evil, irrational use of the body-—doesn’t exist.
There is no “right” to sodomize others or FORCE others to even stand next to someone who does such vile behaviors and “thinks” it is good”.
It destroy the Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association, and Freedom of thought——ALL those NATURAL rights come ONLY from God-—never the State and they CAN”T use a “Just Law” to force preople against their Natural Rights (which does NOT included sodomy or baby-killing or theft (welfare)..
Rewriting the Bible to make evil, dysfunctional behaviors ‘good” creates a new religion or returns us to paganism or Marxism or satanism and the government is using a “Just” law to force Vice AND a religion on us.
Our Justice System (virtue system) is ONLY based on Christian Ethics-—not satanism or Marxism which are antithetical to the Constitution—supreme law of the land.
Pervert “rights” and the free exercise of religion are incompatible. They cannot exist in the same society. One must give way to the other. The sodomite agenda is about the destruction of our rights and our country. Period.
"People of good will" is a leftist trick phrase.
The issue this phrase conceals is, "Can people of good will believe the opposite?"
Religious liberty is insufficient.
A person can’t endorse an entire village being set on fire and still claim that their haystack, in the middle of it, won’t get burnt.
The whole LGBT movement needs to be shown as the destructive monstrosity that it is and disclaimed, rejected, and marginalized.
I have a lesser view of Sean after reading this article.
Why do you dislike Rachel?
Is that about her specific positions?
The right to freely associate is as important as the right to free speech.
That means that people should be able to discriminate on any basis in the private realm; just as they can engage in “offensive” speech.
The only exceptions here would be emergency and monopolistic situations. So, the government with its monopoly on law and power cannot discriminate. Nor should a regulated monopoly or oligopoly such as a large bank, utility, insurance company, state school or large corporation which functions as a de facto monopoly (Google, Amazon etc.).
However, small businesses, individuals, political, social and religious organizations must be able to exercise discrimination and exclusion as a means of promoting their mission.
This whole issue has bothered me for a while now. But I think I have a new perspective on it now.
As a conservative, I believe that we should be allowed to associate with (or refuse to associate with) whomever we choose. As a Christian, I am NOT in favor of gay marriage or any other special “rights”. Yet I do have concerns that if taken to an extreme that some would refuse to sell basic necessities to certain groups and this seems fundamentally wrong, possibly cruel. For example, if I’m the only grocer in town and I shouldn’t be able to refuse to sell you food, because you could starve.
The big “aha!”: There is a difference between selling a product and selling a service. The service involves my time and is not just a simple exchange of merchandise. So perhaps the law should prevent discrimination in selling merchandise, but unless it is an emergency situation (someone needs emergency surgery), the law should NOT require services to be performed (like cake decorating).
A baker or a grocer should have the same latitude when conducting business.
I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.
I regard the whole LGBT&#*%( alphabet soup to be mental illnesses. I think that the law should not require us to encourage the mentally ill in their delusions nor to participate in them. If someone thinks he is a dog, are you going to feed him dog food? If a hypochondriac thinks his arm needs to be amputated, are you going to cut it off?
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.