Posted on 04/03/2015 9:01:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Before we begin, allow me to clear up one common misconception for those of you who aren’t regular readers of the site and just followed a link here because of the awful, offensive title. Most of you in the latter category always seem to assume that I’m opposed to gay marriage because I have no problem with – and actually support – the RFRA laws currently under discussion. If you take a moment to check with our commenters you will be quickly disabused of this notion, as they will immediately tell you I’m one of those big ole’ RINOs who doesn’t fit the mold. (For the record, I don’t “support” gay marriage any more than I “support” traditional marriage. I support my marriage. The rest of you are on your own. I simply don’t feel that the government – at any level – holds claim to the power to demand a license from or charge a tax on two consenting adults for the privilege of getting married.)
By the same token, I also don’t believe that the government has any place forcing private citizens – even if they be business owners or shopkeepers – to take part in activities which violate their fundamental religious beliefs which are assured by the constitution. But as counterintuitive as it may seem, that particular objection isn’t the subject of this article either. The argument over whether a baker, a florist, a photographer or any other business person should be forced to participate in a same sex wedding should not rest on their religious rights and beliefs.
You see, the act of refusing to deliver goods or services which are innately offensive to the vendor is not an act of discrimination because one can not discriminate against an activity.
The basis for this argument has been undermined by an activist media and courts that bend to political cowardice, but there are some matters of common sense which scream for recognition in this debate. The first thing to establish here is that any entity capable of actual discrimination, be it an individual, a business or a government, can only discriminate against people under our current definition of the word. By the same token, religious freedom is an actual constitutional concept. That’s why I find it so offensive when I see repeated headlines which include the phrase “religious freedom” (in scare quotes, obviously mocking the idea) while tossing out the word discrimination in definitive form. It should be obvious that the use of scare quotes should be reversed in these instances, but the narrative journalism initiative of the month has managed to turn the situation on its head.
If you find a vendor who is refusing to do business in any form with LGBT customers – presumably because of their sexual orientation – they are engaging in discrimination and are already violating established law. The same would be said if they turned away all black customers or all women or Jews or members of any other demographic clan you care to name. But if the baker is happy to make any non-marital treats for gay couples… if the photographer is eager to collect a fee to take photos of the gay family’s reunion… if the florist is ready, willing and able to deliver a wreath to the funeral of the gay customer’s parent… they are not discriminating. They are objecting to a specific situation, activity or request which offends them, be it on religious grounds or otherwise.
There are countless photos swamping the internet which do not cross the line into pornography but are still offensive to the sensibilities of many people. If a man goes to a photographer and request a session wearing a “banana hammock” and the photographer demurs, will anyone rush to ensure the government forces her to accept the commission? Obviously it’s a legal photograph which might be taken by any number of other vendors. I already brought up the not-hypothetical scenario of the Hitler cake. It doesn’t require membership in the Jewish faith to be offended by a confectionary salute to Adolf. But will the baker be forced to deliver it? If a florist is asked to create a bouquet in the form of the male physique for a bachelorette party, (which believe it or not is an option) can she not refuse on any grounds she chooses?
This progression in the media, now spreading to the courts, is insanity. Apparently a private business can refuse all manner of services unless it threatens the flag which a politically correct faction has planted on some hill. In that unhappy event, the power of the government must be brought to bear upon them.
This is not to say that such a refusal will come without any cost to the vendor. If they are an employee of a business which endorses such services they may need to seek another job. If they are the owner of the business and are offended by too many requests, the invisible hand of the market may shove them out of contention. But those are the natural forces which occur in a free society such as ours. They are not the onerous thumb of the government on the scales of civil society.
When Mike Pence decided to modify the RFRA to ensure that no business would “discriminate” against LGBT persons, he essentially caved in to the forces of narrative media machine and turned the law into little more than lip service which protects nobody. The more we allow a politically powerful minority which is favored by the media to cow both elected representatives and justices on our courts, the less control we have over our own lives. And worst of all, we will continue to dilute and poison the definition of actual discrimination until it becomes a laughing stock.
We discriminate other people's BEHAVIOR all the time. We teach our children to discriminate on behavior, gays do it too.
The ultimate issue is this -- ARE WE GOING TO CRIMINALIZE DISCRIMINATING ON BEHAVIOR?
If you say "yes", then you are against freedom and liberty and THAT is un-American.
I’ll attend but with a gift, a set of Carolina Reaper pepper flavored edible underwear for both the groom and the other groom...
Ahh, but what are you going to give two brides? (HEH HEH ).
this whole issue boils down top this key concept- A restaurant is NOT violating their religious beliefs when they serve a gay person- eating is not an engagement in a sinful activity- but when a gay person demands that the eatery participate in the gay person and crew celebrating a sinful activity, then the gay person has crossed the line and violated the religious rights of the eatery- (I didn’t say it very well, but basically once you begin forcing someone, via court order, to engage with you in a sinful activity, you are violating their rights)
As I posted in another thread, a bit earlier:
Let me point out something that is obvious, yet virtually overlooked in this latest example of Leftist bully tactics.
Most Conservative spokesmen today--most Conservative organizations in America today--take an approach to the battle which basically concedes what the Left has already accomplished in its assault on personal responsibility & individual liberty. Most only seek to hold a line that yields no more.
Thus only a few of us still insist that the whole fabric of legislation that forbids discrimination against various protected classifications by private individuals & private businesses is wrong; fundamentally wrong in denying people the freedom to use their own property for what were always legal purposes in the past. We after all, as free people, have always claimed the right to make our own decisions--that is to discriminate in our personal choices. It is not something aimed against any group; rather a right that all free men & women have in common.
When Conservative spokesmen concede the past campaigns' ever broadening the list of protected categories--broadening the limitations on other peoples' choices; they create a situation where the Left can only continue--successfully continue--to ever more aggressively push the envelope. Their strategy--those who supposedly speak for us--gurantees defeat. It surrenders a major part of the primary argument on our side, i.e. personal freedom in one's own choices, while allowing the foe to pick targets one at a time, while citing the previous now conceded triumphs in restricting the rest of us, as a precedent.
Can anyone imagine fighting a war, where every bit of territory previously gained by the foe, is forever conceded to the foe? How long would it be, with such a method of engagement, before the result was total conquest of the idiots employing that methodology?
Instead, please consider adopting this approach: "Civil Rights" Or Personal Freedom.
Another obvious advantage of a realistic counter-attack that concedes nothing, is that it avoids the necessity of appearing as anti-anyone--something that much of the youth has been conditioned to reject without analysis.
William Flax
I've also seen videos of "gay pride" parades.
If that's what they're "proud" I sure as hell wouldn't want to be around if there's any chance they'll do something they're not proud of.
Let’s just say it - this issue isn’t about homos at all.
It’s about Christians. Homos are simply the vehicle by which the left can criminalize belief.
You are discriminating against the people organizing the activity. And that is not always wrong or illegal.
I said this same thing yesterday and was soundly criticized for being wrong. Then I posted the language of the "modified" bill and was proven correct.
Pence caved. For the "changes" they made which essentially neutered the intent of the law, they may as well have just repealed the whole thing.
Homo's can still sue any PRIVATE BUSINESS who refuses to participate in any activities --- including baking a cake --- for a gay wedding.
Call that what you will, I call it FORCED LABOR of Christians for a vocal minority.
That ain't right.
Just like refusing the same two man access to the women's restroom is different then refusing them access to any restroom.
if a black man can be allow a black baker to refuse making a white man a cake with the N-word message. then a Christian can refuse a gay a wedding cake messing...
“Discrimination” is another word that has lost its original meaning. At one time, having a discriminating taste, meant the person was of refined nature, and had used critical thinking at arriving on the decision to use or not use a particular product, or behavior, as the reasoned conclusion of prior consideration.
A word of similar but not the same meaning, is “distinction”, the ability to identify a set of behaviors or produced services, that was considered to be better than the average quality. But now, it has become the level of thinking that there are no characteristics that are “better” than others, that everything is morally equivalent.
That is by itself distinctly discriminatory.
This is absolutely incorrect. The proposed revised statute mentions sexual orientation as a protected class for the first time under Indiana law. As such, it clearly has thee exact opposite effect as it was originally intended - it strengthens the "discrimination" claim when a business refuses to participate in a homosexual wedding.
Also, I agree with the author's take on "discrimination", where he or she is clearly referring to the legal definition, not the common one. Having "discriminating tastes" used to mean one had good taste. That is the common definition.
Now that we have TOLERATED their lifestyle, they demand we CELEBRATE it as well. NOPE. NO WAY.
Agreed. I discriminate every day and I especially discriminate between a heterosexual lifestyle and that of the living hell of a sodomite.
I generally don’t acknowledge second weddings. In my circles, I’ve only had to think about it a couple times. I think I only know of one close friend who got divorced.
I refused to attend the second wedding of a cousin. I told her the batteries in the clock I gave her for her first wedding were still good.
Muslims have to give up having sex with their sheep when they get married which is probably why so many of them join ISIS because of their frustration and anger...
Discriminate is the act of making a choice and is natural. If I don’t want to participate in a clam bumper or sodomy performer wedding, its my choice to not do so.
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.