Posted on 05/30/2014 10:48:24 PM PDT by dignitasnews
The Civil Rights Commission of Colorado ruled Friday that baker Jack Philips 1st Amendment rights to free exercise of his religious beliefs may in fact be prohibited. In a decision sure to be challenged, they ruled Philips must participate in same-sex wedding celebrations by ordering him to accept any custom orders wedding cakes from same-sex couples. The Colorado ruling on the pro gay-marriage cake begs the question as to whether or not their definitions of civil rights go both ways (pun intended).
Let us consider if the roles in the case were somehow reversed. How would rule if a self-described advocate for heterosexuality were to enter the bakery owned by a homosexual and requested a custom-made cake inscribed either a Bible verse supporting the sole legitimacy of traditional marriage or wording of similar effect? If we base their ruling on their intellectual interpretation of law, one could only assume they would likewise force the gay baker to take the order and bake the cake. But of course, there are a number of questionable points of their ruling to suggest it was made from an emotional standpoint, their motivations based on the sympathy of the plaintiffs and not the law itself. It is this which is the truly dangerous aspect of decision, far beyond any moral arguments related to same-sex couplings.
What is important to consider is that what the gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, were requesting from Philips was a custom order. Had the couple walked into his store and requested a set of candles, a previously prepared pastry or any other standard product he had displayed and been denied this request, there is a more than a valid argument to say that their civil rights were in fact violated. But this was not the case.Based on the transcripts of the case, Philips had indicated to the two men that "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Upon hearing this, Mullins stated that as they walked out the door he turned to Philips and said, "F- (expletive) you and your homophobic cakeshop." They then provocatively sought out assistance, aware that Philips decision was based on his devout religious beliefs, to spark a legal and public relations battle. Without placing judgement on the two's sexual orientation whatsoever, David Mullins and Charlie Craig are, in my humble opinion, two very hateful, petty and reprehensible human beings.
That gay marriage remains illegal in Colorado further draws legitimate questions to the motives behind the Colorado Civil Rights Commissions decision. The marriage of Mullins and Craig was sanctioned in the state of Massachusetts, while they planned to celebrate the event in their home state of Colorado. Thus, the panel ruled that Philips must bake a cake for an event that is illegal in the state of Colorado and that had previously taken place. In addition, they ordered Philips to report quarterly for anti-discrimination training for his bakery staff and file a report on any customers he discriminates against.
Philips, who owns the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, defiantly fired back following the ruling, "I will stand by my convictions until somebody shuts me down." Based on the comments made by Commissioner Raju Jaram, "I can believe anything I want, but if I'm going to do business here, I'd ought to not discriminate against people," this sadly may come to pass.
The truth of he matter is that private business, and government for that matter, discriminate on many occasions when choosing whether or not to engage in certain matters of commerce. Again, Mr. Philips did not refuse to engage in commerce with Mullins and Craig, but rather objected to taking a specific specialty-order contract.
Previously in my career, I worked for a self-publishing company who maintained a strict code of the sort of material we would endorse and publish. While we would not turn any author away out of hand, there was certain material we felt did not represent our code of ethics as well as on grounds that it may harm our reputation within the marketplace. Subjects we considered to be racist, sexually provocative or generally unseemly would be rejected by our editorial board, despite that they may have been opinions and practices in no way illegal. Should that same author present material that did not run counter to our guidelines these projects would be accepted without regard or prejudice.
Advertisers and marketing firms make these sort of decisions on a regular basis as well. Would Colorado force an advertising agency owned by a dedicated member of PETA to produce a public relations campaign for a group that organized legal hunting junkets for its clientele? Should the gay owner of a printing company be forced to produce a 100-foot banner declaring that homosexuality is a sin before God for a religious group whose interpretation of scripture maintains this belief? Of course not. And no right-minded conservative would for one moment side with a government that wished to place this burden on a business owner.
Personal beliefs aside, the Colorado ruling makes no consideration for the reputation and future solvency of the bakery in question. Just as in our examples of the pro-animal advertising agency or gay printer, the conservative position is sensitive to the business owners primary customer base. Should that printer depend on the gay community for much of his regular revenue, by forcing him to produce a perceived anti-gay banner, the future of his or her business would then be placed in jeopardy.
Just as we all do, the gay community has a responsibility to the notion of domestic tranquility. In large part they have allowed the "gay rights movement" to be usurped by political progressives, who seem hell-bent on a "scorched earth" policy of attacking the livelihood of all who disagree with them. Be it the baker Philips, former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich or the Benham brothers, left-wing progressives and their allies within the gay community threaten to open Pandora's Box and tear this nation asunder due to their unwillingness to practice the same tolerance they expect from the nation at large. If this modus-operandi were to be mimicked by other political factions, we would end with a society where those donating to pro-choice and pro-life groups alike, pro and anti 2nd Amendment advocates and pretty much anyone with a political opinion would find their professional careers in jeopardy.
Ironically enough, one of the best arguments for the radical intolerance from the progressive wing of the gay community (as well as voice of reason) this year came from RuPaul herself who went on a Twitter rampage earlier in the week, bemoaning what has become of the gay-rights movement. In two very poignant and prophetic tweets, she warned the gay community to guard against its own hubris, echoing what many conservatives have observed that while they may be celebrating "gotcha" moments by bringing the heavy hand of the state down on a humble small-business owner, they run risk of reversing the overall gains they have made in society as well providing the perfect analogy for the hypocrisy of the progressive-left, not just in regards to issues of the gay community, but its entire political agenda. We applaud not only RuPaul's courage, as the retaliation from the left has already begun, but cannot help but admire anyone who understand that Animal Farm (although note to RuPaul that it's Farmer Jones, not John but point well-made nonetheless) was meant to be Orwell's warning to us all about the dangers of government tyranny, and not a training manual as so many on the political left appear to view it as.
Most conservatives would defend the gay baker's right to deny taking an order to inscribe a cake with anti-gay slogans with the same zeal as we will the Christian baker who refuses to do the gay marriage cake. This is what we call consistency, a concept apparently lost on the left, be they gay or straight. If the gay community cannot understand this, nay agree with us, then I do hold out much hope that we can work effectively with one another. And while the progressive-left may be celebrating Colorado's ruling that a Christian baker must take on a custom-ordered gay wedding cake tonight, it opens Pandora's Box which the gay community may ultimately come to regret.
By Paul M Winters
Sources:
MSNNews MSNBC @RuPaul (via Twitter)
That’s just it, businesses do not serve everyone. Your lefty local rag is under no obligation to print conservative letters to the editor or even sell ad space to conservatives.
And it will never go both ways. A business that refused to do business with Christians will never face a problem
The posting of a letter to the editor is not a business transaction - and I beg to differ with you about the ad space.
That being said - as far as a normal retail customer:
When business owners hang up open signs, whether literally or figuratively, they have a responsibility to treat all customers equally under the law.
State and federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination in places of public accommodation for reasons of race, color, national origin/ancestry, sex/gender, religion/creed and disability (physical and mental).
My whole point in this is that if you provide wedding cakes to heterosexuals [with inscriptions - thus, being "custom"], then you can't refuse a same-sex wedding cake. As long as the inscription isn't obscene or otherwise violate law.
The article does not say that they make traditional wedding cakes - but dollars to donutz, they do ...
You just happen to be against the 1st Amendment that’s all.
It is obscene when the “newlyweds” are the same gender.
This is a whole ‘nother step that evil has foisted upon us and all you can do is play legalistic tiddlywinks.
A quick Google search shows that ads get refused all the time. SodaStream can’t buy ads at the Super Bowl and others
Now they are being required to treat all EVENTS equally. These are not marriages. Civil rights does not mean that nonsense gets dictated by government decree. It is like Abraham Lincoln said. If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does the normal dog have. Well it isn’t five.
Actually, the courts would back the Klansman - as long as the swastika did not violate any ordinance or law.
The only place in the world that I know of [for sure] where it would be illegal is Germany - where they prohibited it after WWII by their federal law ...
The law is an ass. It needs to be corrected like asses are corrected.
Courts throw out ordinances and laws all the time, they even violate the constitution and impose laws on states, like homosexual “marriage”
And fools argue for folly!
It’s okay for a newspaper or tv network to reject ads from Christians or Jews but it is a one-way street. They don’t have to do business with us, but they can run us out of business if we do not bow down to them.
Advertisers can be refused if they are in direct competition with the firm [in this case, the Super Bowl] that offers the advertising space. Which is not the case with the Super Bowl.
They can also be refused if the firm that offers the advertising space has an exclusive contract with the advertiser's competitor [say, Coca Cola, in this case]. Coca Cola would have paid a premium to the Super Bowl for exclusivity - thus, negating SodaStream getting the advertising space.
As for the bakery, if a single heterosexual couple had paid for exclusivity on a wedding cake, then all other couples [heterosexual or homosexual] would have been barred from getting wedding cakes. This stance might fly in court - if it bought the argument that the other heterosexual and homosexual couples were in "competition" with the couple that bought the exclusivity.
And our spineless Republican leaders remain silent ...
I just don’t see it that way. I’m not a believer, but I am a traditionalist, and a conservative by nature, and willy-nilly, my sympathies fall with the reluctant bakers.
I was raised liberal, and ingrained with a respect for acts of conscience, so I feel like I recognize these when I see them. Respect for conscience lies at the heart of the founding of the American nation, you know.
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
N.B. “ ... a ass “
Actually, I'm not. Unfortunately, the 1st is not a perfect clause in the Constitution. More and more, it is pitting certain rights against each other [in this case, freedom of religion and speech].
And, unless the Constitution is amended in a way that guarantees the rights of religion and speech to a degree where one cannot trump the other, these controversies will arise again and again.
I never said in this thread that I SUPPORTED the position that the bakery HAD to provide service - ONLY that [given current law, it had to].
>> I’m sorry - but, when you decide ...
You do realize it’s okay to take a stand on principle, right?
The moral challenges won’t go away by searching for justifications to grant exceptions. This is not about discriminating against the color of one’s skin.
I heartily agree - I do not support gay marriage.
However, per SCOTUS, obscenity is defined as being against community standards.
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.