Thursday, April 9, 2015

Only A Third Of Americans Understand the Question

NBC reports on a poll that shows only 35% of Americans think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to people because they are homosexual.

There used to be signs on the doors of a lot of businesses that served the public which said, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." If it is your property, you have a right to do as you please.  Everybody used to understand that.  You don't want my money, fine.  I'll take my business elsewhere.

For those of us who grew up in a more sensible era, the gays whining about wedding cakes sound like people who want to make a lunch-counter, Rosa Parks political issue and statement.  They want to "teach them a lesson". 

Here's a clue, folks -- money talks.  Revenue loss is a good lesson.  Support your local queer cake baker. 

Note to gay people:   Being gay or "transgender" or whatever you think you are does not give you the right to force other people to do what you want.

It's really pretty simple.

Now, the thing is, none of the businesses -- bakeries or photographers -- that have been in the news would refuse to bake a birthday cake or take portraits for a couple of homosexual guys who walked in and asked for service.  No restaurant is going to refuse to seat and serve food to a couple of lesbians because they're lesbians.  Chick-fil-a is not going to make an issue out of a person's "lifestyle".  They will give anybody who can pay a chicken sandwich.

The issue is not service.  The issue is forcing Christians to, not just tolerate homosexuality, but actively endorse it. Teach 'em a lesson.

Most of the 65% who are on the other side of the poll are responding to an emotional picture of some poor, starving homosexual in a fabulous outfit who goes into McDonald's for an Egg McMuffin and is turned away.  The poor guy collapses on the sidewalk and dies because he can't even get a belly-bomber at White Castle.

This is a civil rights' question, all right, but it has been stood on its head.  It's the Christian business owners whose property rights and religious freedom are under attack.


  1. Hi Mushroom

    I have been thinking about this issue a lot over recent weeks. I wonder if we need to differentiate between that actions and liberties we have as individuals, and those that are afforded to businesses.

    No one can force an individual to bake pizza or a cake for anyone. We all get that.

    However, just as ‘justice is blind’ I wonder if businesses need to be blind to the gender, orientation, creed and colour of their customers? As a businessman, just because I serve an adulterer doesn’t mean I endorse his or her lifestyle.

    God sends his rain upon the just and the unjust without discrimination. He is not displeased because I serve the sinner and the saint alike, in fact I rather suspect that he expects that from me if I am to follow his example.

    The alternative is that we agree it’s ok to have signs in shop windows that say ‘no Jews’ or ‘no gays’ or ‘no Christians’ or….

    Provided our business is not being asked to perform a service that is illegal or immoral (and baking cakes and pizzas is neither illegal nor immoral) then should we as business owners expect to be able to discriminate against potential customers on the basis of creed, race or gender or sexual orientation?

    I don't think so.

  2. It's wrong to have a sign that says 'no Jews' or 'no gays', but should it be illegal? Is it right to use the force of government to demand that business owners not discriminate?

    I don't think I would deny service to someone myself. I would probably think it would be the Christian thing to do to go ahead and bake a cake.

    But, at the same time, I don't think I have the right to force someone else to not discriminate. We can force people to comply with our community standards. We can dictate compliance to the rules where it is appropriate.

    It not illegal or immoral to bake a cake, but if someone refuses to bake a cake, who are they harming? They might hurt someone's feelings.

    It's similar to ideas of free speech versus hate speech. To me, the First Amendment is specifically written to protect offensive speech. If I threaten to kill someone, I'm guilty of a crime, so, too, if I slander them. But if I just say something that hurts someone's feelings, it's rude. I don't do it -- except for politicians and other public figures -- but I could and not go to jail.

    You have a good point. I'm not sure I agree, but I think it's a good discussion to have.

    1. Hi Mushroom,

      You say:

      "It's wrong to have a sign that says 'no Jews' or 'no gays', but should it be illegal?"

      Well you tell me - what do you think, should it be illegal?

      It seems to me that once you open this door, anyone including yourself could find themselves restricted in the range, quality and type of goods and services they can purchase on main street.

      Would you be happy to drive an extra 20 miles to a gas station that will serve you? Would you be happy that someone else should have to?

      Maybe you would boycott that near gas station who wouldn't serve Jews, but there are probably enough people in town who don't care either way, especially if they have to drive another 20 miles to support the competitor.

      Perhaps the bigger question is would you like to live in an America where its citizens and businesses were free to publicly discriminate in this way?

      Is this what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when drafting the first amendment?

      I think this runs deeper than simply offending someone, or being offended, it strikes at what it means to be human. Are some people, groups, less human than others, and therefore we can choose to treat them differently?

      Shouldn't we all be a little unnerved by that?

  3. Aye, a big part of the First Ammendment concerns freedom of association, or not, if one desires.
    I wouldn't agree that it's moral to deny private business services to anyone, unless it's something like a nazi cake, or something lewd, so there are exceptions.

    Certainly no govt. agemcy, or businesses that accept govt. aid should be able to legally discriminate, but private businesses should be able to if we want to ensure no erosion to our liberties (again, most people may disagree with the morality, like some people think owning guns is immoral but the rights should be preserved regardless).

    I reckon there might be a case to restrict these rights in the event there are no alternatives, for instance, the only gas station in town or just one grocery store.
    In that case I would still restrict that to essential services, but in any event that would still be a rare thing.

  4. One way to look atfreedom of association is the example of agencies like the NAACP or the Black Congressional group, or any group that discriminates it's membership in accordance with narrow guidelines they have chosen.
    You won't see a whiteor oriental congressman in the congressional black caucus but therewould be cries of racism if white congressmen wantef a white comgressional caucus.

    It's a double standard, in cases like that but Any group has the right to allow only women, or men, or whatever as their members.
    I do think it's wrong for the govt. to take sides and favor one group or business over another, and yet it is happening.

  5. For some reason that reminds me of Groucho's line: I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".