Tag Archives: same-sex wedding

Culture, Economics

Butcher, Baker, Candlestick Maker

Leave a comment

The Colorado baker whose case the Supreme Court finally heard, has won only a reprieve and not quite a victory. “SCOTUS” ruled on the improprieties of how the Colorado Commission on Discrimination treated baker, Jack Phillips, during its proceedings and the ruling that followed, not on the right to withhold certain aspects of his services on the basis of religious belief. The larger fight looms.

Another case may be decided this month, as well, concerning a florist who refused to create bouquets and other floral displays for a same-sex wedding.

Then there is the “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” case where the family-operated bake shop was unmercifully attacked, boycotted and broken-into after a lesbian couple was denied a custom wedding cake. Oregon chipped in with its own punishment by fining the Greshams, themselves, $135,000.

So far, the arguments have been religious in nature and they, it seems Prudent to say, will eventually fail. The anti-religious, or, at least, anti-spiritual socialist power structures in place in the U. S. and the various states, cannot accept religious belief as the basis for any public act, since it can’t be touched, tasted or seen… or taxed. Through the looking-glass, however, these same happily accept the self-declared conditions grouped under “LGBT” even though they are equally un-provable beyond the declarations of adherents. Prudence finds it difficult to discern the logical distinctions; aside from the political.

The winning arguments, and those which may be legally definable – codifiable – will have to follow this path: public accommodation can be satisfied by requiring any retailer to sell its generic products to anyone who wishes to buy them; retailers will be allowed to retain their right to deny application of their artistic skills that would customize products for purposes they find offensive.

That is, no government should be able to COMPEL anyone to exercise creativity, imagination, or hard-learned and long-practiced skills unique to that individual. For skills and abilities that are widely held in the area of trade a store represents, it is reasonable that products produced thereby may not be restricted from sale to anyone who is able to pay for them. How the new owner of a product then decorates or uses the product – cakes or otherwise – is no concern of the original fabricator… or baker.

Culture

CODIFYING TOLERANCE

1 Comment

The latest issue of the National Geographic has a trans-sexual boy, a de facto girl, on the cover. The balance of the issue explores multiple examples of “trans” children, primarily, and how girls grow up and are often mis-treated (by our standards) around the world. Throughout are stories of the very rare instances of genetic mis-firings that yield unusual development of reproductive organs in humans, animals and insects. A survey is quoted that says “milennials” (in the West and U. S.) see “gender” as a spectrum rather than just male or female. Hmmph.

So there is no misunderstanding, this old stump is decidedly uncomfortable with the publicity afforded sexual incongruity. I don’t like the new rush to normalize exotic behaviors, which has proceeded with such politicized demonization of those not embracing it, as to make declarations of normalcy statements of gross intolerance and even of hate.

We are on the wrong track, it seems to me, to be denigrating and attacking very tolerant Judeo-Christian moral guidance (and institutions) and the essentially Judeo-Christian mores of Western societies and of the United States in particular, while affording equal, if not superior credence to the abject tolerance of non-believers and refuse-to-believe-ers. One group, attempting to adhere to socially-strengthening traditions while having compassion and tolerance for new conditions, desires and loves, is trying to maintain ideals about family, sexuality and moral purity. The other, mostly young, instantly connected and instantly knowledgeable (regardless of reality) is rushing toward license and the intentional destruction of all moral strictures. “It is their right,” some trumpet.

For purposes of the most tawdry and SHORT-LIVED political expediency, sexual oddities have received legal status that not only offends faithful Jews and Christians, but which force “straight” citizens (over 95% of us) to change our habits, practices and even beliefs, if we are to not be labeled “haters” for expressing our own condition! Within this twist of social norms are corrosive, acidic re-definitions of words, and IN-tolerance of normality.
Every Christian expression must be stricken from the public arena, for example. Christian beliefs that are the foundation of law and social norming, may no longer be uttered, EVEN WITHIN CHURCHES in some views, as they are deemed offensive to a tiny, tiny fraction of society who, not needing to have actually heard the scripture that they claim would have offended them, need only to hear that it was heard by others. Instant media sweeps across their non-judging (non-thinking) consciences and yields the “offense” they seem to seek and celebrate.

Perhaps the worst example of the dangers of codifying tolerance is the experience of Aaron and Melissa Klein whose Gresham, Oregon bakery was put out of business by a lesbian couple whose feelings were hurt when the Kleins refused to apply their artistry to a custom wedding cake for the upcoming nuptials of the same-sex couple. They did not refuse to bake a cake, nor to sell them one. On religious grounds they refused to decorate a cake that would assist in glorifying a wedding that contravened their faith.

Immediately the lesbian couple garnered widespread support against the “discrimination” and supposed hatred exhibited by the Kleins toward same-sex weddings and therefore anyone who favored or accepted such ceremonies. Next, they filed a complaint with the State of Oregon , which resulted in a fine of $135,000, payable to the “offended” couple, which was ultimately paid. The Kleins’ business was shuttered very quickly as hatred toward THEM yielded threats, picketing, slanders and public intimidation.

The offenses toward the Kleins, engendered by the “flash-hatred” of social media in favor of all things homosexual, were not defended against by any state laws. Indeed, the state took the side of two people whose feelings were ostensibly hurt, helping them in their campaign of hatred and destruction so as to put the Kleins out of business, and to punish them for refusing to employ their artistic abilities for the benefit of an event that their faith forbade.

In effect, this couple was told that they might live according to their (Christian) faith ONLY inside their home or their church, and that adherence to faith is not legal if one has a business. There are many examples of private citizens suffering severe economic punishment for merely expressing their faith with no related “illegal” actions!

We are in the realm of thought-policing. Free-thinkers (without moral anchor) like to compare everyone with whom they disagree to Hitler. No doubt the Kleins are among those so compared. But, it was Hitler who first imposed rules that faith may be expressed only in church. Delightful company, he.