Excellent article from Peggy Noonan in the WSJ, "America and the Aggressive Left."
She quotes a tweet: "Can the government compel a Jewish baker to deliver a wedding cake on a Saturday? If not why not?"
Good question. Here's a few more:
Can the gov't force a gay-owned bakery to bake an anniversary cake for the Westboro Baptist Church that reads: "Happy Anniversary! God Hates Fags!"
Can the gov't force a Muslim-owned barbershop to provide services to a woman?
Can the gov't force a Jewish-owned grocery store to sell pork?
Can the gov't force an atheist bookstore to sell fundamentalist Christian books?
If not, why not?
Of course, once you realize that opposition to the recently vetoed Arizona law protecting religious freedom was based on hysterical doomsday rhetoric and intentional misrepresentations, you'll see that the goal here is not tolerance or inclusion but increased gov't power and control over individual consciences.
This is nothing new. Kings, parliaments, dictators, and bureaucrats hate a well-formed, individual conscience. It limits their power, thus wounding their egos.
____________________Follow HancAquam or Subscribe ----->
Yeah. It seems like only yesterday I was laughed at for saying this was coming - forcing those to participate in things they find morally unacceptable. I do think there are some ways around it, like the bakers. Providing cake toppers that are only man/woman would be one. The other would be donating all proceeds to NOM or similar group. It is becoming more and more dangerous in that this is opening the flood gate to a host of things that people will be compelled/forced to do against their beliefs. Eg photographing things they find immoral...
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to see some in the pro-same sex marriage camp urging their most radical fellow-travelers to cool it with the gestapo tactics. But it seems too little too late. Since we've lost all sense of what it means to lives in a civil society, the only recourse is to gov't. . .which has been the goal all along.
DeleteWe want to be careful with our analogies here. A Jewish bakery can choose not to work on Saturdays, as a Christian one can choose not to work on Sundays. Since this does not, as such, disadvantage a "protected class" (race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, etc., and now, apparently, sexual identity), it is a free business decision. The parallel might be hiring said bakery to cater the celebration of a Jew's conversion to Christianity. Here, there is a protected class involved (i.e. religion), and a specific group being targeted precisely on the grounds of religious objection (i.e. Jews who convert to Christianity). Let's even stipulate that the cakes, etc. have no overt message on them (i.e. we don't need inflammatory examples of cakes reading "Congratulations for being free from the yoke of the Law!"). Should the baker be compelled to be a caterer in this case if he caters other events, indeed, even other baptisms? The thing is, we should certainly imagine he ought to be free to refuse. Even if you didn't know the baker was Jewish, on finding out he didn't want to cater the event, just take your business elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteTaking your business elsewhere would be ideal. . .and the rational thing to do. However, we're talking radicalized ideology here, so reason has little to do with anything. The governor of NM was recently dropped by her gay hairdresser b/c she (the governor) supports marriage. IOW, the hairdresser did exactly what the Christian bakers did. . .and was applauded for his moral courage by the Left/MSM. Neither AZ nor NM view gays as a protected class. Didn't make any difference in AZ. . .or NM.
Delete