If you run a bakery should you have to do business with everybody? If you are in any kind of business should you be forced to do business with everybody in spite of your reasons for refusing that business?
This seems to be the basic issue with the recent gay marriage couple suing a bakery for refusing to furnish a wedding cake to their recently legalized union. The bakery in Lakewood, Colorado was determined to have unlawfully refused to do business with the gay couple.
What a mess!
First of all, I would like to temporarily remove the notions of race, gender, or sexual orientation from the basic issue. The issue is fundamental to our rights in this country. One of our coveted rights is our ability to buy whatever we want from any merchant we choose. Once again, this is fundamental.
For the same reason, don’t you think there is a similar freedom for merchants to be able to choose those to whom they will market their goods?
Discrimination, you say? Of course it is discrimination. Having the latitude to discriminate about your decisions encompasses the whole definition of freedom, and therefore is the basis of our Constitution.
So, here we go. Why should not the bakery not be able to choose the people with whom they do business? Certainly, their proposed gay customers had the choice of dozens of bakeries to do their wedding cake. Why is one side of the transaction process handcuffed by law, and the other not have similar restrictions?
My answer is that the bakery had to have a local business license to do business with the general public. That’s the rub right there. A license to do business with the general public necessitates the condition that you must do business with the whole of that public, and you cannot discriminate in which customers to serve.
The basic question is this. If you are in a business that sells to the general public should you be forced into doing business with that entire public? Is the notion of “No Shirt – No Shoes – No Service” a constitutionally legal position? The ideas are related.
Why do we not have the right to discriminate among those with whom we do business? What do you think?
The referenced Pew research polls show that favorability of gay marriage has increased substantially over the last four years (2008 to 2012).
The gap between Republicans and Democrats has widened, and so has the gap between Republicans and Independents. Politically, this would suggest that the Republicans suppress talk about gay marriage during the election, but I doubt that will happen.
One speculation in the Pew article is that the reason for the increased tolerance of gay marriage may have to do with a more tolerant attitude toward homosexuality in general. This has apparently taken place over a long period of time, and not just in the last four years.
My purpose for publishing this information is not to get the same old arguments going about gay vs straight, but to ask the question, “Should Republicans make a big deal of the Democrats new policy of advocating gay marriage in the Presidential election?”
This subject has been going around all week, and I have waited until now to address my feelings on the matter.
The CEO of Chick-fil-A stated his Christian beliefs in an interview that he believed in the traditional marriage definition. Now, not only the media, but certain politicians have charged that the company itself it against gay people and gay marriage. Of course, this is all politics and convenient, incorrect interpretation by a liberal media.
There is nothing wrong with preferring marriage to be between a man and a woman. There is nothing unusual about this, at all. Just because I don’t always agree with this traditional definition doesn’t mean that I do not respect those with whom I disagree.
What we have seen is a complete lack of understanding of our First Amendment right of free speech from the Mayors of Chicago and Boston. Maybe we should expect this because both are politicians, and they are in the business of buying votes. The irony is that the Boston mayor says he will oppose Chick-fil-A’s expansion in Boston when he has no right or duty to do so. If Chick-fil-A goes to court, the mayor will be defeated in a battle costly to the City of Boston.
Boston and Chicago have picked lose-lose positions. They come across as anti-democracy, and anti-freedom. Both cities are run by crooked political machines.
In my opinion the argument about gay marriage is silly. Some people will tell you that a civil union is OK for homosexuals, but marriage is out of the question. Who are they kidding? A civil union, by any other name, is a marriage. Most unions are marriages, including just living together. Just ask some of those Hollywood live-in actresses if they can convince a court that living-in is a marriage. Of course it is.
You can argue that God doesn’t define marriage that way. With the risk of offending our Maker, I don’t believe God sees any difference between a civil union, a marriage, or a live-in lover. It all comes down to the same thing.
Legally, there are many differences, but people wrote the laws, and people can change them. The morality was decided a long time ago, and all we have done is legalize immorality.
If there is any threat to the institution of marriage, we have already put it in place by accepting live-ins, civil unions, and anything that allows people to cohabit without assuming responsibility.
As I have said many times, marriage as an institution is threatened by married people who do not keep vows, and do not stay married. Homosexual marriages would be such a small number that its effect on the institution would be negligible. Plus, many of them will not be contributing to the gene pool.
There is no reason to castigate Chick-fil-A because its chairman has certain beliefs. The ravings we have heard are silly, and not well thought out. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage that is not already going on, either in civil unions, or as live-in lovers.
Things are getting heated out there, folks. You cannot have a conversation about anything resembling politics, anymore. Everything you hold dear has been polluted in some way, down to the point that your viewpoint is bastardized into a single word or sound-bite.
Think about those inadequate terms, pro-choice and right-to-life. These terms have trivialized the debate, and that was done to limit the discussion to the liberal’s advantage. In my opinion you cannot be an absolutist on either side of the abortion debate.
Similarly, economics takes a hit from socialists describing capitalism as corporatism, or as some sort of greed machine that is totally insensitive to individuals. None of these are true, of course. All of man’s endeavors, I believe, are built on greed. But, wait!
Greed is defined as an excessive desire for wealth or possessions.
How do you define excessive? If you are a critical person, you will stay away from restrictive definitions. All of this stuff will be different from person to person. That’s where advocacy groups try to confuse you.
We are so involved in social and economic issues that we get hooked into the sound-bite world. Once you let yourself get into the sound-bite world, you are compromised, and have no freedom to debate. You will have let someone else define your position.
We have got to stop penalizing our debates with black and white, go/no-go positions. The real world is rarely that way.
With that in mind, I will step up to the plate and give you my conservative position on some of the critical issues of the day.
1. Abortion – Abortion by its definition is the ending of a life. Period. We all understand that sometimes abortions will be necessary, but I believe that a woman who depends on abortions to underpin a promiscuous sex life is just an unforgivable murderer. Nobody can choose freely what to do with themselves. If you do drugs, you will be jailed. If you unsuccessfully try to commit suicide, you will be institutionalized for your own protection. The term, pro-choice, is empty of meaning.
2. Gay marriage – This is one of those things where, as a conservative, I do not understand the prevalent conservative view. Who cares of a couple of men marry? Why would anybody care if lesbians marry? Gay people are no threat to the institution of marriage. They are not even in the gene pool, and constitute such a small proportion of the world’s population that any sociological effects will be trivial!
Married people are the biggest threat to marriage. If we can get married people to stay married, the institution of marriage would not be in trouble. Any challenge to the institution of marriage is not by gay people,but by liberal ideologies that minimize the social importance of the institution. These ideas are promulgated by the same people who believe the only difference between men and women is attributed to environmental conditions, i.e., how people are raised.
I think people who make a major issue of gay marriage have something else as their agenda, and that is anti-gay people in general. The gay marriage issue is just a smoke screen for a more sinister attitude about gays.
People are so sensitive about homosexuality, they will many times not discuss it, at all, if they disagree with you. I suppose this is one of those issues that genuinely scare people.
3. Prayer in school – As a Christian and political conservative, I am against organized prayer in public schools. I know this is not what mainstream conservatives advocate, but it took about five seconds (thirty years ago) for me to realize that if we allow this to happen, somebody we don’t know, and probably don’t respect, will be teaching our children how to pray. This is so obvious that I cannot believe thinking people would advocate organized prayer in a public setting.
Even having a quite period for prayer is not necessary. If you want to pray, do it on your own time and don’t make a spectacle out of it. That is what we as Christians are taught.
4. Stem cell research – There is no inherent moral problem with stem cell research. The problem comes from using stem cells from embryos whose purpose was to bring life into this world. When you destroy an embryo, you destroy a potential person. Notice my use of the word, potential. I don’t know when an embryo becomes a person, but we do know embryos were alive at some point. George W Bush was right.
However, he did not cut off government spending for embryonic stem cell research. He approved such spending, as it had not been done before. The liberals’ problem was that President Bush didn’t approve all embryonic research. Instead, he did the right thing.
Now, we get into weird. Are frozen embryos alive or dead? They must be alive, somehow, because they can become people. So, how do we take into account that a frozen embryo is alive, but not yet a person. If an embryo is not a person, is it a human? Until I can figure out all this stuff, I say, “Hands off the embryos!”.
There are undoubtedly other positions I can talk about. Remember, I really am a conservative, but I take my conservatism with a dose of critical thinking. How do you see these things?