Since We’re All About Equality, Here…

So according to a number of lawsuits working their way through the system right now, it’s OK to force bakers, florists, photographers and other such “creative” vendors who happen to be fundamentalist Christians to serve same-sex customers, on pain of being sued back to the stone age.

Very well.  By the same token…:

  • A Jewish tattoo artist has no legal right to object to giving, say, a Nazi tattoo.
  • A Native American baker had best not be making a fuss about making a cake with a Washington Redskins theme.
  • A black photographer has no legal business objecting to doing glamour shots for Confederate re-enactors.

Remember; no hate!

(OK, I cribbed the idea from Amy Alkon)

34 thoughts on “Since We’re All About Equality, Here…

  1. I saw the story about the baker who is now required by law to make a cake for a gay couple. Pardon the pun, but prepare to see a lot of these “up yours” lawsuits against providers who happen to have a conviction guided by faith that homosexuality is a sin or wrong. Apparently it never occurs to someone not to patronize a business that doesn’t share your values. The baker was in a large metropolitan area, so it wasn’t as if the gay couple didn’t have other options.
    Not to long ago it was crazy talk to suggest a Kosher deli might be required by law to serve ham and other pork products over the deli owners religious convictions just because a customer who doesn’t share their faith requested it.

  2. So now the only option of the photographer, is to not have “film” in the camera, leaving the couple without pictures? The photographer can waste his/her time, and the happy couple can have no pictures. Refund money paid.

    The baker can forget the leavening, or swap the salt for sugar (mistakes happen, see Cupcake Wars ™) The baker can waste his/her time, and the happy couple can have no cake. Refund money paid.

    So much easier to work with someone who wants the business, than someone who does not.

  3. A friend is divorced. He wanted to marry a divorced woman. Neither wanted a big deal wedding so I ordered minister’s credentials on-line and registered them with the county. I’m legally empowered to perform weddings in Minnesota. It was a lovely ceremony.

    But I don’t want to do gay weddings. I wrote the county to ask how I become un-registered, how to give up my power so I can’t be forced to do it. There’s no procedure. No backs. Once a minister, always a minister.

    Just waiting for the process server to arrive. Any day now.

  4. Well Loren, unless you are a “thoughtful” or “strategic” Vikings fan, player, coach or manager; or a radio ‘personality’ on one of the Twin Cities too many to count Sports Talk formatted stations, you don’t generally make or hope for a half-assed effort.
    Jesse Jackson might have expectorated on the sandwiches served to whitey back in the day, but I would like to think that most people are better than that. Just bake the cake or arrange the flowers. After the activists realize they can’t get any money or a rise out of you – you’ll go back to business as usual.

  5. Just curious, is there any way government can force these businesses to actually do a good job? Or charge the same price as they would otherwise? Seems like a simple solution to say, “regular wedding cakes $80.00. For you, $350.” Or, “I’ll make you a cake, but you won’t be able to eat it.” Better still, don’t tell them! They need to learn that law can only do so much, and cannot command “right thinking” as they want it defined.

  6. If a person was cynical enough, he or she would believe that this was all part of a plan to remove everything from the public square that was not controlled by the State.

  7. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 12.10.13 : The Other McCain

  8. The baker should do an extra or ‘grooms’ cake free of charge. It should resemble a baker with a boot on his neck and a gavel stuck in the back of his head… “thinking of how you made me make these cakes for you for your special day”…

  9. Ha ha. But you miss the point. The Jewish tatoo artist CAN legally refuse to give a Nazi tatoo, and the Indian baker to bake a “redskins” cake, and a black photographer from photographing a Confederate reenactment — there’s no law prohibiting a business from discriminating on the basis of politics, taste, or general ickyness. The law prohibits discrimination in public accommodation (which is what we’re talking about) because of race, color, creed, religion, disability, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, or disability. So the photographer and artist who are open for business to the public can’t discriminate against married people even if you don’t like their marriage, just like the tatoo artist can’t legally refuse to give a tatoo to a Christian because she’s a Christian, or the baker refuse to bake a cake for a non-Indian because he’s not an Indian, or the photographer from refusing to take pictures of white people.

  10. The textbook definition of totalitarianism is the introduction of the state and its goals into every facet of human existence. Orwell illustrated this very well in Nineteen Eighty-Four. The crime at the foundation of Winston’s and Julia’s sedition was their love for one another. It represented a human relation that existed outside of the relationship between their relationship to the state. No matter how harmless and natural, it represented a threat to the totalitarianism of Big Brother and it had to be crushed.

  11. What is the scientific basis of “sexual orientation”, drkensalerno?
    It seems likely that we are arbitrarily creating protected classes of people.
    Personally, I like to drill down on the term ‘sexual orientation’ because it is, I believe, based on a behavior.

  12. I agree with you, PM.

    I liken this to a no shirt, no shoes, no service type of issue. A business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If GLBT people offend said owner, they should not be forced by the nanny state to serve them.

    In most real estate deals, a property is being offered to the public for sale, yet the seller decides who he/she sells that property to. How much discrimination do you think goes on there?

  13. OK, first of all, you will not find an observant Jew working as a tattoo artist. It’s prohibited in the Torah, which is part of the ritual humiliation for Jews going into death camps, no?

    That said, I’d have to suggest that the bakers might do well to say “we can and will bake you a cake, but we will not put two mens’ names on a wedding cake. Nor will we put a centerpiece featuring a groom and a groom. To require us to do this is like demanding a Jewish jeweler to make a swastika brooch.”

    Come to think of it, there actually WAS a family that sued a bakery in Pennsylvania because they wouldn’t put their son’s name–Adolf Hitler Campbell–on his birthday cake.

  14. “Dr. Salerno”:

    I’m not seeing how a photographer is a “public accomodation” when shooting a gay wedding, but not when shooting a Confederate re-enactor.

  15. The photographer is a public accommodation in both instances. It’s the reason for his discrimination that matters. Discrimination because of the customer’s marital status or sexual orientation (or race, sex, etc.) is illegal. Discrimination for any other reason — including politics — is not.

  16. Still waiting for drkensalerno to explain why “sexual arientation” is a protected category. A pretty strong argument can be made that extending trust to people who are most like you has a biological origin, yet “racial orientation” is not a protected category. Unless you are not a caucasion.

  17. Just to stir things up, here is how the APA answers the question “What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?”

    There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

    The last clause of the last second should have been left out. It does not address the question “What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?” It talks about subjective experience. The phrase “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their biological sex”, or “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their race” are meaningless.

  18. “The last clause of the last second should have been left out” should be “The last clause of the last sentence should have been left out”

  19. If we’re talking about existing law, I think drkensalerno has the better end of the stick in this discussion. People who do business with the public are covered by anti-discrimination law (example, Minnesota Human Rights Act at Chapter 363A.11) and classified as a Public Accommodation. It’s illegal for Public Accommodations to discriminate against people if they do it for any of nine factors (race, creed, color, etc) one of which is “sexual orientation.” Under that law, a baker who offers services to the public is a Public Accommodation and she cannot discriminate against gays.

    If we’re talking about what law Ought To Be, that’s a whole different story.

  20. Joe Doakes, I present existing law:

    “The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed…nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted…but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state…” (Article I, Section 16)

    “Whoever, by threats or violence, intentionally prevents another person from performing any lawful act enjoined upon or recommended to the person by the religion which the person professes is guilty of a misdemeanor.” (Minnesota Statutes 609.28 sub. 1, Interfering with religious observance)

    Cross complaint.

  21. Huh.

    So when all the gay marriage advocates said that the law wasn’t going to infringe anyone’s freedom of conscience, they really meant “the boot on your neck forever will be just FABuolous!”.


    I don’t so much care if gays get married. But freedom of association has pretty much been destroyed, and that’s just wrong.

  22. M. Berg wrote: “But freedom of association has pretty much been destroyed.”
    That is the purpose of the law, it is not an unintended consequence. This is why they whip up hatred for conservatives, you have no legitimate interests that need protection. If you object to a gay scout master taking your son on an over night camping trip, you are a hateful bigot, not a careful parent.

  23. Argue all you want about the causes of what the APA used to call “sexual orientation disorder,” but there is absolutely NOTHING in possessing any given sexual orientation that requires any particular sexual BEHAVIOR. Engaging in homosexual activity or seeking a marriage license to put a government seal of approval on such activity is, I would argue, NOT covered by discrimination law. If I walk in to buy a cake and I happen to be gay, it is unlikely the Baker would know, but even if you did he could not and should not discriminate. But if you go in and tell the Baker we want to celebrate our sexual behavior, it seems to me that’s a different kettle of fish.

    Of course, that is too fine a legal point to spend money fighting. The whole object of the game here is to force those who disagree to buckle under the weight of the cost of defending their rights. It would be far easier to ensure that the cake was as distasteful as the forced baking of it was.

  24. The lefties miss the point. Homosexuals aren’t being denied service. The providers don’t want to be forced to particapate in the act.

    Example: A black carpenter can’t refuse to sell wood to a white group. But he should be able to refuse an offer for him to build a cross, soak it with oil, then set it on fire at a white rally.

    NRO covered this the other day. The gov’t is trying to force you to particapate in activities that are against your religion. It is not about selling something from the display case in your storefront. Its about you being forced to provide a special service.

  25. J Ewing, I should have read your post first. You make the point well. It about the gov’t forcing you to particapate in an act.

  26. At the end of the day it’s still about Liberty lost. The state now is in everything and dictates behavior in everything. a far-far cry from the founders ideals.

    I’m afraid at some point a good many will have had enough and will rise up, things probably won’t go well after that occurs.

    “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson

  27. Scott Hughes wrote:
    “The state now is in everything and dictates behavior in everything. a far-far cry from the founders ideals.”
    This is called “progress”. Ironically, it’s the same ol’ style of government that existed everywhere in the world before the American Revolution — the spirit of the people is embodied in the State, and the actions of the State are the actions of the people.

  28. LearnedFoot wrote:

    > Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. U.S.
    > Cross complaint dismissed.

    Atlanta Motel was brought under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II. Aside from the lack of nexus with the commerce power of the US Congress, Minnesota affords a greater level of protection for religious freedom in both the state constitution and the statutes.

    Cross complaint was vacated in error and is hereby reinstated. It is so ordered.

  29. “Atlanta Motel was brought under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964”
    Now I know yur lyin’, Nachman. We don’t let people vote on civil rights in America!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.