When asked whether they’d cater a same-sex “wedding”, the father-daughter duo who own and operate the small pizza joint said that though they serve anyone who walks in their door, they’d have to decline to actually participate (by catering and actually being there) in such an event due to their Christian religious tenets.
Needless to say, the LGBT community and their lefty supporters immediately launched into frenzied hair-on-fire mode.
In all the hoopla that’s been published since, there’s one key point I’ve curiously never seen mentioned.
If you’ll recall, when the Proposition 8 controversy was swirling here in Loonyfornia, the one thing we were constantly told was that the authorizing of same-sex “marriages” wasn’t going to affect anyone else, outside of giving “loving couples” of the same sex the ability to have “marriage” ceremonies. If you weren’t gay yourself, there was no way it was going to affect you in any way.
It sure didn’t take long for that lie to be exposed, did it?
The reality is that businesses have all kinds of rules, which are normally just taken for granted. There are dress codes, for example. The most common: “No shirt, No shoes, No service”. We’ve all seen that one. Some restaurants require men to wear ties or business attire, or have other requirements as to the minimum acceptable standard of dress, such as banning blue jeans, tank tops, shorts and/or flip-flops. Isn’t that “discrimination” against people who can’t afford better clothes?
What about those nudist fanatics in San Francisco and Portland, Oregon who insist they have a “right” to ingloriously flaunt their sagging skin in all its infamous glory whenever and wherever they want? Aren’t their “rights” being violated?
Further, these cases – Memories Pizza as well as photographers and other service providers suffering the same persecution – are based on the outrageous and repugnant idea that just because one makes their service available means that somehow their provision of that service becomes mandatory regardless of the provider’s own wishes in the matter as to their participation. Isn’t that actually a form of slavery?
Let’s take a couple of hypotheticals to illustrate. Let’s say I’m a caterer who’s also a member of AA. A potential customer wants me to cater a bachelor party and he makes it clear that it’s going to be a drunkathon with everybody getting wasted out of their minds. That’s absolutely the worst environment for an alcoholic to find themselves in. But I can’t turn that gig down, even though my own health is endangered by my participation?
Or I’m a photographer, and potential clients want me to take the pics at their next weekend orgy. I don’t have the option to refuse?
These are all perfectly legal activities, so does that make my participation mandatory, even though in one case my physical and mental health is endangered, and in the other my morality is violated?
Though these may sound like extreme and fairly preposterous scenarios, they actually accurately represent the real issue in play in these “gay rights” cases. Just because the reason in the actual cases is based on religion doesn’t make it any less valid.
We really have entered the era of the gaystapo, and it’s time it comes to a screeching halt.
©Brian Baker 2015