Writing for townhall.com, Christian apologist Frank Turek asks, “Can Bruce Springsteen Refuse to Play a Gay Wedding?”
I agree with Bruce Springsteen who cancelled his concert in my adopted home state of North Carolina because he objected to HB2 (the bathroom law). I also agree with Paypal, which cancelled their plans to expand in Charlotte because they think the law is “discriminatory.” Why? Because I believe that performers and businesses have every right not to do business with whom they disagree. In other words, they have the right to discriminate against the people of North Carolina.
But if liberals can deny services to people with whom they disagree, then why can’t conservatives?
And while we’re at it, why can’t you peel an apple the same way you peel an orange? Life is just so darn unfair!
The point Turek is missing (or possibly trying to obscure) is that conservatives can and do exercise exactly the same rights as Springsteen and PayPal did. Conservatives exercise the same rights every time they boycott gay-friendly businesses. Springsteen is a performer, not a service provider. He doesn’t put out fliers that say, “Please hire me to come sing at your child’s birthday party.” He schedules concerts at different parts of the country, and sells tickets to the public to come see the concert. His choice of where to schedule those concerts is up to him. As far as North Carolina is concerned, he’s the customer, not the business owner. He can decide whose venues he wants to rent, and whose he doesn’t.
Now, if Springsteen were to decide to discriminate against his customers—the people who buy tickets—then that would be a different story. If he said, “I’m putting on a concert next Tuesday, but Christians (or Jews, or blacks, or whatever) aren’t allowed to buy tickets,” then he would be guilty of discriminating, and would be subject to prosecution, just like a baker who refused to sell to gays.
What Turek fails to understand is the difference between a business owner who offers goods and services to the general public, and a customer who chooses where to shop. When PayPal is shopping for real estate, they’re the customer, and the customer has the right to choose where to shop, be they liberal, conservative, Muslim, gay, transgendered, Pastafarian, or whatever. Liberals have that right, and conservatives have that right as well. But if they choose a business that doesn’t want to deal with “their kind,” and refuses them service, then the business is guilty of discrimination.
This isn’t a terribly difficult concept to grasp, but I don’t think Turek really cares. And as with so many conservatives, he’s also unclear on the difference between being charged with a crime, and merely being criticized.
When Bruce Springsteen refuses to do a concert in North Carolina for moral reasons he’s a hero to the liberals and the media, which are the same thing. (Imagine what would have happened to Bruce if he had refused to perform at a gay wedding? He’d go from hero to zero.) Yet, when a conservative band, florist, or photographer refuses to work at a gay wedding for moral or religious reasons, the left and the media bully those folks mercilessly as intolerant bigots. And they do so while claiming to be against bullying and for “tolerance”! (As Ryan Anderson pointed out, if it wasn’t for double standards, liberals would have no standards.)
Ah yes, that old “double standard” of saying that it’s as wrong to discriminate against gays as it would be to discriminate against Christians. It seems Turek is not too skilled at counting as high as “two.” Should a band, or a florist, or a photographer be free to refuse to work at a Christian wedding just because the couple is Christian? How about an apartment complex refusing to rent to Christians, or employers refusing to hire Christians? Liberals are saying the same standard applies to everyone, Christians, gays, trans men and women—everyone. “Double standard” is the term for what conservatives are doing—claiming that no one should be allowed to criticize them for the way they criticize and discriminate against others.
In America, a gay T-shirt maker should not be forced to print up anti-gay marriage T-shirts. And a Christian or Muslim photographer should not be forced to photograph a gay wedding. If Bruce has the right to deny service, so does everyone.
Except Bruce isn’t a singer-for-hire. He’s not offering a service to the general public, and so he can’t deny that service to anyone. The photographer is offering a service to a general public, and so is legally obligated not to discriminate, even if they disagree with the opinions or personal qualities of their customer. It’s no different than if an atheist taxi driver refused to allow Christian passengers in their cab. If you’re offering a service for hire to the general public, then discrimination by Christians or against Christians, by gays or against gays, or whatever, is a violation of someone’s civil rights, and is rightly subject to legal penalties.
At this point, Turek descends from mere poor-me whining to outright dishonesty.
Of course HB2 has nothing to do with denying services to anyone. It is about public heath and safety.
Bullshit. By my count, the number of women who have been assaulted by trans women in public restrooms is zero. HB2 requires trans women to use the men’s rest room, and requires trans men to use the women’s rest room. This does not make anyone safer, and in fact, by setting a precedent for men using the women’s room, this bill makes it arguably easier for potential rapists and voyeurs to get access, since they wouldn’t have to disguise themselves as women. Trans men look no different than cis men.
And that sneaky little innuendo about “public health” is sheer bigotry. You don’t catch transexuality off a toilet seat for crying out loud!
There are 21,054 convicted sex offenders in North Carolina—one of them was a leader in getting the Charlotte ordinance to pass, which created the need for HB2 in the first place (a fact conveniently ignored by the mainstream media). Is it bigotry to protect women and children from these people? No, it’s loving and right.
Frank, if you’re really worried about giving sex offenders access to public rest rooms, then why pass a law that targets transgendered people—who are not sex offenders—instead of targeting the actual offenders you claim to be worried about? Could you possibly be any more transparently hypocritical and dishonest?
Turek’s rhetorical diarrhea continues for several more paragraphs, whining about the Human Rights Campaign advocating for equal rights for LGBT people as though this was a terrible thing, and then hypocritically arguing that he thinks discrimination against Christians ought to be ok even as he complains about how unfair it all is. And so on. But I think by now you’ve got the general idea.
Feh.
OK so objecting to a law is also not the same thing as doing business with people you disagree with. This guy starts out with the law then pivots to business transactions. Kim Davis was a conservative hero. Remember? Besides, Springsteen is bringing a whole crew with him, it’s not just one guy. Laws like these could affect his colleagues. What do these apologists expect when the law starts doing a deep dive into people’s panties? This is where they’re taking their deeply held beliefs? Underwear?
Huh? Springsteen is providing a service – his music and the venue get paid for his use of their facilities. Springsteen himself said he refused to play in NC on moral grounds. A baker or photographer is not refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual or photograph a homosexual anymore than Springsteen is refusing to perform to Christians, Communists, Asians, or Italians. The baker and photographer had provided their service many times for homosexuals and had no problem continuing to do so. However, on moral grounds they didn’t want to provide a service for an event that they morally opposed – a same sex marriage. Just like Springsteen did not want to participate in an event at a place he morally opposed (Although, ironically . . . he has no problem performing in Italy, which does not recognize unions with same sex couples. He also operates under the Sony label, who does business in countries where you can be jailed, or even killed for being gay. Is Bruce going to drop Sony or not perform in Italy as part of his moral grandstanding? But I digress — the topic of celebrity hypocrisy is a topic for another day).
This is simply an example of the left being for free choice as long as someone chooses what they would choose. It’s funny really. I respect Springsteen’s decision, as a respect the decision of the baker and the photographer. Very few stand up and do what they think is right anymore and allow their conscience to be their guide, even if it might affect them financially (and not sure the risk was quite as high for Springsteen in that regards). Both examples give Americans the right to not support that which they do not agree with. Neither the baker, photographer, nor Springsteen should be forced to do that which they believe violates their moral conscience. Can’t we allow for all these forms of expression? Why would we want it any other way?
Sorry, but you’ve gotten your facts a bit confused, and it cripples your argument. Yes, the venue does get paid—by Springstein’s production company. Springstein is the customer in this case, and the venue is the service provider. He is free to hire their service if he chooses, or to decline if he chooses.
Now (as I pointed out in my post), if he chooses to give a concert, then he is providing a service, and if he were to say, “I will sell tickets to Jews, Muslims, and atheists, but not to Christians,” then that would be discrimination, and you would have legitimate grounds for accusing him of hypocrisy. But what’s more important is that he would also be guilty of violating the civil rights of Christians, just as the baker and photographer do when they refuse to perform the same services for gays as they do for heteros. And let’s be clear here: the gays are not asking for anything more than what the baker and photographer gladly supply to hetero couples. All they want is the same level and quality of service as any other couple would receive.
The problem with justifying discrimination on “moral conscience” grounds is that it privileges personal opinions above human rights. And that’s wrong. Human rights have to come first, otherwise what do you say when Al Qaeda informs you that jihad is required by their moral conscience? You have to draw the line somewhere, and the correct place to draw the line is the point at which one person’s moral conscience infringes on the civil rights and human rights of others.
That’s what’s at stake here, and that’s why Springsteen is on the right side of the issue when it comes to boycotting North Carolina. We need to protect the religious freedom of atheists, Jews, Christians and Muslims, but we also need to make sure everyone understands that religion does not give you a license to do harm to anyone else, no matter what your conscience might tell you. Depriving people of equal status and equal rights is tangible harm, and if you want to enjoy the full benefits of society, you need to practice your beliefs in a way that respects the rights of others.
“Yes, the venue does get paid—by Springstein’s production company. Springstein is the customer in this case, and the venue is the service provider. He is free to hire their service if he chooses, or to decline if he chooses.”
Uuum . . . kind of odd to not agree Springsteen is providing a service – his music. And he knows he pretty much controls that service and has the power to discern when and why he provides it. Exactly in the same way a baker or photographer has something other people want to purchase.
And yes, if he chose to sell tickets to Asians and Caucasians but not Hispanics, then that would be discrimination. If he chose to not sell tickets to Germans, I would say that is discrimination, however if he chose to not perform at a Nazi convention, I would consider it his moral right to do so. You might claim that would be violating the civil rights of Nazis to expect him to provide them with the same service he provides others, but what about Springsteen’s civil rights to not support a cause he morally opposes? That is and should be the issue.
“the baker and photographer do when they refuse to perform the same services for gays as they do for heteros.”
You don’t seem to read very well. I already explained the baker and photographer would and did provide their service for homosexuals. What they didn’t want to do was provide their service at a same sex wedding because it is something they morally oppose. The photographer would have gladly taken a picture of a homosexual and the baker would have gladly made a birthday cake for a homosexual.
“And let’s be clear here: the gays are not asking for anything more than what the baker and photographer gladly supply to hetero couples”
But NC was not asking for anything more than what Springsteen gladly would supply to other states. Were they demanding something different from him then he usually provides?
“The problem with justifying discrimination on “moral conscience” grounds is that it privileges personal opinions above human rights. And that’s wrong.”
You mean it privileges personal opinions above other personal opinions. Quite a conundrum. I agree it isn’t a perfect system, but there has to be and are exceptions. It may currently be a legal human right to have an abortion in this country, but no doctor should be forced to perform one for you.
“ Human rights have to come first”
No. See above. Also, we may have a little different opinion regarding what constitutes a human right. Are wedding cakes, photographs, and concert seats human rights?
“otherwise what do you say when Al Qaeda informs you that jihad is required by their moral conscience?”
Really? Comparing a baker who refuses to bake a cake to Al Qaeda?
“You have to draw the line somewhere, and the correct place to draw the line is the point at which one person’s moral conscience infringes on the civil rights and human rights of others.”
Exactly my point and what I’ve been trying to say. You have to draw the line somewhere. And the correct place is to not allow one person’s civil rights to infringe upon another’s civil rights, especially if there are simple, peaceable ways around it – like simply finding another bakery, photographer, or missing a concert. We all ought to be awarded the right to peaceably follow our conscience. You just only agree with that noble act when someone else’s conscience agrees with yours. It doesn’t work that way.
“That’s what’s at stake here, and that’s why Springsteen is on the right side of the issue when it comes to boycotting North Carolina. We need to protect the religious freedom of atheists, Jews, Christians and Muslims, but we also need to make sure everyone understands that religion does not give you a license to do harm to anyone else, no matter what your conscience might tell you. Depriving people of equal status and equal rights is tangible harm, and if you want to enjoy the full benefits of society, you need to practice your beliefs in a way that respects the rights of others.”
I couldn’t have said that better myself and like I said from the get go – I support Springsteen and his actions. Not sure why you have such difficulty supporting the very philosophy you espouse.
You’re still missing the important point here. Springsteen is not a “singer for hire.” He (and his production company) put on shows, when and where they choose, and sell tickets to see the performance. The only service they offer is selling access to the show, if and when they decide to put one on. They’re not hiring out and saying “Dial 1-800-SPRINGSTEEN and Bruce will come sing for YOU!” The concert he canceled was a project he and his company voluntarily engaged in. The state of North Carolina did not contract with him and say, “Hey, we’d like you to come to our state and do a concert, and here’s the list of songs you’re going to perform, and here’s how much money we’ll pay you in return.” The decision to produce a concert in North Carolina was a project undertaken by his production company, on their own initiative, and it was entirely within their right to change their minds and decide not to do it.
Now, let’s say the situation was different, and he decided that in his own home town he was going to offer singing services to the general public. Dial 1-800-SPRINGSTEEN, and Bruce will come sing at your wedding, your Bar Mitzvah, your birthday party, your funeral, whatever. Only suppose he wasn’t going to sing for any black people. He’d never make a stipulation like that, of course, but suppose he did. At that point he’d be breaking the law, as well as violating the civil rights of blacks. He’d be denying them the same level of service he freely offered to anybody else, and that would be discrimination.
The thing is, though, that would be a different situation, because it would be a different kind of service than what he’s currently doing. Not to mention a completely different business model. In the business he’s actually in, nobody is hiring him to perform a service. He is undertaking, on his own initiative, the production of a concert, to which he will sell tickets, and from which he will receive the profits. If nobody buys any tickets, he can’t sue anybody for breach of contract, or failure to pay for services rendered, because nobody promised to pay him to come sing. That’s an entirely different kind of business from someone like a baker or a photographer whose services are commissioned by the customer. If you contract with a baker or photographer to perform a service for you, and then refuse to pay them, you’re at fault because they’re a work-for-hire operation, and you failed to uphold your end of the contract.
You might want to be more careful about drawing people’s attention to the subject of reading comprehension, at least until after you go back and re-read what I wrote. The problem is not that the bigots in this case aren’t bragging that they’ll do some things for gays (in much the same vein as racists love to declare that they have some black friends and even let them use their bathrooms). The problem is that they are perfectly happy photographing weddings for other people, or baking wedding cakes for other people. Just not for gays. They are denying gays services that they cheerfully supply to non-gays. That is where the discrimination is happening. You don’t get to shoot someone in the arm, and then say, “Hey, look, I didn’t shoot you in your other arm, and I didn’t shoot you in either of your legs, so I think I deserve credit as a non-violent person!” As admirable as it may be that these folks are generously refraining from some forms of discrimination against gays, it does not change the fact that in the areas where they do refuse equal service to gays, they are still guilty of civil rights violations.
Once again, you are simply in error. The state of North Carolina did not ask Springsteen for anything at all. He was planning this concert on his own initiative, and was not under contract to the the state.
No sir, I do not. Again, read what I wrote. I think I expressed myself fairly clearly. You are entitled to whatever subjective personal beliefs you hold dear, even if they are bigoted, ignorant, superstitious, or hateful. That is your right as a free citizen, but the limit to your right is that your freedom of belief does not give you any license to do harm to others, even if you think them inferior or immoral or sinful or whatever. That is a necessary limit in order to protect the liberties of all citizens from the harm that would otherwise befall unpopular minorities.
No, just giving an example that shows more clearly why human rights need to take precedence over “moral conscience” when it comes to how we actually treat one another. If you’re going to claim that moral conscience takes precedence over the rights of others, then Al Qaeda is merely different in degree, not in kind.
No, I’m sorry, but you are missing the point once again. Denying people equal standing under the law is the infringement. You can’t say, “Oh, there’s an easy work-around, just marry someone of the same sex instead,” or “Just shop at a different store,” or “Just go live somewhere else, like in that ghetto over there,” or “Just go sit in the back of the bus.” You can believe whatever religious beliefs you want, but when it comes to how you deal with other people, you’re not allowed to make them into second-class citizens who aren’t entitled to the same benefits and services as everyone else. Doing so is an infringement of their civil rights.
See what I mean about reading comprehension? I’m not having any problem at all supporting it, even when you try and make it sound otherwise. It’s really not a difficult principle to support or to apply. If you cheerfully bake wedding cakes for heteros, then bake them for gays too. If you gladly photograph hetero weddings, photograph gay weddings too. If you choose to follow a religion that says gays are sinful, then that’s your right, up to but not one iota beyond the point where your beliefs cause you to behave in such a way as to infringe the civil rights of those around you.
These are the restrictions we all have to live by, and it’s not a violation of anyone’s civil rights to insist that they must respect the rights of others. If your religion or other subjective personal opinions make that hard for you, well, sorry, but that’s just life.
Hi RR, I hope you don’t mind, but given the length of your reply I thought it might save time and space to reply in-line. — DD
“You’re still missing the important point here. Springsteen is not a “singer for hire.””
Really? That’s the point? And here I thought the point was no American should be forced to perform/serve at something they morally oppose, even if doing so might offend someone else’s sensibilities.
First of all, you’ll notice that I did specifically state that I was talking about the important point that you keep missing, rather than about some other point. And yes, indeed, you do continue to miss that point.
Secondly, nobody is being forced to perform/serve at something they morally oppose. They’re merely being required to be non-discriminatory in how they provide the goods and services that they clearly do not morally oppose, since they freely and voluntarily offer them to others.
“At that point he’d be breaking the law, as well as violating the civil rights of blacks. He’d be denying them the same level of service he freely offered to anybody else, and that would be discrimination”
Again, not an equivalent analogy at all. Yes, if he refused to sell tickets to black people, he would be guilty of discrimination. But if he refused to perform at a KKK convention – he ought to have the moral right to do so.
He does have the right to decide where he will or will not perform, as long as he does not discriminate when making tickets available to those who wish to attend. To use your terminology, each concert is a “service” which he provides, just as custom cake decorations are a service the baker chooses to provide, and just like wedding photography is a service the photographer chooses to provide. In each case the individual is free to decide whether they are going to offer that service to everybody, or not offer it to anybody. It’s their choice. The only thing they’re not allowed to do is offer their service in a discriminatory way. The baker and the photographer were taken to court because they chose to try and discriminate in who they allowed to make use of the services they freely offered. That’s an infringement of the civil rights of the people they were discriminating against, just as Springsteen would be discriminating if he refused to allow blacks or Jews or whoever to buy tickets while offering them to everyone else without restriction.
“The problem is not that the bigots in this case aren’t bragging that they’ll do some things for gays (in much the same vein as racists love to declare that they have some black friends and even let them use their bathrooms). The problem is that they are perfectly happy photographing weddings for other people, or baking wedding cakes for other people. Just not for gays.”
Again, a completely false analogy. If I am a photographer and don’t want to take pictures of your cock fight, or your abortion — it is not discrimination. Or if it is, then I ought to have that right to make such a discrimination and should not be forced to do so.
The reason it’s not discrimination is because you don’t want to photograph anybody’s cock fight or abortion. But again, if you say, “I will gladly photograph your abortion unless you are a lesbian,” then that’s discrimination—you are offering a service to some people, but are discriminating against lesbians. If you have a service that you do not want to perform, and you do not perform it for anybody, then you are not guilty of discrimination. You have all of the freedom that anyone could ask for in that regard. The civil rights violation occurs when you have two groups of people: those to whom you freely offer your services, and those to whom you refuse to offer those same services.
“They are denying gays services that they cheerfully supply to non-gays.”
Sure, just like if I were a photographer and didn’t want to photograph your abortion, but would cheerfully photograph someone’s birth.
Wow, you have to be the first person I’ve ever encountered that thought an abortion was the same thing as a birth. They’re not. That’s why offering an abortion-based service is a different thing from offering a birth-based service.
“ That is where the discrimination is happening. You don’t get to shoot someone in the arm, and then say, “Hey, look, I didn’t shoot you in your other arm, and I didn’t shoot you in either of your legs, so what are you complaining about?””
Except no one is shooting anyone. If that is the analogy you want to use then it has to work both ways and forcing a holocaust victim to film a Nazi convention would be “shooting them in the arm” and our country ought to be better than that.
Let’s first of all be clear that if we’re talking about a videographer who earns his or her living by filming conventions, it would indeed be discrimination for the videographer to refuse to film Nazi conventions. But that’s not all there is to the story. In this particular case we should give human rights priority over civil rights, just as civil rights must take priority over personal religious beliefs. If you have been one of the few who survived murderous atrocities at the hands of some particular group, you can be excused from being required to do business with them against your will. That’s a human rights issue. But any such cases would have to be the exception rather than the rule, and probably ought to require the consent of a judge and/or jury, because otherwise everybody would claim their own personal beliefs justified violating the rights of whoever they happened to hate.
“ As admirable as it may be that these folks are generously refraining from some forms of discrimination against gays”
Everyone doesn’t have to agree/support/serve/perform at everything you think is worthy/good and worth celebration. Why insist they do? Why even want them too?
I don’t. All I want is for everybody to abide by the same standards of non-discrimination and non-infringement on the rights of others. I don’t insist that any baker must necessarily offer custom wedding cakes, I merely insist that if they do choose to offer such cakes, they do so in a non-discriminatory way that respects everybody’s civil rights.
“You are entitled to whatever subjective personal beliefs you hold dear, even if they are bigoted, ignorant, superstitious, or hateful. That is your right as a free citizen, but the limit to your right is that your freedom of belief does not give you any license to do harm to others, even if you think them inferior or immoral or sinful or whatever. That is a necessary limit in order to protect the liberties of all citizens from the harm that would otherwise befall unpopular minorities.”
Once again, I full-heartedly agree. It should be my right as a citizen to not perform/serve at your same sex wedding, even if you think it is moral or good. It is your right to hold the beliefs you do, but don’t trample on my rights and liberties to not play a role in that which I find immoral.
I do not. If you do not wish to serve at weddings, then don’t serve at weddings. And if you do wish to serve at weddings, then do so in a way that respects the civil rights of others, just as you desire respect for your own civil rights. You do not have a right to infringe on the civil rights of others, and therefore your rights are not being trampled whenever you are required to respect the rights of others. If that means you end up having to do business with people you object to, then remember there are likely people who object to you as well. Civil rights laws protect each of us, and we all ought to support them equally.
“If you’re going to claim that moral conscience takes precedence over the rights of others, then Al Qaeda is merely different in degree, not in kind.”
Hmmm . . . sounds a lot like a ‘slippery slope’ argument. “We can’t have bakers refusing to bake cakes because that would open the door to having to allow terrorists be terrorists.” Riiiiiight . . . .
It’s not a question of what “might” be someday. When people claim moral conscience as an excuse to infringe on the rights of others, it’s already an injustice. We don’t have to wait for it to become extreme some day (although such things often do), it’s wrong right now.
“No, I’m sorry, but you are missing the point once again. Denying people equal standing under the law is the infringement”
So, as a photographer I ought to be forced to photograph a swingers orgy? Or a cock fight, or the Man/Boy Love Association fundraiser? I think it is important to see what happens when an argument is allowed to be drawn out to its natural conclusion. Sorry, that position, IMO, is not acceptable
But again, it’s not discrimination unless you do cheerfully offer to photograph the orgies and cockfights of heterosexuals, and refuse to do so for gays. Discrimination is when you tell one group of people “I will perform this service for these people, but I will not perform it for those people.” Now, if you want to be excused from providing support for criminal activities like pedophilia, then that’s different, because criminal activities do not and should not enjoy civil liberties protection. But if you’re discriminating against law-abiding citizens who are merely different in some way that you hate, then I’m sorry but you still are violating their civil rights, and you deserve to suffer the consequences of your wrongdoing. You do not have any right to discriminate against others.
“. You can’t say, “Oh, there’s an easy work-around, just marry someone of the same sex instead,””
Another false analogy. No one is saying, “just marry someone of the same sex”.
LOL not any more, or at least not as much lately.
In fact, the photographer or baker is not really saying anything at all. They aren’t preventing anyone from doing whatever they like. They aren’t stopping or blocking or preventing the wedding in any way. They simply retain the right to not play a part in it. I’m sorry if that is offensive, but as I’m sure you can understand, we can’t really force people to do what we want them to do because our feelings have been hurt or we have been offended.
You don’t need to apologize for being offensive, and in fact what you are saying isn’t really even upsetting. It’s simply incomplete. What you say is true up to a point, but the point where it stops being true is when “freedom of conscience” becomes a pretext for violating someone else’s civil rights. That’s as much protection for conservatives as it is for gays and liberals. A free society depends on the fundamental principle that no one group has any right to violate the rights of others. And if any society does give one group the right to violate the rights of others, then it is not a free society. That’s why people in a free society must respect one another’s civil rights, even when they don’t feel like it. There’s no such thing as a right to discriminate, and therefore nobody’s rights are being infringed when everybody is required to respect everyone else’s civil rights.
“you’re not allowed to make them into second-class citizens”
I would feel like a second class citizen if I were forced to film your abortion.
Then don’t. As long as you treat all your customers equally, and either do or do not offer to film anyone’s abortion no matter who they are, you are free to do as you wish.
“If you cheerfully bake wedding cakes for heteros, then bake them for gays too.”
Again, you don’t listen. They did bake cakes for gays.
Again you miss the point. They didn’t get in trouble for they cakes they were willing to bake, nor have I ever denied that there were some cakes they were willing to bake. But that’s not the point. They got in trouble because of the cakes they refused to bake and decorate for gays, that they cheerfully do bake and decorate for non-gays. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that this refusal, and no other, is the civil rights violation they were taken to court over?
“ If you gladly photograph hetero weddings, photograph gay weddings too”
If you gladly photograph births – photograph deaths. If you gladly photograph the LGBT conference photograph the Man/Boy Association conference. Hmmm . . . .
You still fail to understand what the elements of discrimination are. This is not a terribly subtle standard to measure, nor does it require any particular genius to grasp. Is there a service that you will perform for certain people that you refuse to offer to certain other, innocent, law-abiding citizens you happen to look down on? Nobody is saying that if you take baby pictures then someone can take you to court and force you to film snuff porn. The difference between the hetero wedding and the gay wedding is the people who are getting married. When you say, “I will do wedding photography for these people but not for those people,” then that’s discrimination. If you say, “I will photograph weddings for anybody, gay or straight, but I will not photograph funerals for anybody, gay or straight,” then that’s no discrimination. You’re treating all your potential clients equally, and exercising a legitimate right to decide which services you will and will not offer.
“These are the restrictions we all have to live by, and it’s not a violation of anyone’s civil rights to insist that they must respect the rights of others. If your religion or other subjective personal opinions make that hard for you, well, sorry, but that’s just life.”
Right back at ya. If it is difficult to handle that I don’t want to play a part or serve at your abortion — since abortions are legal and if you’ve hired me to photograph the event, you must recognize the importance of accepting my right to decline. I know that might be hard for you, because you have no moral opposition to abortion, but I do. I ask that you respect that. That should be considered one of the restrictions we all have to live by. When did tolerance become so intolerant? We need to take back the true meaning of Tolerance and be respectful of one another.
But again, if you don’t want to photograph abortions, then don’t photograph anybody’s abortions. You’re not making any distinctions between gay abortions and hetero abortions in that case, so it’s not discrimination. It’s not a matter of what you do, it’s a matter of who you do or do not offer services too, and whether you allow your own personal prejudices to lead you into discriminatory practices. When you offer the same services to everybody, gay or straight, or when you refuse the same services to everybody, gay or straight, then rock on, it’s a free country. The only constraint you’re under is that you have to respect everyone else’s civil liberties, just as you expect others to respect yours. And that means you have to treat everybody equally, even if you hate them.
Can we agree that even if that number was one, or ten, or a hundred, the law would still be wrong? The fact that this law is “solving” a problem that doesn’t exist is not the reason it’s abhorrent.
I’ll certainly agree to that. I only mentioned the statistic to emphasize the fact that conservatives have literally zero real-world basis for this bigoted and hateful action.
“Hi RR, I hope you don’t mind, but given the length of your reply I thought it might save time and space to reply in-line. — DD”
Hi Deacon, I do sort of mind. I mean you should have left my post as I posted it and then posted your post with the interjected rebuttals. Just a courtesy thing.
Well, it’s funny, but sometimes I have a tendency to show people the same degree of courtesy that they’ve shown to me. And then again, when people come here preaching bigotry and hatred, and then try and whitewash it by calling it “moral conscience” and such, I might even show them a bit less courtesy, since they are actively fighting against everything courtesy (at least!) stands for.
Besides, I have other readers to consider too, and if it happens that I’m being slightly less courteous to you, it’s only in order to be much more courteous to them.
“nobody is being forced to perform/serve at something they morally oppose. They’re merely being required to be non-discriminatory in how they provide the goods and services that they clearly do not morally oppose, since they freely and voluntarily offer them to others.”
No. I believe I got it right the first time. The photographer and baker were being forced to perform/serve at something they morally oppose. They don’t hate homosexuals any more than I hate fathers and daughters, but I wouldn’t want to play a part in a father and daughter commitment ceremony. Would you?
And once again you pretend that the photographer and baker are being forced to provide gays with services that they would never offer non-gay couples, when the truth is the exact opposite. I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt thus far, out of courtesy, but at this point it’s pretty obvious that you are too blinded by hate to care what the truth is. You mistake intransigence for infallibility, and your comments are oblivious, irrelevant, and predictable. In short, you are boring. I’ve given your opinions much more space on my blog than their contents merit, but there’s no need to waste anyone else’s time further. If you have questions, you can refer to my comment policy, here or at the bottom of the left column.
Thanks for playing.