So, my
daughter is going through a new phase…it’s called “throwing a fit when I don’t
get my way.” She just turned one, so I’m
not really concerned. We’ll get through it.
What does
cause me concern, though, is when grown-ups throw similar fits when they don’t
get their way. Kind of like the couple in this story from Colorado, in which a baker
declined to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple. The couple went to court
and now the baker has a choice between making the cake or going to jail. I
posted the article online the other day and was surprised by a few of the
comments that were made. Then, of course, I was surprised that I was surprised given
that we live in a temper-tantrum kind of society.
Let’s be
honest, we all want to throw fits sometimes—some of us actually do on occasion.
Wise people try to overcome the urge. Foolish men are proud of it. The
ignorant simply don't recognize how silly it looks. This Colorado story
encapsulates it.
Some would say
that this case is a matter of discrimination in the same way that not serving a
minority would be. Wrong. Not serving someone because of WHO they are (a
minority) is different than not serving someone because of WHAT they want to do
(marry a person of the same gender).
I have a
sneaking suspicion that several of those who commented on my link did not
actually read it. So, a quick recap is in order. According to the report, the
baker did NOT decline to serve the gay couple. He offered to bake any other
variety of cake. But the one thing he would not do is to participate in a
celebration with which he disagreed by creating a cake specifically denoting
that celebration. To be clear, he did not kick the couple out of the store. He
did not lecture them on the ills of their situation. He did not spit on them,
mock them, or mistreat them in any way. He simply declined a wedding cake while
offering to bake them any other kind of cake.
On the other
hand, the couple wanting the cake chose to attack the baker. Instead of simply
finding another cake store, they decided to take the owner to court. Because
somehow having a judge force someone to make a cake is better than simply
asking the guy down the street (the yellow pages lists 302 bakeries in and near
this town alone) to make one. Why didn’t the couple picket, protest, write
letters to the editor, contact the BBB, or participate in any other number of
responsible and American reactions to actions with which we disagree? Because
they are bullies who wanted to cry foul.
See,
discrimination is a trendy battle cry that is among the most hypocritical of
our time. It is screamed from the rooftops as if it is always a negative
action. The fact is that we all discriminate, all the time. We discriminate in
our choices of where we like to eat, shop, hang out, etc. We discriminate in
our choice of who we date, marry, befriend. We discriminate in our choice of
where, or if, we worship or send our children to school. Why, some restaurants discriminate against
people who aren’t wearing shirts or shoes!
Call me crazy,
but I won’t just leave my daughter with anyone. I DISCRIMINATE when I choose
who I think is a responsible babysitter. But, like many words in our culture,
“discrimination” is frequently misused to imply some sort of terrible action,
when really it just means “the act of distinguishing,” according to Noah
Webster. Now, not all discrimination is good, but it’s not all bad either.
Contrary to what
is taught in many schools today, and contrary to what many of my countrymen
believe, our nation was founded on the principle of religious freedom. And
guess what, religion discriminates. At least mine does. It says that lying is
wrong—thereby discriminating against lying. It says stealing is wrong—thereby
discriminating against theft. It says that adultery is wrong—and you get my
drift. This baker’s religion says homosexuality is wrong—therefore, he chose
not to participate in a homosexual celebration. Note: (and again I say), he did
not tell the homosexuals not to participate. He did not infringe upon their
freedom. If I’m redundant it is so there is no confusion.
With all respect
to any uninformed that may be reading this, our 1st Amendment says
that congress shall make no law either establishing a religion or prohibiting
the free practice thereof. I think the very fact that this precious phrase is
in the 1st Amendment is pretty indicative of how high on the list it
was. The first half of that beautiful clause is quoted as gospel in our society
and the second is all but forgotten. In essence, it means the government can’t
tell me how I must worship, and it can’t tell me how I mustn’t.
Now, I’m no
constitutional scholar, but even I can see the problem (as did our forefathers)
with complete and unrestrained freedom. Take, for example, the practice of
Sharia law where a father can physically harm or even kill his daughter if she
dishonors him. That freedom fully practiced would infringe upon the daughter’s
right to live, and her right to life supersedes the right for the father to
practice his religion.
Freedoms must be
carefully weighed, and indeed, all of our national history is an exercise in
trying to do just that. It is why our founding fathers had the great wisdom to
create a system of checks and balances, because freedom is ever teetering on
the fine line between tyranny and unrestrained democracy (where the majority,
even if it is completely wrong – as in the days of slavery – rules). When we’re
wrong, we have a pretty good history of fixing that (i.e. slavery, prohibition,
etc.).
Lest I be
accused of hypocrisy myself, let me remind my dear friends that I supported the
SCOTUS ruling permitting the Westboro Baptist church to picket the funerals of
our fallen heroes. I despise what the WBC supports, but I defend their right to
the free practice of their religion. If not, where does it stop? Do I walk into
a Jewish bakery and ask them to make me a confirmation cake? Can I demand that
an atheist bookstore sell me a Bible? No. This baker is not discriminating
against the couple because of who they are, so it’s not the same as not serving
an African American client. He is choosing not to provide a service for an
ACTION with which he disagrees.
I am not
suggesting that we do not provide services to PEOPLE with whom we disagree. If
a homosexual couple wanted to rent an apartment from me, I would rent it to
them. BUT, I am suggesting that we have the right not to PARTICIPATE in an
ACTION that violates our conscience. If kids can opt not to pledge the flag in
school, then a baker can opt not to bake a cake.
And the
government can just back off.
