Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Let Freedom Ring

Proponents of gay marriage are winning the argument, they're winning in town halls and in the courts and in the state legislatures, and I think that's a good thing.  Many, many Americans are re-evaluating their knee-jerk opposition, and that's a good thing.  Freedom for thee means freedom for me, and freedom is always a good thing.

I see today that a court has struck down Texas' law against same sex marriage, and I see that enormous pressure is being placed on Arizona governor Jan Brewer, and both of those are good things because they expand freedom.

However, (and there is always an however) I am concerned about the holier-than-thou attitude about some of the gays, not only requiring that people respect their rights, but wanting to require those people who opposed them to participate, like the couple who sued the baker in Colorado when he didn't want to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, and based that desire on a firm religious belief.

Of all the pundits writing about this monumental moment in gay-rights history, I think that Andrew Sullivan says it best in his piece from Monday.
The truth is: we’re winning this argument. We’ve made the compelling moral case that gay citizens should be treated no differently by their government than straight citizens. And the world has shifted dramatically in our direction. Inevitably, many fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews and many Muslims feel threatened and bewildered by such change and feel that it inchoately affects their religious convictions. I think they’re mistaken – but we’re not talking logic here. We’re talking religious conviction. My view is that in a free and live-and-let-live society, we should give them space. As long as our government is not discriminating against us, we should be tolerant of prejudice as long as it does not truly hurt us. And finding another florist may be a bother, and even upsetting, as one reader expressed so well. But we can surely handle it. And should.

Leave the fundamentalists and bigots alone. In any marketplace in a diverse society, they will suffer economically by refusing and alienating some customers, their families and their friends. By all means stop patronizing them in both senses of the word. Let them embrace discrimination and lose revenue. Let us let them be in the name of their freedom – and ours’.
I don't think that any gay couple would suffer one bit in trying to find someone to bake a cake, or take photographs, or any of the myriad of tasks that are normally contracted in the standard wedding.  Just because Baker A really doesn't want to bake the cake, doesn't mean that Baker B wouldn't jump at the chance.

But then I see another business who intends to discriminate in the name of gay rights.
 David Cooley, the founder of The Abbey Food & Bar located at 692 North Robertson Blvd., has announced the popular gay bar will add any legislator in any state who votes for “bills to allow for discrimination against LGBT people” to a “Deny Entry List.”
Heh!  Really?  You're going to discriminate against discriminators by discriminating?  Okay, have fun with that.  I'm sure that there's another watering hole down the road who'll serve them, which goes to my (and Andrew's) original argument.

But, especially in the wedding business, it's best to have someone who graciously, lovingly, enthusiastically provides the services necessary.  You don't want to be like this poor gal.

Let Freedom Ring.


Rivrdog said...

The whole "gay pride" thing is a crock of crap. You don't ease discrimnation by flaunting your differences, you get your desired results by emphasizing how well you FIT into society. If blacks had adopted the message that Gay Pride uses, we might still have Jim Crow laws. Instead, Dr. King and other responsible black leaders told their flocks to exhibit the best of society's mores, and that convinced the rest of us to accept them as full members of society.

Goatwhiskers said...

I will leave my personal moral and religious convictions out of this. We have, or should have, learned that you cannot legislate morals. Ultimately a person's actions or lack of same are between themselves and whatever higher power they recognize, or don't, which is a topic for another discussion. GW