You know, I’ve pretty much stayed silent on the SCOTUS ruling on Masterpiece Cakeshop.
But it isn’t because I don’t care.
It’s just that I figured other folks – who have more legal knowledge than I – could probably do a better job of writing about it.
I’m a simple gal.
So I look at things simply.
And it seems to me, business owners have the right to refuse to serve someone. Otherwise, all those “No shoes, no shirt, no service” signs would get you thrown in jail.
And, lest we forget, recently a judge ruled that a bar could refuse to serve someone in a MAGA hat.
Now if I owned a bakery, I would bake a cake for a gay wedding.
But I don’t think anybody would want me baking a cake for anybody’s wedding. Which is probably why I don’t own a bakery.
I make a mean salad, though.
And toast – I’m really good at toast.
But as I said initially when SCOTUS ruled in Obergefell, I have no issue with gay couples choosing to formalize their partnerships. Though I did object to the ruling.
My issue was that it was too damn broad.
Besides, marriage laws are a state issue and should be determined by each state.
And basing it on the Fourteenth Amendment made absolutely no sense to me.
But we’ve pretty much already destroyed the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, haven’t we?
Yes, I am a Christian. And I know what the Bible says about homosexuality.
But my faith and my conscience instructs me to love my neighbor. Because it is through this show of love that I can carry the message of salvation.
I’m just not a fire and brimstone kinda gal.
I read the Gospels and I see the Pharisees getting hot under the collar because Jesus spent time with “tax collectors and sinners.” They gave him a heck of a lot of grief about that.
And it is Jesus’ response that I take to heart: “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
What the Pharisees missed, of course, is that they too were sinners.
I do not shun people. Because although I know that homosexuality is a sin, I also know that I too am a sinner.
As Paul said in Romans, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
If I choose to surround myself only with the righteous, I’d be pretty lonely. And, I wouldn’t be able to surround myself with … well … me.
So I show love, compassion, understanding.
Now with that being said, I do not think someone whose conscience won’t allow for him to, say, bake a cake for a gay wedding, should be forced to do it by the government.
While it’s true that we don’t live in a Theocracy.
We do live in a country where the government cannot force anyone religious to go against his or her religious conscience.
So if a baker cannot in good conscience participate in a gay couple’s wedding, he or she should be free to refuse.
Back in the day, those of a faith that eschewed military service on religious grounds were exempt from the draft. That person was what was called a “conscientious objector.”
Quakers, for example, were conscientious objectors. Their faith would not permit killing of any kind – even as a soldier in war.
And the government could not compel them to serve against their religious conscience.
This is central to our religious freedom.
And the First Amendment guarantees us the right to be free of government intrusion on our faith.
So my feeling is, if a baker doesn’t want to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, he has every right to refuse.
If you can refuse to serve someone who’s wearing a MAGA hat, you can refuse to supply a wedding cake for a gay couple’s wedding.
Being in the minority opinion-wise doesn’t deprive you of your unalienable rights.
We aren’t the Borg.
And if every single American in the country, except one man, had no problem with baking a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, that one man still has the right to refuse.
Now, with all that prelude, let me get to the point of this post.
I just read a pretty good column by Kurt Schlichter titled Nothing Narrow About this Huge Win in the Culture War.
And if someone is better at making a point than I am, I’m going to point out what he says.
Here’s a taste:
Commentators, largely 20-somethings whose courtroom experience seems to be repeated viewings of Legally Blonde, kept insisting that the ruling was narrow. It wasn’t – it was a broad rejection of pogroms against people whose religious beliefs clash with trendy secular shibboleths. Here’s the thing – most of us, had we the confectionary artistic qualifications to get paid to design wedding cakes, would have gladly taken the money. Many of us don’t believe that taking the couple’s cash would be morally compromising.
But this Jack Phillips guy did. See, rights don’t exist to protect the majority because the majority doesn’t need protecting. The law recognizes rights in order to protect good people whose views society largely does not share, like Jack Phillips, and also applies to loathsome scummy dirtbag Nazis, creepy commies, KKK idiots, and Antifa morons. Rights exist to protect minorities, people who, statistically, you probably disagree with. If you don’t recognize that rights come to us via our Creator you should at least appreciate the utilitarian rationale that you might personally find yourself in the minority someday.
That last sentence is a winner.
But you should definitely read the whole column. It’s worth it.
Hit the Tip Jar!
Every dollar makes a difference! Hit the DONATE button in the side bar. Or, set up a recurring monthly contribution by choosing SUBSCRIBE. If you cannot afford to contribute, please whitelist PatriotRetort.com in your ad-blocker. Ads help pay for this site. And, as a promise to you, the ads are not obnoxious or overbearing and will never interfere with your enjoyment of PatriotRetort.com.