The Gay Rights Struggle Ain't Over

Roxxsmom said:

They're very good at creating false equivalencies, so they argue that the tables have been turned. They cite the case where the Jewish baker didn't want to make the cake that was decorated with the Nazi flag as being "the same" as a Fundamentalist Christian baker not wanting to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

But of course, it's not the same thing at all, because the Jewish baker wasn't refusing to bake the cake for someone who happened to be a neo Nazi. They were willing to sell the customer a cake but refusing to decorate it with symbols that were offensive to them.

The equivalence would be a Fundamentalist Christian baker telling a same-sex couple, "I will bake you a cake for your wedding, but I won't decorate it with images I find offensive."

Click to expand...

Exactly. I wouldn't really have an issue with a baker refusing to, say, bake a cake covered in gay pride symbols. I wouldn't respect the homophobic reasoning for refusing to make such a cake, but I will respect the business's right to refuse in such a case.

A wedding cake that is identical to a cake that might be made for a straight couple is a totally different matter.

I would have a problem with a non-Christian business refusing to bake a cake for someone's First Communion. That's religious discrimination. But I would have more respect for a baker who says, "I'll make you a First Communion cake, but it would go against my religion to include this specific symbol/message you're requesting. I would be happy to make a cake that says 'Happy First Communion' if that's okay with you."

Exactly. No one's telling a business owner what kind of products or services they must provide. A Jewish restauranteur can refuse to have pork on their menu, or a vegan can refuse to sell meat, or a Christian bookstore owner can refuse to sell books about evolution or LGBT rights. But refusing to serve a person who wants to purchase the goods or services you do sell is another matter. Aside from being serious can of worms territory, it's something that was (I thought) settled when segregation was outlawed.

The thing is, this kind of discrimination is nearly always focused on openly LGBT people, or members of other groups who are visible and very much in the minority. A non-religious baker who refused to sell cakes to people having religious weddings or first communions would quickly go out of business. So would someone who refused to serve divorcees or fornicators (assuming such people were even visible). But unless you're operating in a very diverse and cosmopolitan corner of a large city, refusing to serve people who are openly gay/lesbian in your business is probably not going to cost you many sales. It's a relatively risk-free way of lashing out and being nasty if you're living in small-town America.

And it's all about being nasty and nothing to do with being a Christian. Plenty of Christians don't act this way, and by most accounts, neither did Jesus.

Roxxsmom said:

The thing is, this kind of discrimination is nearly always focused on openly LGBT people, or members of other groups who are visible and very much in the minority. A non-religious baker who refused to sell cakes to people having religious weddings or first communions would quickly go out of business. So would someone who refused to serve divorcees or fornicators (assuming such people were even visible). But unless you're operating in a very diverse and cosmopolitan corner of a large city, refusing to serve people who are openly gay/lesbian in your business is probably not going to cost you many sales. It's a relatively risk-free way of lashing out and being nasty if you're living in small-town America.

And it's all about being nasty and nothing to do with being a Christian. Plenty of Christians don't act this way, and by most accounts, neither did Jesus.

Click to expand...

Totally. It's amazing how you seldom hear about bakers interrogating prospective clients to make sure that they haven't been married before, or otherwise making sure that their clients' weddings fit the standards of the baker's religion. I've never heard of a Catholic baker refusing to serve a couple who had previous marriages.

Most people are fine with adopting a "live and let live" approach to other people's marital decisions. Unless the couple happens to be gay, biracial, or otherwise subject to someone's bigotry.

I always compare it to the postcards that used to be in the windows of places to stay in the UK "No Blacks (or Coloureds), No Irish, No Dogs."

I've got huge hope for the future my daughter just couldn't get her head round that when she saw it on a TV show set in the 1960s.

Yup. There's a difference between saying, "I won't make a cake with a particular type of symbol" and saying, "I won't serve a particular type of person."

This exact same battle played out with interracial marriage back in the day. As Mark Twain says, history doesn't repeat itself, but it tends to rhyme.

DancingMaenid said:

Totally. It's amazing how you seldom hear about bakers interrogating prospective clients to make sure that they haven't been married before, or otherwise making sure that their clients' weddings fit the standards of the baker's religion. I've never heard of a Catholic baker refusing to serve a couple who had previous marriages.

Click to expand...

I had this conversation with a very religious cousin once, who was agonizing over a writing group he was in where some of the people were openly gay. He wanted to emulate Jesus and reach out to sinners, yet he didn't want to imply that he sanctioned their "lifestyle choices," yet he knew it would be disruptive to take time during the critting sessions to preach about his reasons for disapproving of the things these folks had in their stories on a moral basis.

I told him that he didn't have to pretend he was comfortable with something in a story if he wasn't, but that didn't mean it was his place to try and change people's orientation or beliefs either. I reminded him that he'd never felt the need to preach to me and my husband about sin when we'd been living together. His response was that this was different, because we were going to get married someday (I guess temporary sin doesn't count). I pointed out that when we got married, it was in a secular ceremony by a humanist celebrant, so in the eyes of his god, we're still living in sin and always will be.

He never had a come back for that, but he still doesn't lecture us about our sinfulness.

DancingMaenid said:

Totally. It's amazing how you seldom hear about bakers interrogating prospective clients to make sure that they haven't been married before, or otherwise making sure that their clients' weddings fit the standards of the baker's religion. I've never heard of a Catholic baker refusing to serve a couple who had previous marriages.

Most people are fine with adopting a "live and let live" approach to other people's marital decisions. Unless the couple happens to be gay, biracial, or otherwise subject to someone's bigotry.

Click to expand...

I wonder if you go back far enough, if you would find such people objecting to serving those with a previous marriage. But divorce was much rarer at the time.

In spite of innumerable claims to the contrary, religions do change. What adherents believe is right or wrong changes over time, and eventually the religion itself either "reinterprets" or ignores scripture to match the modern or by-then-well-established beliefs of the culture.

The Catholic Church actually apologized over its treatment of Galileo, and it only took 400 years.

Divorce is an issue over which conservative Christians have been accused of hypocrisy, but it has unofficially "become acceptable" among many of them as it has become more common in society (according to this chart the divorce rate is several times what it was a century ago). Some people I've known have gotten new spouses about as often as new jobs.

There's something in Leviticus against "touching the skin of a swine" though (American) footballs were originally made of pigskin (they're now made of other stuff for other reasons, not because of any Biblical admonition), and in the history of football I've never heard of it being a problem for a Christian to touch it. Perhaps this was one of the parts of the Old Testament that Jesus "completed," but I don't think so. It's just a part of the Holy Scripture that modern Christianity ignores.

I see more and more such things from the Bible being ignored in future decades and centuries.

Well obviously different denominations of Christianity have different beliefs and adopt changes in interpretation or tradition at different rates. And of course, since the Bible is a huge and rather internally inconsistent book, there have always been differences in focus and attention to different parts of it.

I suspect much of the focus on same sex relations and marriage isn't because it's any more sinful than remarrying after a divorce or fornicating or whatever according to the core tenets of fundamentalist Christianity, though. It's simply a focus where they feel they can get some support and traction from people who are less fundamentalist but equally intolerant (many of the people I've met who rant about homosexuality being a sin don't even go to Church or live lifestyles that are even remotely aligned with modern fundamentalism).

I think it has a lot more to do with a sort of visceral squick factor some people still have, and with the fact that there's been a recent (but not yet complete) shift in mainstream sentiments about same sex marriage and with the fact that it's still being fought in the courts. And of course, it's more socially acceptable in some circles to say you're opposed because of your religion.

I'm guessing the people who still oppose marriage equality are feeling rather frantic right now.

I am wondering how socially conservative people will react once (and if) the last lingering laws that allow discrimination are struck down. Resignation, or more attempts to find yet another way to lash out.

My issue with intolerance in these situations is simple: accepting intolerance means denying equality. As long as intolerant behavior is accepted or even permitted, it sends a message that those who are intolerant have more rights than those they seek to discriminate against. Somehow I don't see any good reason for giving the small-minded the most rights.