Gay “weddings” and KKK Cross burnings

If a man wearing a KKK sheet walked into a bakery run by a Black man how many Americans would think that the Black man should be required to sell the bigot a cake?

We don’t know the answer precisely but we know other than the folks at the ACLU it’d be unlikely that any American who wasn’t a fan of the KKK would say that the law requires the Black baker to sell a croissant to a public racist.

While most Americans are not yet lawyers they realize that freedom of speech, in addition to protecting pornographers, protects the right of non-verbal speech, in this case refusing to sell a cupcake to a Cross burning bigot.

Similarly most Americans realize that if Black bakers all united and refused to provide cakes to KKK members the KKK members will find someone else to satisfy their sweet tooth.  Additionally it’s important to note that a cake is not necessary.  If a man in a KKK sheet walked into an ER the majority of people would probably feel sorry for the Black doctor on call but would still think that the doctor should treat the racist if a lack of treatment would result in the racists death—though it’s hard to imagine a Black doctor refusing to care even for a racist.

Now if the man walks into the store and the Black baker just thinks he looks racist but nothing he says or does indicates he’s racist then it would be possible to find some folks who might say that the baker would have to sell the man a donut even if the baker thinks the man looks like a member of the KKK.  But even in that case most Americans would probably not be enthused about the government telling a private business owner who he had to provide products for.

The most extreme circumstance would be when the KKK member walked into the bakery and said he wanted a cake for the next nights Cross burning on the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s grave.

It would be hard to find anyone, once again excepting the ACLU, who would say that the law required that Black baker to bake a cake for a KKK Cross burning.

But that scenario is identical to the one being played out in numerous cases across America relating to so called gay weddings.

These business owners aren’t refusing to provide flowers, photographs, or cakes to gays; they’re refusing to provide those services/products for so called gay weddings.  If a gay man walks into any of those businesses and asks for a cake, photo, or flower arrangement he’ll get it with no problem even if he identifies himself as gay—though why he’d do that is unclear. 

Those cases are identical in nature to when the KKK member walks into the Black bakery and asks for a cake. 

When the gay man walks in and asks for a cake for his so called gay wedding the situation is identical to the KKK member asking for a cake for his Cross burning party.

In both cases the business’s decision is based on the fact that their product would be associated with an event, not an individual, that they felt was morally wrong. Further in both cases we know the customers can go elsewhere to get the service or item they want.

We know that according to a Rasmussen poll 85% of Americans believe that business owners should not be required to provide non-essential services to so called gay weddings.

We know that the Constitution says nothing about gay weddings but explicitly declares that every American has the right to exercise, that is practice, their religion which would mean, in a rational world, that there would be no question about compelling business owners to support an activity they find morally wrong—like demanding a Jewish deli cater a Nazi luncheon.

Imagine if the law said that a Jewish deli worker would have to attend a Nazi rally in order to serve the food. Then imagine how a Christian would feel attending a gay wedding to take photos. Would any rational person believe that society was being served by using the law to force either of these scenarios to occur?

Sadly we don’t live in a rational world anymore.  The same voices who are persecuting people who object to so called gay marriage—a unique and barely 5 year old phenomena—would be taking exactly the opposite tack if a gay baker refused to provide a cake for say an National Organization for Marriage fund raiser.

We can see that from the fact that 13 gay bakeries refused to bake a cake saying gay marriage is wrong and not one liberal is upset about it.

This attack on business owners is nothing less than content based censorship.  If burning a flag is protected speech because it sends a message then refusing to provide a cake for a so called gay wedding is also a Constitutionally protected exercise of both the religious and speech elements of the First Amendment.

The liberal view of rights in America is becoming clearer.  To liberals rights are not inalienable but rather are given by government to certain people. Gays have the right to be married because government says so but people of faith don’t have the right to live their faith because government hasn’t given them that right.

Feel free to follow tom on Twitter