So. Harry Reid's corruption is bubbling up. We gave away an ally's military secrets to Iran. The Secretary of State erased an entire server of emails.
But tonight's focus is not merely on Indiana's law, which it shares with many states, but on finding examples of bigots, in order to prove that all the people who disagree are bigots. I can feel the joy in my FB feed. They are happy to be outraged.
Oh look, a squirrel. Works every time.
That method has been working like a champ for some years now. From time to time I wonder if this is deliberate or if we (on the average, as a country) would rather not try to face hard issues. "now you will find him opening his arms to you and almost begging you to distract his purpose and benumb his heart. He will want his prayers to be unreal, for he will dread nothing so much as effective contact with the Enemy. His aim will be to let sleeping worms lie."
ReplyDeleteAfter all, these people got to where they are partly because we didn't try to supervise.
As David Burge said, thank goodness we can quit worrying about Iran's developing nuclear weapons and focus on the number one threat to the civilized world: Indiana bakeries.
ReplyDeleteAnd I say that as someone who has practically zero patience for a religious scruple that would prohibit serving cupcakes at a gay wedding but embrace a wedding of two divorced people who were now re-marrying with the stated intention of conducting an open marriage with unlimited adultery. I honestly have a hard time seeing the issue as upholding the sanctity of marriage, as opposed to the expression of a feeling of deep ickiness about "people who aren't like us." We tolerate sinful behavior in people all the time; why is this particular sin so awful?
"And I say that as someone who has practically zero patience for a religious scruple that would prohibit serving cupcakes at a gay wedding but embrace a wedding of two divorced people who were now re-marrying with the stated intention of conducting an open marriage with unlimited adultery. I honestly have a hard time seeing the issue as upholding the sanctity of marriage, as opposed to the expression of a feeling of deep ickiness about "people who aren't like us." We tolerate sinful behavior in people all the time; why is this particular sin so awful?"
ReplyDeleteDo you know of one? I tend to think that someone with scruples about the first would also have them about the second, seeing both as a mockery of marriage.
But honestly, I've never encountered or even heard of anyone who refused to cater a wedding on grounds remotely like that, or even inquired into the marital history or attitudes of the couple. Only an orthodox priest who was being asked to conduct the marriage would exhibit that much interest. It's been a very long time since there was anything approaching social ostracism for people who divorce. There's vanishingly little social ostracism for people who routinely commit adultery. There's something about homosexuality that arouses a reaction much stronger than one against all other kinds of sexual wrongdoing, with the exception, perhaps, of pedophilia. Do we not think atheists are living in sin? Do we boycott their weddings? There's more going on here than religious conviction, surely.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I speak under correction, because it's hard for me to judge a religious conviction I don't share. The closest I can come to sharing this one is to acknowledge that I may be terribly wrong. In the meantime, I wouldn't dream of forcing a bakery to cater a gay wedding, but I might well find another bakery.
I have mentioned before that I used to think there wasn't much ickiness factor to opposition to gay relationships, but have changed my mind. It is clearly a large factor for some, though I think it is absent in others. So I think T99 is seeing accurately - Christians are singling this sin out.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, the culture does much of that for us. When Phil Wazzizname from Duck Dynasty criticised divorce, adultery, and homosexuality, it was the last-named that everyone went ballistic over, even though the first two would be offensive to many more people. It's the current battleground.
True, and there's also the fact that the culture lost the battle over divorce, etc., a long time ago, whereas there's still an issue of whether we should be lending social support to the idea of gay marriage--so it's a hotter-button issue whether someone would want to provide a service directly pertaining to a wedding. Not that many businesses are planning to bar identifiably gay people from the premises, but it's different if you're almost personally participating in a ceremony, by baking the wedding cake or doing the photography. It's hard not to perceive that you're granting some kind of imprimatur.
ReplyDeleteI think you are on to something. Officiating at a wedding would be very big involvement. Being the bartender, not so much. Making a wedding dress for a man, or fitting a tux for a woman? Singing or reading something? You are making a statement with that. You are indeed being asked for your blessing at some level, and it's a little disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Photographer? You're somewhat in. Cake baker? Eh, nobody is asking your opinion. The lines aren't clean.
ReplyDeleteT00 said, " In the meantime, I wouldn't dream of forcing a bakery to cater a gay wedding, but I might well find another bakery." Yes, I believe any reasonable person would do that. However, the evidence shows that those who will insist, nay, DEMAND, that you do what they ask or "terrible retribution of (pardon the phrase) 'Biblical Proportion' " will be rained down upon thee--well, they are monomaniac, fascistic people.
ReplyDeleteCake baker? Eh, nobody is asking your opinion.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree. The kind of wedding cake we're talking about is custom-designed, often with symbolic elements pertaining to the particular couple and their relationship. The creative element does in fact mean the cake maker's opinion is important.
We're not talking about just going over to a bakery and picking up a cake - "white cake with lemon frosting, three layers, with some icing roses, please".
Of course, in that situation, the baker is not likely to know it's for a same-sex couple - and even if someone happens to mention it, I think all the various bakers, pizzerias, photographers, etc. have stated that they welcome gay customers; they just don't want to participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony.
I was thinking that, too; for someone who believes a gay wedding is a mockery of a religious ceremony, it would be hard to swallow delivering a cake with two bridegrooms on top of it.
ReplyDeleteI did wonder if every woman on the thread was going to object to that cake, comment. Three layers, lemon - that would be about my level of interest. I have sensed that it is way more important than that to most people, especially brides.
ReplyDeleteSupporting their argument would be the fact that cake seems to appear at weddings in an enormous number of cultures worldwide.
I've wondered whether some of the argument might be a divide between people who are and aren't familiar with the big set-piece wedding extravaganza. Plenty of people get married without it, and pick up a nice lemon cake at a local bakery for their relatively small reception/wedding dinner. So no interviews between the cake designer and the couple, no careful selection of decorative themes, just "[pointing] I'll take that one, please."
ReplyDeleteFor someone who's thinking in those terms, the whole cake-design as participation thing might not make any sense.
(The "prove you're not a robot" widget just asked me to identify pictures of pizza. I swear. ;-)