Heads I Win, Tails You Lose
by Joseph Backholm
A
story out of Colorado this week demonstrates what many of us have been
feeling for a while. When it comes to laws dealing with "gay stuff",
there really is no law. Only the preferences of the person making the
decision.
You
may have heard a story about Jack Phillips, a Denver baker who runs
Masterpiece Cakeshop. After declining to make a cake for a same-sex
wedding, The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) found him in
violation of state law and ordered him to undergo sensitivity training.
They also ordered him to file quarterly reports with the state to see
if he has turned away customers based on sexual orientation.
But there's another case you may not have heard about.
In
an apparent response to the Masterpiece Cakeshop dust up, a man named
William Jack from Castle Rock, Colorado approached three bakeries (Azucar Bakery, Gateaux, and Le Bakery Sensual) and asked them to bake cakes critical of same-sex marriage.
In
the case of Azucar Bakery, he requested a cake with two groomsmen
holding hands in front of a cross with a red "X" over the image. The
cake was also to include three statements "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7",
"Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2" and "While we were
yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8."
To no one's surprise, they declined.
In
response, Mr. Jack filed his own complaint with the CCRC claiming that
their refusal to bake the cake communicating his Christian opposition to
homosexuality was discrimination based on creed; specifically his
Christian faith.
Denying
the charge of discrimination, the bakery claimed it refused to bake the
cake because of the message not because of the religion of the person
requesting it. They considered the message to be "discriminatory".
In
the end, the CCRC agreed with the bakery and concluded the refusal to
bake the cake requested was not discrimination based on creed for three
reasons.
First,
they said the refusal was not because the person requesting it was a
Christian but because the cake "included derogatory language and
imagery."
Second,
they cited the fact that they had served Christians before as evidence
that they don't discriminate on the basis of creed.
Third, the bakery would also refuse to bake a cake that was critical of Christians.
If
it feels like these are the same arguments that were made by Jack
Phillips (and other businesses) who happily serve gay customers but are
unwilling to be part of same-sex wedding, that's because they are.
The
CCRC summarized that, " [T]he evidence demonstrates that the Respondent
would have made a cake for the Charging Party for any event,
celebration or occasion regardless of his creed. Instead, the Respondent's
denial was based on the explicit message that the Charging Party wished
to include on the cakes, which the Respondent deemed as
discriminatory."
So,
if the message on the cake is one you don't agree with, you can
decline. However, if the cake itself is a message you disagree with, you
cannot decline.
That makes sense...to no one.
It is apparent that the CCRC sympathizes one perspective but not the other.
These arbitrary and contradictory results are the legal equivalent of the middle finger.
We're in charge and you aren't. That's why.
Of
course those bakeries should be free not to bake a cake that includes a
message they disagree with. The problem is laws which permit people to
act on one set of beliefs about a particular issue but deny people with
the opposite opinion the same rights.
In
fairness, arbitrary application of the laws based on the preferences of
the person in power has been the norm not the exception throughout
history.
But
America has been an attempt to move away from that. It hasn't been
perfect, but despite abuses of power, we have aspired to create a world
in which everyone is bound by the same laws in the same way.
As a result, we have worked to create a world in which people who were similarly situated could expect similar results in court.
Clearly, we have progressed beyond that. Because, you know...equality.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment