jasonbwatson

March 8, 2018

Lesbian Weddings and Assault Rifles

“We’re going to take a stand and step up and tell people our view.”

“We don’t want to be a part of this.”

“We deeply believe….”

No doubt you have heard about Melissa and Aaron Klein, the couple that owned a cake shop in Gresham, Oregon, refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, and was fined $135,000 for their refusal. According to a December 28, 2017 article by Whitney Woodworth in the Statesman Journal, “When Aaron Klein found out the cake was for two brides, he told Bowman-Cryer he and his wife did not make cakes for same-sex weddings because of their religious beliefs.” After the lesbian brides-to-be filed a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries claiming that they were denied public accommodation by the Kleins due to their sexual orientation, an investigation by that bureau determined that the Klein’s refusal to make the cake for them “constituted unlawful discrimination.” As a result, the Kleins were ordered to pay a $135,000 in damages. The Oregon Court of Appeals unanimously upheld that decision.

The lesbian couple, which is now married, “said the case was not simply about a wedding cake, their marriage or their wedding. It is about whether it is OK for a business to refuse to serve people because of the owner’s religious beliefs,” Woodworth reported.

The Kleins have since closed their cake shop. Melissa Klein said, “I was happy to serve this couple in the past for another event and would be happy to serve them again, but I couldn’t participate in the ceremony that goes against what I believe.” She said the government violated her freedom of religion and, in essence, told her what to believe. According to Woodworth, the Kleins attorney, Adam Gustafson said, “The Kleins did not discriminate based on sexual orientation; rather, they chose not to participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony because they believe marriage should only exist between a man and a woman.”

According to Carson Whitehead, the Oregon Department of Justice attorney who represented the Bureau of Labor and Industry, “the case turns on two simple facts: The Kleins refused to provide the exact same service for a same-sex couple that they would with a heterosexual couple, and the denial of services was based on sexual orientation.”

Woodworth ended her article this way:

In a statement issued Thursday, the Bowman-Cryers [the lesbian couple] said now all Oregonians can go into any store and expect to be treated like any other person.

“It does not matter how you were born or who you love,” they said. “With this ruling, the Court of Appeals has upheld the long-standing idea that discrimination has no place in America.”

I hope you noted in the above how many times the word “believe” appeared. And I hope you also noted that the beliefs of the Kleins were not considered a legitimate reason for them to decline making a wedding cake for the lesbian couple. Lastly, I hope you noted that the lesbian couple proclaimed that now anyone in Oregon could go into any store and expect to be treated like any other person because discrimination has no place in America (emphasis mine).

But I would like to point out that the three quotes I led this post with were not made by the Kleins and had nothing to do with homosexual marriage.

Instead, I would like to direct your attention to another story that has been in the news of late: the decision of Dick’s Sporting Goods and Wal Mart to no longer sell firearms to anyone under the age of 21. Why? According to the statement released by Dick’s on Twitter, “We deeply believe that this country’s most precious gift is our children.” And, because children are the future and must be protected, Dick’s also stated, “We believe it is time to do something about it.”

Did you notice that word “believe” again?

Dick’s CEO, Edward Stack, said, “We’re going to take a stand and step up and tell people our view and, hopefully, bring people along into the conversation.” And one other thing he said? “We don’t want to be a part of this any longer.” (See this article in the New York Times to read more of Stack’s thoughts and comments).

Here, then, is the real issue: if a small business owner in Oregon cannot refuse to make a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding because of the owner’s beliefs, then a huge business cannot refuse to sell guns to 18, 19 and 20 year olds just because the companies’ executives “believe” that it is time for them to restrict guns getting into the hands of those individuals. If a baker who believes that homosexual marriage is wrong cannot “take a stand and step up and tell people” their view, then neither can Dick’s or Wal Mart. If Aaron and Melissa Klein cannot say “we don’t want to be a part of this” and run their business accordingly, then neither can Edward Stack.

Jeff Jacoby wrote an excellent piece in the Boston Globe entitled, “The same-sex wedding cake case isn’t about same-sex marriage.” His article is not about Aaron and Melissa Klein but about Jack Phillips, a cake baker in Oregon who also refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and whose case was heard by the Supreme Court this past December. You can read Jacoby’s article in its entirety if you would like, but here is his conclusion: “One needn’t share Phillips’s opinion of gay marriage to support his right to unmolested freedom of expression.”

No cake baker should be required to make a cake to celebrate a marriage that he or she believes is wrong. No company should be required to sell guns to anyone under 21 if that is what the company leadership believes is right. A wedding cake can be purchased elsewhere by a homosexual couple, just like a rifle can be purchased elsewhere by an 18-year-old. At least, that’s how it should be. How the Dick’s and Wal Mart lawsuit turns out (oh yes, they’ve already been sued) and how the Jack Phillips case ends are still to be determined. What is not still unknown, though, is this simple truth: if we, as a nation, allow some companies to choose not to comply with some laws based on their beliefs we cannot disallow the same privilege to other companies. If we do, we will soon find that we have contradicted ourselves into an absolute disaster.

January 18, 2017

Church Convictions

This Friday will be the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America. As always, inauguration day will include a number of festivities and many “big names” will be involve din various ways. One of those who will not be involved, however, is Charlotte Church.

Church is a Welsh singer who became well known at the young age for her incredible voice. Her first album was released the year Church turned 12. The album sold millions and made Church the youngest person to ever have a number one album on the British crossover charts. She released a “best of” album at the ripe old age of 16. I would think it would be fair to call Church the Jackie Evancho of the early 2000s. (That comparison is appropriate in another way too, as will be seen shortly). About a dozen years Church made it known that was transitioning to pop music and, to be honest, I do not remember the last time I head anything about her until last week. I own all of her early CDs and enjoy them. I was shocked to discover that she is now 30 years old! Apparently she has still been performing and recording since I lost track of her but, also apparently, not in a manner or style I would much care for.

So what brought Church into the news last week? She was invited to perform for the Trump inauguration–and she very publicly declined. On January 10 Church tweeted to Trump, “Your staff have asked me to sing at your inauguration, a simple Internet search would show I think you’re a tyrant. Bye.” The Huffington Post took Church’s suggestion and did a simple internet search. They found a December 2015 tweet saying calling Trump, “A Sith death eater…….and an amoeba. I really, really detest him.” On a British talk show in 2016 she said, “I don’t hate anybody, but I hate that man.”

Those remarks would actually make it seem rather odd that Church would even be invited by the Trump team.

Church, of course, is not the only performer to have said no to performing for the inauguration. According to a January 15 article in Business Insider these artists have also reportedly declined invitations: Elton John, Céline Dion, Garth Brooks, Kiss, Moby, Andrea Bocelli, David Foster and Rebecca Ferguson. Half of these names, by the way, beg the question of why someone who campaigned on the motto “Make American Great Again” would even invite them. Does the United States really not enough of its own musical talent that British, Canadian, Italian and Welsh performers need to be imported? Not that I have any objection to international talent, mind you, it just seems odd to invite them to sing at the inauguration of the U.S. president. I guess I have never thought about it before, but I do not picture U.S. artists being invited to perform for the inauguration or coronation of other nations’ leaders. (This is not unique to Trump, of course. Barack Obama’s inauguration included Yo-Yo Ma, Itzhak Perlman and Gabriela Montero–a Chinese-American born in Paris, an Israeli-American and a Venezuelan now residing in Spain).

None of this is the point of the post anyway. The point is that Church and the others have exercised their right not to provide services on behalf or in celebration of a person they do not like and/or disagree with–strongly, it would appear. If I were Charlotte Church and I believed that Donald Trump was a tyrant then I would decline too. In fact, if nothing else, I respect Church and friends for standing by their convictions and not accepting an invitation to perform at a very visible and, I imagine, very well compensated event because of their stance regarding the individual being inaugurated. After all, performing at the inauguration would imply approval of Trump, or at least an acceptance. Her voice is Charlotte Church’s business, it is how she makes her living, it is, in a manner of speaking, the service she provides. Still, though, it is hers and she should have the right to decide when, where and for whom to sing, should she not? Besides, it is not like there are not other performers who can provide songs for the inauguration. Garth Brooks said no but Toby Keith said yes. Charlotte Church said no but Jackie Evancho said yes. And so it goes.

Here is the question though, and the real reason for this post: why is it okay for a musical artist to say no to a request from (or on behalf of) the president-elect of the United States, to perform at one of the most unique and meaningful events in our republic, but it is not okay for a baker to decline to make a cake or a hotel to decline to host an event or a printer to decline to print t-shirts?  We have all heard the accounts of individuals who did these things, and others, because their convictions are that homosexual marriage is wrong. Accordingly, they did not want to participate in or appear to approve of homosexual marriage ceremonies (or other events that violated their conscience and/or religious belief). It is not like there are not other bakers who can make cakes, florists who can provide flowers, hotels that can host events and printers that can print t-shirts or flyers or whatever, so why cannot those individuals who would have to violate their conscience in order to comply with the request act in accordance with their beliefs? Does someone have to rise to the level of celebrity to have these rights? Does there need to be a track record in the Twitter-sphere of one’s objections to a lifestyle or belief? Sadly, the truth is more along the lines of someone has to be opposing what is seen as acceptable and right by the liberal left, the collective of people who celebrate tolerance and inclusion but fail to practice the same when it comes to them being tolerant of those who not agree with them.

Aaron and Melissa Klein were bakers in Oregon who chose not to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. The resulting publicity, fines and court cases cost them $135,000 and their business. What will their choice cost Charlotte Church, Elton John or Garth Brooks? I think it is safe to say it will cost them nothing. In fact, the media publicity for them has been positive, praising them for refusing to perform for Trump. (On the other hand, there has been media attention toward Evancho that is questionable and even negative in light of the fact that she has chosen to perform despite having a transgender “sister”).

An article in the December 31, 2016 issue of WORLD entitled “Fair of foul?” examines legislation targeted at including sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in non-discrimination policies and laws. According to the article there is a split among some evangelical leaders over whether such legislation should always be opposed or whether it should be supported so long as there is religious exemptions in the law. I come down on the side of it being always opposed. Religious exemptions, after all, usually only apply to businesses, not individuals, and even then usually only to businesses of a certain size. In a statement issued December 14, 2016 more than six dozen religious leaders expressed their opposition to SOGI laws of any kind. Why? “They argue that SOGI laws violate privacy rights and freedoms of religion, conscience, speech, and association….” Quite right.

So again, if the convictions of a Church (namely, Charlotte) can allow her to decline a invitation to sing for a presidential inauguration, why cannot the convictions someone learned at church (namely, Bible-believing and teaching churches) not also be respected? What do we gain from making something do something against their will after all? Nothing of value. Nothing we should really want to gain in the first place. If Charlotte, Andrea, Elton and Garth can act according to their convictions, Aaron and Melissa should be able to do the same thing. Anything else is simply intolerant.

Blog at WordPress.com.