April 02, 2015

A Rethinking Of The Cakes/Flower/Photos For Gay Weddings Issue

Many folks on the Left are treating the question of whether or not a business should be permitted to refuse services for a gay wedding as a matter of unjust discrimination based upon protected class. Many on the Right are treating it as a matter of freedom of religion. I see both sides, and while I lean strongly towards the free exercise argument I understand the other side’s concern (which I believe to be overblown) about places with “No ______ Allowed” signs in the window.

But as I’ve written and ruminated over the last several days, I’ve found myself drawn to a possible alternate way of accommodating everybody without doing violence to either matters of conscience or allowing wholesale discrimination. It involves other aspects of the First Amendment – freedom of speech and freedom of association. I believe that non-discrimination principles and religious scruples could be respected and accommodated if we applied those additional two aspects of the First Amendment in the matter of gay weddings.

To do this, I want to lay out a couple of principles that are – or ought to be – pretty non-controversial.

The first is that businesses do have the right to engage in speech and expressive conduct, or to refuse to do so – including refusing to do so for hire. For example, if I walked into the local t-shirt printing business and asked them to print three dozen shirts that read “F*ck the Police”, they would be free to tell me to take my business elsewhere because they reject the sentiment or the language used. If I walked into a bakery and asked for a cake decorated with a big marijuana leaf and the slogan “Legalize Marijuana”, no one would dispute that the owner would be well within his or her rights to reject the order on the grounds that they are uncomfortable putting that message on the cake.

The second is that businesses are free to accept or reject business and events which they view as incompatible with their views – for example, a baker who is an active Democrat would certainly be free to refuse to provide a cake for the opening of the new Republican Party headquarters in the county. Similarly, a florist or a photographer is certainly free to refuse to contract to provide their goods and services for a conference being put on by the Boy Scouts because they disagree with their policy of not allowing gay and atheist Scouts (a policy which has been ruled constitutionally protected as a matter of free exercise of religion). In both cases the basis for rejecting the event is the exercise of constitutionally protected civil rights and civil liberties by those holding the events because the business owners does not choose to associate themselves and their businesses with the events because they reject the message being expressed.

Now if you look at both principles above, the issue is a matter of refusing to engage in speech or association because the business owners hold a different view and choose not to communicate messages they reject or have their business associated with those promoting a particular point of view as they promote that point of view. Nobody is denying those individuals service in all contexts, merely in the discrete situation related to the particular message or event. The t-shirt shop will gladly provide member of the anti-police group with shirts that communicate another message. The baker will gladly serve members of the pro-pot group if they want a different cake or a dozen cookies. The restaurateur will gladly provide a table for members of the political group if they come to dine with their families and friends. If a Scout leader wants a dozen roses for his wife or a Scout orders a corsage for his prom date, the order will be gladly accepted. Assuming, of course, that the members of those groups, their families, their friends, and their other associates are willing to have anything to do with the business that turned away the group.

Which leads us back to the gay wedding issue. If one looks at the well-publicized cases of what some call “anti-gay discrimination” in cases involving weddings in the last few years, it has not been an issue of businesses refusing to serve homosexuals at all. In most of the cases the aggrieved customer had long been a patron of the establishment and had a good relationship with the business owner, who knew the customer’s sexual orientation and was quite content to have them as a customer. The problem arose in relation to one – and only one – event, that being providing services for the wedding ceremony and/or reception. In other words, they refused to be a part of the celebration of that which they found offensive to their firmly held beliefs and communication of opposite beliefs, just as each of we found in each of my earlier examples. They are doing that which we allow business owners to do all the time – to pick and choose which public and private events they do not want to be a part of and which speech they will not engage in for hire.

|| Greg, 02:12 PM || Permalink || Comments (0) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for A Rethinking Of The Cakes/Flower/Photos For Gay Weddings Issue

TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'A Rethinking Of The Cakes/Flower/Photos For Gay Weddings Issue'.

Comments on A Rethinking Of The Cakes/Flower/Photos For Gay Weddings Issue

Post a comment

Remember personal info?




Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Abortion (posts: 1)
Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5263)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)


February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure


About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site

Support This Site

Recent Entries

Republican Primary Endorsements -- 2016
A Proposed Shorter RPT Platform
Pro-Lifers To Release Documents Related To Purchase Of Fetal Tissue By Texas Public Universities!
Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs