Saturday, October 16, 2010

Another day, another tale of homosexual totalitarianism

Here's the story:

We're apparently nearing "National Coming Out Day"--as if normal people should have to know about such a "holiday." So a homosexual activist in Indianapolis makes contact with a bakery called Just Cookies and asks for rainbow-frosted cupcakes to celebrate this faux "holiday." The owner could have told him they don't sell cupcakes, just cookies, as the name of the business says (which is apparently true). But the foolish owner (for whom I have the greatest sympathy), not realizing that he lives in a homosexual totalitarian state and that his city has a "sexual orientation public accommodations law" instead tells him that he wouldn't want to make rainbow-frosted cupcakes to celebrate "National Coming Out Day" at his bakery because it's a family business, and he doesn't want his daughters exposed to that. Perhaps the poor guy was afraid the customer was going to ask for rainbow-frosted cookies if he told him they didn't sell cupcakes.

Uh-oh. This perfectly normal statement from this perfectly normal man has now gotten him in trouble. His business may lose its lease, as the mini-mall or whatever it is where he's located has of course a non-discrimination statement that includes sodomy as one of the things you're never supposed to say anything negative about in your business. And of course he may be fined. His only hope appears to be that the city doesn't seem super-eager to prosecute, but they're being pushed by the homosexual lobby. Such laws have been used to apply to situations like this before--e.g., the Elaine Hugonin case, in which she was required by non-discrimination law to use her photographic talents to celebrate lesbianism. If your business can in any way shape or form be used to make a statement, then it can be co-opted to make a pro-homosexual statement, and woe betide you if you resist.

Mike Adams gets on a wonderful rant here in which he asks whether a Jewish bakery owner should also be required to make baked goods with swastikas on them. No, no, Mike, you don't get it: Neo-nazis don't have power, and the homosexual activists do. So the answer to your question is, "No, of course not. What a terrible suggestion. How could you make such a comparison? As for the rainbows and the bakery, well, it's just obvious: If people don't want to create rainbow-frosted baked goods in honor of Homosexual Sodomy Pride Day, they just shouldn't own bakeries."

(Since we have commentators at W4 who would bore me, annoy me, and waste my time by saying pretty much exactly this, I put this entry here instead.)

But let this be a warning if you run a business: You thought you lived in a free country? Think again, and watch your words at all times. National Coming Out Day is a hallowed day in your community if your city has a sexual orientation clause in its public accommodations law. If you don't want to help celebrate it using the resources of your business, including your children who help you...well...good luck getting out of it. And say as little as possible when you refuse.

6 comments:

Gina M. Danaher said...

This infuriates me and it is frustrating to know that so many of the people in my life are so confused by what constitutes compassion toward those poor, discriminated against, homosexuals. And when I express disapproval of sodomy, it is like I have just thrown a big cooler of ice water on their heads. It is such a shock. We have wandered very far from understanding God's plan and purpose for man and his helpmate. And we even lack an understanding of the physiological laws. It's hard to get into that without getting embarrassingly detailed and crude, but sometimes that's what it takes.

Lydia McGrew said...

Gina, if you have Christian friends who are having trouble understanding the nature of the homosexual agenda, I wonder if stories like this would help them? This makes it pretty clear that the demand is that we join in celebrating what they do and stand for.

Amy said...

I liken this to forcing an atheist to make cross cookies for someone, or - as in the case of the New Mexico photog sued for not photographing a "commitment ceremony" - a Christian wedding to which they are vehemently opposed.

It's a joke, and then people wonder why there's opposition to gay marriage.

I don't care what you do in your personal life, but the second you start suing businesses, churches, groups and individuals who disagree with your lifestyle into accepting it, I have no choice but to defend the actual liberties of such people.

The whole "gay marriage" issue could be solved with two simple concessions: 1) drop the word "marriage" (because if this is about equality under the law, civil unions achieve the same thing) and 2) stop suing people who disagree with you.

Yesterday it was photogs, today it's bakeries. They've already sued churches (see Catholic Charities in MA and a Methodist church in NJ). Who else are they going to go after?

Lydia McGrew said...

Amy, I suppose you could find atheists who would say they would have no problems making cross cookies for someone.

I certainly agree with you that these sorts of things bring out the totalitarian nature of the homosexual agenda. I don't, however, agree with you that "civil unions" were ever any sort of solution. As they are marriage in all but name, they also require various forms of legal recognition--for example, in matters of child custody, as the Lisa Miller case shows.

The truth is that homosexual relations are not normal and are not equivalent to heterosexual ones, and any attempt to treat them as "equal" in the law is _bound_ to have totalitarian consequences.

Kevin J Jones said...

What do you make of Jennifer Roback Morse's reported approval (or indifference?) to civil unions?

Another putative conservative ignoring the consequences of compromise?

Lydia McGrew said...

Kevin, one hates to respond to what someone said based on a news report, but on the other hand the Ruth Institute evidently thought it a good enough report to include on its own web page!

That's bad news. I notice she also supports homosexual adoption. Wonderful. But at the same time she talks about how a girl's health can be affected if she grows up in a household with a male to whom she isn't related! Well, for goodness' sake! Doesn't that maybe have some connection to homosexual adoption? Not to mention civil unions, which for purposes of family law and child custody are treated exactly like marriage.

The truth is, she doesn't seem to want to say that homosexuality is objectively disordered or to take this into account in public policy.