The double standards of “anti-discrimination”

Given the eagerness with which the European Commission and certain lobbies are pushing for a quick adoption of the controversial proposal for a “General Equal Treatment Directive“, citizens are well advised to inform themselves how such laws are applied in countries where they are already in place.

One interesting question in this context is whether those laws give equal protection to all, or whether they give special privileges to certain pre-ordained “victim” groups.

As it appears, the primary purpose of anti-discrimination laws is that they can be used by “gay rights” activists to harrass and humiliate all those whom they suspect of not agreeing with their agenda. As increasingly frequent reports from the US show, the primary victims are the owners of small bakeries who decline to bake wedding cakes for perverse “wedding” ceremonies of people wishing to celebrate their sodomy.

According to the case-law of US courts such bakers may rely neither on their freedom of contract nor on their freedom of conscience. And the same applies to florists, photographers, and anyone else who might against his will get involved in the celebration of sexual perversion.

The question is: do the opponents of sexual perversion have the same right to force their beliefs on those who do not happen to share them? If, for example, a Christian baker can be forced to bake cakes for same-sex “weddings”, can other bakers, too, be forced to act against their conscience?

At Townhall.com there is a story about a man in Colorado who wanted to test whether so-called anti-discrimination laws really apply without discrimination:

Last year, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple who wanted a wedding cake. Jack Phillips, the owner of the cake shop, is a devout Christian, and his attorneys argued that to force him to participate in the gay wedding would violate his religious beliefs.

The Civil Rights Commission saw it differently.

So if Christian bakers who oppose gay marriage are compelled under law to violate their beliefs – what about bakers who support gay marriage? Would they be compelled to make an anti-gay marriage cake?

Jack, who is a devout Christian, asked three bakeries to produce two cakes – each shaped like an open Bible.

On one side of one cake he requested the words, “God hates sin – Psalm 45:7.” On the other side he wanted the words, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin – Leviticus 18:22.”

On the second cake he asked them to write another Bible verse: “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8” along with the words “God loves sinners.”

And finally, Jack wanted the bakers to create an image – two grooms holding hands, with a red “X” over them – the universal symbol for “not allowed.”

Now if you read the national news accounts of Jack’s experiment – you would’ve read that he wanted gay slurs written on the cakes. But that wasn’t true.

According to the commission’s own report, there’s no mention of Jack using any gay slurs – unless you consider Bible verses to be gay slurs.

Mark Silverstein, the legal director for Colorado’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, accused Jack of wanting obscenities written on the cakes.

“There’s no law that says that a cake-maker has to write obscenities in the cake just because the customer wants it,” he told the Associated Press.

Does the ACLU consider the Bible to be obscene?

As you probably guessed, the bakeries rejected Jack’s request for what some would call “anti-gay” cakes.

“If he wants to hate people, he can hate them not here in my bakery,” Azucar Bakery owner Marjorie Silva told 7NEWS. She called the writing and imagery “hateful and offensive.”

So Jack filed a discrimination complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission – just as the gay couple did in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

Read the rest of the story here.

Advertisements