Can Businesses Turn LGBT People Away Because of Who They Are? That’s Up to the Supreme Court Now.
ACLU National
2516

Rebuttal to Can Businesses Turn LGBT People Away Because of Who They Are? That’s Up to the Supreme Court Now.

The United States Supreme Court just agreed to decide a case about whether a business can refuse to sell commercial goods to a gay couple because of the business owner’s religious beliefs.

Okay, right of the bat you are lying. It is not about selling “commercial goods”. The case is to determine if people have a right to refuse contract work based on religious belief. It is also about if people can be forced to use their artistic talent against their religious conviction. Marriage is considered a religious institution to Christians and Jesus defined a marriage as between a man and woman.

A win for the business could gut the nation’s civil rights laws, licensing discrimination not just against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, but against anyone protected by our non-discrimination rules.

Scare tactics and BS. It will be over what I just wrote, so it will be limited in scope.

In July 2012, Debbie Munn accompanied her son, Charlie Craig, and his fiancé, Dave Mullins, to the Masterpiece Cakeshop just outside of Denver to pick out a cake for their wedding reception. When the bakery’s owner heard that the cake was for two men, he said he wouldn’t sell them a cake because of his religious beliefs.

Again, bullshit. They sold cakes and other baked goods to homosexuals all the time, probably to these very people. They would not make a custom cake. Big difference.

Debbie was stunned and humiliated for Charlie and Dave. As she has said, “It was never about the cake.” She couldn’t believe that a business would be allowed to turn people away because of who they are or whom they love. They might as well have posted a sign in the shop saying “No cakes for gays.”

They did not turn them away because they were gay. They refused to bake a custom cake for a gay wedding. I think I’m going to have to cut and paste this throughout my rebuttal.

By granting review in Charlie and Dave’s case, the Supreme Court has placed a spotlight on supposed tensions between equality and religious liberty. But the country has already found the right balance between these two important constitutional interests.

Supposed tensions? You are definitely from puff-puff-pass Colorado, aren’t you.

Under the Constitution, we each have the right to our own religious beliefs. We are empowered to act on those beliefs — but not when our actions would harm others. That’s because religious freedom doesn’t give anyone the right to discriminate against or harm other people.

No one has been harmed. There are plenty of businesses that will cater to homosexual marriages. When it comes to contract work, discrimination is mandatory. No one can press anyone into service.

Providing commercial services, like selling cakes, doesn’t mean a business owner is endorsing anyone’s marriage. It simply means they are following the rules that apply to us all.

Selling cakes, absolutely. Forced contract work? Hell no.

Demands for religious exemptions from civil rights laws are not new. In the past, businesses have repeatedly sought to pay women less than men because of a religious belief that men are “heads of household” and women should not work outside the home. Other businesses have refused service to people living with HIV because of a belief that they are sinful. Still others turned people away from restaurants because of their belief that they should not interact with people of a different race. The courts rightly rejected all of these claims for religious exemptions, despite the fact that they were based on deeply held beliefs.

These examples have nothing to do with artistic expression and custom work.

There’s no reason that religious exemptions should be any more acceptable when it comes to turning people away because of religious beliefs about sexual orientation or gender identity. Courts across the country have agreed, including a decision from the Washington State Supreme Court in February.

They did not turn them away because they were gay. They refused to bake a custom cake for a gay wedding. That cut and paste came in handy after all.

Charlie’s mom was right: It’s not about the cake. Or the flowers. It’s about not being turned away from a business because of who you are. Religious freedom must be protected in America, but what’s going on here is pure discrimination.

They did not turn them away because they were gay. They refused to bake a custom cake for a gay wedding. Well, I’ll be. I had to use the cut and paste one more time.