Masterpiece Cakeshop: US Troops Used as Tool for Homosexual Agenda. Again.
The US military — generally considered the organization that defends the rights of Americans — is being used by activists in an attempt to restrict the rights of Americans.
Hidden within the Supreme Court oral arguments during Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission yesterday was the siren call, yet again, that homosexual rights outweigh all others — because of the US military [emphasis added]:
Most military bases, [Justice Sotomayor] noted, are in isolated parts of the United States, many of which are predominantly Christian. That means, she said, that there might only be one or two bakers to provide cakes for same-sex weddings – and a couple could be out of luck if all the available bakers cite religious beliefs as a reason to refuse to make a cake.
“We can’t legislate civility and rudeness,” she concluded, but we can legislate behavior.”
What gall.
Justice Sotomayor was citing a brief filed by Outserve-SLDN, AVER, and AMPA — all activist groups who advocate homosexuality within the US military. Their claim, in essence, is that service and product providers must be required to support or celebrate their sexual behavior — because, if they weren’t required to, LGBT US troops might not be able to find a provider who would support them. (Unanswered was the question why, if the LGBT lifestyle choice is so “normal,” popular, and accepted today, the LGBT community even needs this kind of governmental protection.)
That argument is bunk on many levels.
For one thing, it’s not the US government’s job to legislate, dictate, or otherwise police a local civilian community to make sure members of the military have access to bakers, butchers, and candlestick makers. Name a community in the US today in which the US government has mandated that the local municipality provide goods or services — on specific terms — just to “support the troops.” You can’t. It doesn’t happen. To imply that it does — and that homosexuals would therefore suffer if they lost access to such fiction — is disingenuous. It’s a made up “tragedy” that does nothing more than try to create an emotional reaction about “the troops”. It makes members of the US military little more than ideological pawns in a game whose aim is to advance the normalization and forced acceptability of a certain type of sexual behavior.
The brief, and Sotomayor’s questioning, failed to consider an equally plausible scenario: What if the “one or two bakers” in the community were members of that same military community? What if they, too, were stationed in a remote location with limited opportunities — and now their opportunity was denied because they were required by the government, in contradiction with their religious beliefs, to support the homosexual lifestyle? Does that make their emotional appeal outweigh the passionate plea of homosexuals?
Finally, it is troubling to hear supposed advocates for the US military — and, disturbingly, a sitting Supreme Court justice — so willing to trade liberty for social “security.”
Think about it: Masterpiece Cakeshop is being told what to believe (even to the extent of being required by the State of Colorado to train their employees that their religious beliefs are wrong). The owners of the bakery have their core religious and free speech liberties at stake. By contrast, those supporting the homosexual agenda have no such liberties at stake. There is no right — constitutional or otherwise — that requires one citizen to provide unqualified goods or services to another. (There is also no legal “right” to not be embarrassed, another of the claims in the Masterpiece case.)
Homosexual activists and those that support them would have the US government take away one citizen’s liberty not to secure another’s liberty, but simply to make another feel better.
In what world would that be considered consistent with American values?
Regardless, the argument proposed by LGBT activists is fiction. The bakery’s customers had options — there were other bakeries more than willing to provide them a wedding cake, and even Masterpiece was willing to provide them other kinds of cakes. By contrast, the bakery has no options. It is required to alter its exercise of its liberties, or it must close.
Those supporting the homosexual agenda discovered several years ago that the US military — with its noble reputation of virtue and honor — is an ideal tool to advance its ideological goals. Using “the troops” puts a pitiable face on the “persecution” of someone who is selflessly and sacrificially serving their country — and suffering just because of “who they are” — or, more accurately, because of their chosen sexual behavior. This latest effort was simply another attempt to use the military to advance a political agenda.
Ironically, the US military — generally considered the organization that defends the rights of Americans — is being used by activists in an attempt to restrict the rights of Americans. For at least one Supreme Court justice, the ruse seems to have worked.
Both sides of the case have heralded it as a watershed moment in the modern conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty — and there, they’re right. And the impact to America — and to its military — could be significant.
After all, if the US government can require a civilian baker to create a cake over his religious objections, just think what the US government can do for a member of the US military — over his religious objections.
With reference to the Religion Clause.
ADVERTISEMENT
No offense JD, but why do you define LGBT as only “sexual behavior”? These folks are warm blooded americans that want the same rights as everyone else. Why are we discriminating “services” from anyone willing to pay for the service, regardless of race, color, creed, sex or lifestyle? It’s kinda like saying “religious beliefs” trump all others, how fair or right is this in america, the land of the FREE and home of the brave?
What if a business discriminated services because the person was a christian, catholic, jewish or jedi? Will this lead us to being “chipped” and “scanned” and if it beeps the wrong way at the next bakery or where ever we go in the future, will the US version of a muṭawwiʿūn come and take us for 50 lashings?
Yes, my reply may sound flippant, but really, how far are we going to go with any discrimination of americans? All we seems to be doing is alienating people.
@watchtower
Why do you think this is something new? As an example, pick a random T-shirt printing service and they’ll probably have a statement somewhere saying they reserve the right to decline certain orders. Here’s one from the relatively popular VistaPrint:
So why is it acceptable for Vistaprint to discriminate, but not Masterpiece Cakeshop?
Remember, the “service” denied here was only a wedding cake. Masterpiece had previously served, and said they would always serve, members of the LGBT community.
All other what? Remember, there are no competing rights here. The government is prohibited from prohibiting the free exercise of religion and abridging free speech — says so right in the Constitution. But that is precisely what the state of Colorado has done. By contrast, there is no right to a cake; there is no right to not be offended or embarrassed; there is no right to be “served” in an establishment of your choice. Only one party’s rights were infringed here.
Why shouldn’t they? Why not let the marketplace and the competition of free ideas prevail? The Christian faith doesn’t require the government to protect it from other citizens.
You appear to be conflating actions by private citizens with actions by the government. If you want to start talking about the government being discriminatory, that’s a separate issue.
Why do you need the government to protect you from another person’s ideas? Are people really that sensitive and weak-minded? If you think a business discriminates, then don’t patronize them. If their discrimination really is a problem for society, the business will fail. If it doesn’t fail, that says more about society than it does the business.
Vistaprint reserve the right not to serve specific items, not to refuse to serve certain classes of people. But it is good to see you finally come out as opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
@Donalbain
That’s the same thing as Masterpiece. Thanks for confirming the point.
Nope. There was no discussion about the actual cake. Just the people buying it. You lied again.
@Donalbain
It is a matter of public record that Masterpiece Cakeshop has expressed a willingness to serve LGBT individuals. It is also public that they declined to use their ‘baked art’ to celebate same-sex marriage, just as they decline to do the same for Halloween, disparaging speech, etc.
You’re entitled to be wrong, of course. Don’t let the facts get in the way of your feelings.
So. No discussion about the actual cake. Just that he won’t sell wedding cake (which he sells normally) to gay people.
@Watchtower – a gay coffee shop owner has already discriminated against Christians and asked them to leave when he saw a pamphlet they were passing out in the area but not in his coffee shop. Guess what, they are not suing him for his discrimination.
If only there were some powerful organization, dedicated to defending American civil liberties, who could weigh in on this issue. Wait a minute…well lookie there!
https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression-arts-and-entertainment