I really don’t understand some gay couples.
Or maybe I do.
You might think they haven’t learned the concept of “shopping around” based on their histrionics.
A Colorado web designer has lost her appeal after refusing to create wedding websites for same-sex couples and her challenge to Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.
On Monday, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver rejected Lorie Smith of 303 Creative’s appeal, according to The Hill.
Smith argued that although she makes websites for many different people, creating websites for same-sex couples goes against her religion.
“I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman,” Smith said. “Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage.”
But the judge ruled that Smith’s arguments do not supersede Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.
“There is no indication that Colorado will enforce CADA [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act] differently against graphic designers than bakeries,” the ruling read in part, referencing Jack Phillips, a baker in Lakewood, Colorado, who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
My initial logic-instinct in such cases where a business owner refuses to do business with a homosexual couple is “why don’t they just look in the phone book for another baker?” It’s not like they live in a one-bakery town. That would be an analytical, efficient route, but people, especially the gay rights sort, are hugely emotive and dramatic in demeanor. They must make a statement and they will make it a bold one, a loud one, and better yet if they can involve upper courts. So they turn their insipid wedding into a grand spectacle where the free market principle is subverted in favor prioritizing homosexual rights over religious freedom.
The example is even more fitting in the case of shopping for a web designer who is not confined geographically. If a gay couple hails from Turkey they can still use a web designer located in San Francisco’s Castro district. Shopping around is a given.
I wonder how this would play out if the baker was Muslim.
Since Muslims fall into that untouchable victimized/persecuted (V&P) grouping perpetrated by the big bad white Christian villain, a gay couple that faced Muslim baker rebuttal would quietly soldier on and seek another gay-friendly baker so as not to create an untoward situation in which a scenario where Plight of Feuding Victims creates an awkward narrative. However, if the offending baker is Christian, they will deliberately create social havoc. Cue the civil rights lawyers. Television crews will swarm and self-righteous condescension by the anti-religious left will flood the airwaves.
I have a thought experiment.
The act of forcing private business owners to serve those who it would choose not to for religious reasons is a corruption of the free market principle. If enough people, on an informal basis, choose not to do business with the bakery, the free market dictates that the business loses customers and may suffer without the help of courts or social crusading lawyers.
Let’s flip the scenario.
Let’s assume the baker is a flaming homo (a more likely situation) and he lives in a small conservative Baptist town. His flamboyant, obnoxious style is at odds with the townspeople, and though his baked goods are delicious, there is a concerted effort on the part of potential conservative customers to avoid his business. It is so successful that he is forced to shutter the bakery.
If we extend the same free-market corruption initiated by forcing Christian bakers to serve gay customers, couldn’t the town be similarly forced to do business with the gay baker?