The Orwellian shadow continues to grow-
In the linked article above, the wrong question is posed. It should have been something like this:
Can laws prohibiting discrimination be expanded to force businesses to provide services specially for events that run contrary to a person's beliefs?
"..........“No,” argues one gay couple who have filed a discrimination complaint against a Colorado baker who refused to provide them with a wedding cake.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, owned by Jack Phillips and based near Denver, Colorado, is at the center of the dispute after David Mullins and Charlie Craig attempted to order the baked good from the business last summer.
Phillips, declining to provide service after learning of the couple’s sexuality, cited his Christian beliefs. But Mullins and Craig aren’t accepting Biblical arguments as a viable basis for the refusal............
Last week, the Colorado Attorney General’s office also filed a formal complaint. If the baker loses and continues to refuse service to gays and lesbians, he could be fined $500 per instance — and given up to a year in jail, his attorney claims. Phillips will stand in front of the state’s Civil Rights Commission in September........"
The war is in full swing, except that few people will admit that this is the case. It is a war on truth, dignity, , religion principles, liberty, and one's own identity. If you have to abandon your principles in order to earn your daily bread, you are no longer free. Not only are Civil laws being used to sue people into submission but criminal laws are also being employed to hammer those who will not acquiesce to the New Order.
As I noted in an earlier post, a Jewish baker cannot refuse service to a neo-Nazi, nor can a black baker do the same for a known member of the Ku Klux Klan, but they can certainly refuse to make cakes for Hitler's birthday or the anniversary of the founding of the KKK. The same argument applies to ceremonies (In this case falsely given legislative recognition) as gay weddings. No one can refuse to hire, rent to, or provide a service to someone simply because of his sexual practices, but the Law cannot be taken to mean that a business owner must provide services for events that celebrate activities are held in observance of such practices.
They way the game is being played now betrays the news rules that have been introduced;
Civil Unions, presented as something sufficient to satisfy those who wanted legal rights commensurate with those of spouses (And fought for by gays), are now presented by the same people as insulting to gays. Not only most you accept that the title of marriage be applied to these unions, but you will also have to make cakes, floral arrangements, take photos, provide planning services, etc. Politely attempting to redirect someone to a business owner who specializes in these events will get you sued, fined and possibly jailed, and as the third of the three top links demonstrates, subjected to a massive boycott by citizens animated by an aberrant picture of righteousness.
The latter is our new Chivalry. Those who fight for the legal allowance to kill the unborn, keep parents ignorant of their own child's plight, force employers to pay for abortifacients, and raise a fist in defiance of God and our culture by joining in on the war on marriage are the noble defenders of society.
I prefer the actual code:
-From a previous post:
One must keep in mind that governments do not have creative powers. They cannot bring rights into existence. The State is given the power to regulate and protect institutions such as marriage to prevent abuses. These would include underage brides, one spouse who is still legally married to another, etc.
Marriage existed long before any government; therefore a government cannot,despite any legislative hoop-jumping, create the legality of a marriage that, by its very nature, cannot exist. Any law that presents itself as such is nothing more than play-acting by the State.
I once believed that the primary reason for using statutory powers to pretend that same-sex marriages exist was to destroy the family While I still believe that this is the primary purpose for some, I have come to think that others have a more insidious purpose for this.
-The purpose is to establish full governmental control of society and all of its people.
Think about it. If the State can force people to act as if a government can bring the impossible into existence, and force everyone to go along with it, then what is it incapable of doing or forcing? If a society accepts that the State can conjure up institutions by going through the motions of making laws, what can stop them from removing rights or creating others that infringe on the Liberties of the rest of the people?