The difference between refusing services for “Gay” and inter-racial weddings

By Jack Minor —


Much has been made by the left over the refusal of Christian florists and cake makers who have refused to provide services for same-sex weddings, claiming that it is no different than refusing to provide services for an inter-racial wedding but a logical examination of the facts show there is a vast difference between the two.

A Christian florist is now being forced with the possibility of losing her home and all her personal assets because she refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. The courts have ruled that her refusal was based on the couple’s sexual orientation which is a protected class in the state along with religion and race. However, the reality is the couple was long-term customers and the florist was well-aware of their sexual orientation. She certainly had many previous situations where she could have refused to serve them based on their orientation but she did not. It was only when they asked for flowers for their wedding that she refused.

Those on the left and the radical “gay” movement ignore this distinction, claiming that it is no different than a person serving whites and blacks individually to refuse to provide services for an inter-racial wedding. However there is a simple way to determine if this is the case or not.

First, in states where same-sex marriage is legal the question is do they have any requirement that those engaging in said marriage actually be “gay?” The same could be asked of heterosexual marriages. In both cases the answer is no. Now, the judge in the case of a Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony told him it didn’t matter that he would make birthday cakes or any other cake for the couple; it was still discrimination because only “gays” engage in same-sex marriages.

However, this premise if faulty because to be accurate he would have to personally ask the sexual orientation of every person engaged in a same-sex marriage or civil union to be able to affirm this statement as an absolute fact. In the matter of opposite-sex weddings there have been many instances of a gay or lesbian marrying a member of the opposite sex. There is no reason to suppose the same either has not or could not happen in the case of same-sex commitments.

There have been many cases where a couple gets married for reasons that have nothing to do with love. I knew a Marine back in the 1980s who married a girl in Las Vegas solely so he could get extra money for a housing allowance and COMRATS then he split the money with her even though he lived in El Toro, California and stayed in the barracks. It is not unrealistic to see how two young men could get married to obtain benefits. For that matter could a father marry his adopted son in order to avoid paying the death tax? Why wouldn’t this make sense and since there is nothing sexual involved and they cannot reproduce what is the logical reason for refusing this type of commitment, but I digress.

The point is a same-sex wedding under the law can have either homosexual or heterosexual partners participating. This is why nowhere on the marriage application does it require an affirmation that the couple actually love each other.

In the case of an inter-racial heterosexual marriage the question to ask someone who would refuse service to said ceremony is would they perform services to a heterosexual marriage if the couple were of the same race. If the business owner says yes then the refusal is obviously based on the individual’s race rather than the ceremony itself and hence against current civil rights laws.

Likewise, the question to ask those who refuse to perform services for a same-sex wedding is, would they refuse to participate even if they learned that the two were straight. If they answer yes, then it is evident the refusal has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the couple but rather based on the message the ceremony contains, which is exactly what they have said.

Using the argument by the left if a “gay” cake maker were to ever make a cake with a bible verse such as John 3:16 then they could not refuse to make a cake with verses from Romans 1 or Leviticus on it since religion is not only a right guaranteed in the Constitution, it is also a protected class under civil rights laws.

Thus we are faced with two choices, in each instance is the refusal based on the individual’s protected status or is it because of the message? I submit that judge’s rulings notwithstanding, the evidence is clear that the refusal is based on the message and therefore no discrimination has occurred in either case. The left cannot have it both ways.


This entry was posted in Community, Editorial and Opinion, General News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *