The longer I live the more surprised I am by people. Perhaps
I shouldn't be. But I'm not cynical enough to believe that people are
inherently bad. I just think there are a portion of people in this world who
are down right stupid. Take note, I'm not including myself in that group. Well,
at least not most of the time.
Take for instance the law they're considering signing in
Arizona. The law would prevent people from being forced to serve people based
on their personal beliefs. Currently the way the law is written I have little
doubt that it will be brought to the Supreme Court and overturned. There is
just something about it that leaves room open for some wild interpretations. But
why did this law even have to come about? What happened that made this seem
necessary?
I'm guessing here but it seems that the reason was due to a
wedding cake. Yes, I'm serious. It started in Colorado where a baker refused to
bake a cake for a gay couple who got married out of state. They wanted to
celebrate and have a wedding cake but the baker refused to bake them one with
two same sex celebrants on top because he said his religion didn't believe in
homosexuality. One would think that would be the end of the story, right? Not
so in today's world. Rather than take the simple route which would have been to
visit a different baker and give him their business, the couple chose to visit
the local ACLU office instead and file a
lawsuit against the baker for discrimination. This led to a court case where
the baker was ordered to supply them with a cake. Oddly enough this falls under
the civil rights laws. Apparently the civil rights of the couple were violated
but not the rights of the baker. Odd how
that always seems to work out.
With that sort of judgment being handed down I'm guessing
that lawmakers in Arizona decided to make sure it didn't happen there. Rather
than have the ACLU file a similar lawsuit, lawmakers created this law that
makes it legal for people to not service someone based on that person (the
first one mentioned) religious beliefs. The bill states that No “individual,
association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or
institution or other business organization” can be sued for declining to bake a
wedding cake or professionally photograph a same-sex couple if a “sincerely
held” religious belief deters them. That being said the law does NOT use the
term gay or same-sex coupe but the way it IS worded would include anyone who
qualifies for that those terms. Therein lays the problem. In essence the law as
written means that if anyone strikes a business owner as being against his or
her religion, they can refuse them service.
Or does it? When we talk about it the initial response is to
say that if a business owner doesn't want to serve someone then why should they
be force to? That's a knee jerk reaction. Thinking a bit harder you might
recall a time when blacks were not allowed to be served in some restaurants or
to ride the bus up front. That's the knee jerk reaction from the opposing side.
But aren't both of these concepts a bit presumptuous? Aren't they both assuming
that the evil business owner will do anything they can to harm someone with
this law? No one seems to consider that simple business concepts will play out
to either hurt or help that businessman. The baker will lose business as
proponents of gay marriage make sure word gets out that he won't make them
cakes. I mean why buy anything he/she sells if they feel that way. By the same
token those who disagree with gay marriage might buy from him/her for that
reason as well. The open market will determine if he/she made the right
decision or not.
Those who oppose the law will do everything they can to see
it stopped. To date we have seen all sorts of people raising hell about it and
complaining about it to the point they are intimidating the governor of the
state about what will happen if she signs it into law. Those who are for it are
remaining silent. Rather than be judged in the court of opinion they choose to
sit back and let it either be voted in or out. Isn't it strange that when it
comes to religious beliefs or items that present a conservative perspective the
left comes out with guns blazing, yelling from the rooftops about the end of
the world...while those on the right calmly sit and watch?
Those who have no religious beliefs will attempt to use the
Bible as a way of displaying hypocrisy. Instead they display a lack of
understanding of the Bible itself, picking and choosing while accusing those
who believe of doing the same thing. One thing I've noticed in these arguments
is that the scripture they choose to use is always from the Old Testament. I'm
not a Biblical scholar but I do know that many of the tenets in the Old
Testament were altered with the coming of Christ in the New Testament. All the
stuff about pork, polyester, tattoos and such is in the Old. Find a Biblical
scholar and my guess is he can shoot down just about any argument presented
using this argument.
On top of everything else how about this for extortion. The
NFL, that bastion of decency (you know the group where grown men call each
other every name in the book and until one of them gets mad about it they all
take it? Or the organization that has numerous cases of drug use among their
players going on? That same group who seems to have all sorts of players
arrested year after year now for shooting or bashing someone? Yeah those guys)
has said that if the law is signed then they will take their ball home. Yes the
NFL has said that if the law is signed they will move the 2015 Super Bowl from
Arizona to another location. I'm betting that there will be an empty stadium
available in Sochi about that time.
So why does the NFL have to be involved in this at all? When
did sports suddenly become the playing field to combat political causes? Was it
when Bob Costas suddenly in the middle or a program decided to rail against gun
use? Speaking of how was that an appropriate topic for a sports program? I mean
I could see the discussion on a hunting show but football? How about the NFL
just shut up and leave politics to politicians? On the other hand wouldn't fans
be ticked off if politicians ran football? Imagine it now as politicians decide
that it's not fair for one team to be ahead of the other so they force the
winning team to give their points to the losing one. At the end of the Super
Bowl both teams win and get trophies and rings. Nah I didn't think you'd like
that either.
I guess the one thing this all boils down to in my mind is
that people should just be civil with one another. The baker didn't yell at
anyone or tell them to go to Hell, he just said his beliefs prevented him from
making them a cake. The civil thing to do would have been to say okay fine I'll
go to your competitor. One of the biggest problems in this country today seems
to be that everyone wants to sue someone over the smallest thing. It ties up
the courts and makes no one but lawyers happy in the end. Why don't we instead
just stop crying about stupid stuff like this and grow a set. Straighten up and
ignore those you disagree with as long as all they're doing is saying no. If
violence were involved that would be different. The only violence involved in
this case would have been the knife used to cut the cake.
One last point to consider, the only possibility that I can
see why this couple decided to force this baker to make them their wedding
cake. It has to be one damn fine cake. The kind that no other baker can
produce, that will induce gluttony as never before seen on this Earth. Yep,
that perfect cake has to be the reason. What else could it be?
