timgallant.com site logo

On Discrimination

In cases such as the bakery in Oregon (Sweetcakes by Melissa), we have heard repeatedly that the problem is “discimination.” This is then to be compared with the barring of “niggers” from eating establishments and other businesses back before the victories of the Civil Rights movement.

Trouble is, the analogy breaks down at the most fundamental level.

While there may indeed be such establishments out there, I have yet to hear of a celebrated or litigated case where the proprietor refused service to homosexuals specifically because they were homosexuals. If, for example, Rachel and Laura had walked in and ordered a batch of cookies for themselves, we have no evidence that Sweetcakes would have denied them service. The issue was specifically the creation of a wedding cake honouring homosexual marriage. Which means that the issue is not discrimination against people at all. It is a refusal to put one’s services at the disposal of activities one considers immoral and evil.

The fact is, any business that refuses to serve sinners will have to close down immediately, as it won’t have any clientele. But that is a different matter entirely from being asked to provide a service that celebrates or facilitates evil. Let’s consider some examples:

  • If a printing business refuses to produce posters for a white supremacist event, is that “discrimination”?
  • If a medical instruments firm refuses to develop tools intended to be used specifically to assist in abortion, is that “discrimination”?
  • If a bakery refuses to provide a wedding cake for a polygamous wedding, is that “discrimination”?
  • If a detective refuses to render services to a hit man to help the latter track down his victim, is that “discrimination”?
  • If a web site developer declines to create a porn site for a prospective client, is that “discrimination”?

The answer to all of the above questions is yes and no. Yes, it is discrimination in that the proprietor is distinguishing between evil activity and activity that is not, and refusing to lend his services to evil. But no, it most emphatically is not discrimination in the sense that was suffered by African Americans for so much of this nation’s history, and to pretend it is so is to trivialize their suffering.

Contrary to the absurd “love wins” meme, what we are being confronted with on a cultural and judicial level is not a mandate to love everybody, including gays. (God forbid that we fail to do so.)

No, what we are being confronted with is a demand that we no longer distinguish right from wrong with regard to our business dealings. We are being told that in business, we are to worship the secular god of homosexualism, even if we may worship some sort of castrated version of God in a private fashion where it will affect no one else. In essence, we are being told that in order to buy and sell, we must have the mark of the beast upon our hands and upon our foreheads.

If anyone thinks the Christian religion, named after Christ—a term for “anointed King“—can be pursued in this way, that person is nowhere close to understanding the meaning of Christian faith in the Bible. Unlike the Jews who protested before Pilate, we do have a King other than Caesar, and allegiance and obedience to Him who is King of kings trumps the false obedience being demanded by the new Romans.

Comments are closed.