"Jim Crow laws for gays and lesbians," USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers trembled.
"It's flat out discrimination," shouted media pundits in chorus.
All of this was because several businesses decided that because of their faith they could not extend their services to gay weddings.
What's the problem with leveling these charges against people of faith who refuse to bake cakes or provide services for gay weddings? Everything. Not the least because it's cheap, overtly emotional language meant to drown out opposing ideas.
Do we really believe that refusing to participate in a ceremony you find morally wrong is equivalent to you wishing for state-sponsored sexual segregation? Many would answer no. But that is the charge Powers and all the others throw at those who disagree with them.
ADVERTISEMENT
The truth is much less sinister. Religious bookstores, colleges and bakeries serve gays and lesbians every day, and happily so. Likewise, homosexuals cheerfully serve heterosexuals every day. The only real problems have come in places where beliefs of opposing forces collide. But this doesn't need to be a problem if we remember that tolerance is a two-way street.
Take the recent story of a gay hairdresser who chose not to work for the governor of New Mexico because of her opposition to gay marriage (noticing that the governor had no trouble receiving services from a gay man). No one should begrudge this stylist for refusing to violate his beliefs, and he shouldn't disparage others who take the opposite view.
Freedom of association is foundational to our freedoms in America. Wanting to live out your life and faith as your conscience tells you is a right we all have and must allow to others, even if it means we go across the street to get a wedding cake or a haircut.
Jacob Giese
Makinen
