CP 07.13.ai 1 6/18/2013 11:33:23 AM
Southern
Life
Recently, the owner of a Colorado bakery was found guilty of discrimination by a court after he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple that was planning a wedding. Though he had reportedly once baked a cake for a “wedding” ceremony for two dogs, he said gay weddings were against his religious beliefs. Anti-discrimination laws have been put into place because generations ago, there was a widespread practice of denying service to whole classes of people. Jews and blacks often were excluded from hotels, and we all know about Jim Crow and “whites only” establishments throughout the South. Such discrimination is now illegal in a wide range of businesses. Now, the proliferation of same-sex marriage is testing the boundary between public accommodation and the rights of individual freedom. Some say that acknowledging same-sex marriage goes against their religious beliefs. A similar controversy involves certain mandates for business health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Are anti-discrimination laws needed in the current climate? Today, if a restaurant owner decided he didn’t want to serve blacks, that would swiftly be corrected by societal pressure. Just ask Cracker Barrel, Denny’s or Shoney’s about that. In the 21st century, not serving blacks at a restaurant seems extreme and bizarre. How things change. If an establishment did not want to accommodate Jews, I’d be more than happy to take my money elsewhere (Hobby Lobby, anyone?) Why any gay couple would want to support a bakery whose owner considered them an abomination is mystifying. Rather than force someone to go against their beliefs, whether or not you believe them to be misguided, just let it be known that a particular place has those views. The market will respond. Where should the boundary between competing rights be drawn? Nobody can force a Conservative or Orthodox synagogue to host an interfaith wedding in its sanctuary. Religious institutions have some level of doctrinal protection that a bakery does not have. Closer to home, and also involving a private business, this magazine reserves the right to reject advertisements. On rare occasion, “messianic” organizations have asked to run ads for their events, and of course we refuse based on religious grounds. In a free society, when a couple has the choice of where to do business, is it worth it for the government to mandate that a business owner go against his beliefs? Which is the greater societal good? And is there really a large percentage of establishments that would refuse to do business with a same-sex couple? What if a gay couple owned a bakery and they were approached to do catering for one of these “ministries” that claim they can “change” gay people “back” into heterosexuals? Should they be able to refuse? Perhaps one day that Colorado bakery owner will have an awakening and soften his stance toward those who are different. Lawsuits and forced accommodation are not likely to accomplish that.
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
Larry Brook Editor/Publisher NOLA
Southern Jewish Life
January 2014
3