Radical Homosexuals Want to Have Their 'Ideological
Cake' and Make You Eat it Too
CNSNews.com
In this March 10, 2014 file photo, Masterpiece
Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips decorates a cake inside
his store in Lakewood, Colo. Phillips appealed a
ruling against him in a legal complaint filed with
the Colorado Civil Rights Commission by a gay couple
he refused to make a wedding cake for, based on his
religious beliefs. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, file)
This past week, we witnessed the unseemly pandering
of several Republicans to the radical homosexual
lobby. Each stumbled over the other to present his
credentials.
Florida Senator Marco Rubio—in a display of complete
incoherence—stated on Face the Nation: “I
don’t believe that your sexual preferences are a
choice for a vast and enormous majority of the
people… the bottom line is I believe that sexual
preference is something people are born with.” Which
one is it, are all people born that way, or just the
ones who want to make that claim?
Rubio’s incoherent view seems to boil down to this:
If you think you are born that way you are, but if
you don’t think so, then you are not. Then he moved
on rapidly, to affirm traditional marriage. On what
basis Marco?
Rubio’s anxiety to please and fit in with the
current of the times was shared by others allegedly
holding to the conservative ideal. Scott Walker
almost groveled to affirm that he was on the
politically correct side of this issue by reporting
that he had been to the wedding reception of a
homosexual couple, but had never stepped into the
wedding ceremony itself. If you are celebrating a
gay wedding at the reception, what is so problematic
about attending the wedding? What fine distinction
is Walker trying to establish?
Somehow the need to fit in takes over these men,
these “conservative” individuals that are leaders in
our country. Texas’s Rick Perry, when he was asked
if he would attend a gay wedding, anxiously stated,
that he “probably would go,” and Gov. John Kasich
made sure that everyone knows he will soon be
attending a gay wedding.
Their unbelievable weakness reminds me of Bill
Clinton’s infamous reply when asked if he had ever
smoked marijuana. He dabbled with it a few times, he
said, but of course he did not inhale.
Undoubtedly, these men, who have never advocated for
the aims of the gay lobby, are not interested in the
issue, rather, they are pandering to an immoral
minority at a time when truth needs to be spoken the
loudest. Are these the same men who say they wish
overturn Obamacare, secure the borders and solve the
immigration problem? Will there be less contentious
animus from the opposition in any of these needed
reforms?
This urgency to fit in, to make sure they are not
left out, is illuminating, and frankly embarrassing.
Seeing them act like incoherent teenagers, reminded
me of a song by Echosmith,“Like the cool kids.” Yes,
I’ve heard it on the radio. “I wish that I
could be like the cool kids, because all the cool
kids, they seem to fit in.” Gentlemen we are
not in high school anymore. Get a grip.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand, called on all pastors
to preach on the importance of marriage on Sunday as
we near the Supreme Court’s deliberation on this
grave matter next Tuesday. Regardless of where
people stand on this issue, it seems to me that
leadership requires clarity and tranquility of mind,
for whatever position one wishes to endorse and
argue.
Perhaps these men, who are walking into a morass of
ethical and moral issues, dealing with freedom of
conscience, religious freedom, freedom of
association, the role of the rule of law and the
rest, ought to find some sound philosophers to
advise them. Certainly, political consultants will
not yield beneficial answers to many of the
questions they are facing.
So let us take time for a little dispassionate
reasoning on the matter at hand. The question of
homosexuality, and its implications for men and
women with homosexual tendencies, children, and
society at large, is no trivial question. That we
have the Supreme Court deliberating on the issue
should make that evident. I have addressed some of
these serious issues in my
open reply to Bill
O’Reilly regarding this matter.
Another distinction is critical at the outset. The
radical gay lobby is good at causing false
conflicts. This tiny group is well funded, but they
are only a few thousand. And in some nations there
are but a few dozen people engaged in its ranks.
Statistically they do not even register.
It is important to make the distinction between men
and women who may have homosexual tendencies and the
radical gay lobby. Most men and women with
homosexual tendencies lead a tranquil life, engage
with others regardless of their sexual orientation
and do not view their life completely consumed by
their sexual orientation. The LGBTcrowd has done
much to call itself a community and pretend they
represent these individuals. The vast majority of
men and women with homosexual tendencies have
nothing to do with the radical gay lobby. They are
already inserted in natural communities that love
and care for them. They have friends, parents and
colleagues, and like all of us, struggle along
through life. I know and respect many of them. The
LGBT radicals pretend to be the surrogate community,
and the only place where these competent and often
spiritual men and women, with homosexual tendencies
can be loved and understood. But this is a ruse.
Proof positive was the attack on two fashion icons
and publicly professed homosexuals, Domenico Dolce
and Stefano Gabbana, when they dared to state that,
“… the only family is the traditional one … life has
a natural flow there are things that cannot be
changed.”
The vast majority of homosexual men and women are
glad they have parents, honor their parent’s
marriage, are not anti-religious bigots and
certainly are not out for blood. These are not the
people physically and verbally assailing bishops,
academics, entrepreneurs and other Americans in
public. They are also not the people that profaned
the Cathedral of Cologne in Germany by jumping on
the altar during the midnight Christmas Mass naked,
while shouting blasphemous slogans. These are not
the radicals who simulated sexual acts with crosses
on St. Peter’s square. The tiny homosexual lobby
holds nothing sacred and seems quite incapable of
rational argument.
So the gay lobby has now decided that not baking a
cake for their weddings is some enormous crime, akin
to the segregation of black people.
We can begin shedding some light on the fundamentals
of this issue by considering today’s
decision by an
Oregon judge that a bakery should be
fined $135,000 for declining to bake a wedding cake
for a same-sex wedding. The two lesbians in question
filed a list of alleged physical and emotional and
mental damages (over 88 injuries), suffered as a
consequence of not being able to procure their
wedding cake. Amongst them, “weight gain …
impaired digestion … surprise … uncertainty … high
blood pressure … felt mentally raped, dirty and
shameful … resumption of smoking habit … uncertainty
etc.” The lawyer for the defense stated,
there was no, “expert testimony,” and that the state
is not only pursuing the baker’s business assets but
their personal livelihood.
The radical homosexual lobby in its strategy
sessions and papers makes quite clear that it must
always seek the opportunity to appear as victims and
create emotional arguments to further its agenda.
Then they lobby for laws that further their claims
of “pseudo rights,” on grounds of discrimination. So
nothing new here.
The gay lobby is also implying that denying, not a
cake, but an “ideological cake,” will lead to
disallowing homosexuals from entering restaurants
and other facilities in the future.
But there is a fine distinction here, which is being
ignored. The distinction is that, if a homosexual
couple enters an establishment to eat, a simple
transaction is taking place. The restaurant sells
food and gets paid an agreed-upon price to do so.
Barring other public disturbances, there is no issue
here. The owner of the restaurant is not involved in
the ideology, beliefs or convictions of his patrons.
He is providing a service, and not being made to
participate in any ideological venture. The
homosexual diners are entitled to sit at the table
and talk all day privately, about their agenda and
desire to overturn constitutions, referendums, and
the rest. The owner of the restaurant is not a
participant, contributor, or involved in any way in
their ideological bent. As far as the restaurant is
concerned, it is doing nothing but providing a
service—that is, serving food. What it need not
provide, is active participation in an ideology that
is not its own.
The crucial difference comes when the baker is asked
to participate, not just render a service
disconnected from ideological engagement. This in
fact happens when the baker is forced to participate
in the gay marriage event by baking a cake. If a gay
couple wants a cake which reads, “gay is ok,” now
they are asking the baker to participate in their
ideological convictions. The baker, at this point,
is not simply serving food to the hungry, a
completely non-ideological free-market transaction.
He is being asked to involve himself and create an
ideological object, “the gay cake,” that professes
an aim and way of life that he finds objectionable.
This is no longer just a cake, but a political and
ideological statement. There is a big difference for
freedom of conscience between baking a cake and
producing an “ideological cake.” Burger King, not
long ago, chose to produce a “Gay Whopper,” grand.
But no one should force Wendy’s to produce the same.
Wendy’s produces burgers; if it wishes to produce an
ideological burger, this can only be done freely by
the corporation itself. They cannot be forced by the
government or judges to do so. Similarly, I would
object to forcing, on grounds of discrimination
against believers, any effort to make a hamburger
establishment produce a “faith-based whopper.”
Merely providing a service is non-active
participation in the ideological mindset of a
customer. Forcing entrepreneurs to create visible
signs is seeking to coerce an individual or business
to take ideological stands. These entrepreneurs or
individuals, for moral or business reasons, have a
right to refuse this ideological coercion. It
matters little if they, rightly or wrongly, find an
ideological transaction objectionable.
The radical gay lobby is like a teenager throwing a
temper tantrum. If they do not get their way, they
yell and shout, claim the whole world is persecuting
them, and that their lives are being ruined on
purpose. They are hated because millions of people
have simultaneously contracted that mysterious,
undiagnosed, and fantastical “homophobia.”
It is quite evident to see that potential
objectionable customers are clearly not limited to
the LGBT crowd. If a group of neo-Nazis wants a cake
to commemorate the anniversary of Kristallnacht and
they want the cake to read, “The Final Solution,”
with a swastika under this hideous phrase, should a
baker not be able to refuse them as well? What if
the KKK wants a cake that reads, “White Power”? Is
it so terrible to refuse that costumer? Do pro-life
bakers have to create cakes that celebrate the
founding of Planned Parenthood?
Imagine a baker from a former communist country.
Does he not have a right to refuse to do business
with a customer who wants a cake with the hammer and
sickle of the Soviet Union? What if an atheist wants
a cake that reads, “God is dead”? A refusal to write
such a statement seems totally unproblematic; a
believer or non-believer should always be free to
forgo a simple free-market transaction. What if
someone wants a cake that reads, “Gay is not o.k.”?
Should the gay baker be able to refuse? Indeed. Can
a baker refuse to bake a cake that reads, “Allahu
Akbar” (Allah is great)?
Absolutely.
I am not saying that homosexuality is akin to
any of the above-listed ideologies. I am simply
pointing out that objections to ideologies can be
quite vast and varied. In every industry people
choose whether they want to transact business with a
client or not, even for more benign causes. No great
reason is needed. No phobias need to be invented if
an investor does not want to take my money or an
accountant does not want to work for me. There is
nothing extraordinary in any of this. The mark of a
free-market transaction is that both client and
provider are free to engage or not engage in
business. It is an abuse of power to try to force
private entrepreneurs to do business coercively.
Libertarians and advocates of freedom should be all
over these issues.
The opportunity cost in not doing business, in all
these instances, is dealt to the vendor immediately
by the free market. In refusing a customer’s
request, the vendor forsakes the profit of the
transaction. That is and should remain the decision
of the vendor. This is the total and only pain that
a vendor who chooses to refrain form a free-market
transaction should ever receive.
We are walking on dangerous ground here.
Not opposing the state or the special interest
groups, which seek to coerce free citizens to act or
not act is a mistake. Laws and court decisions
unchecked by so many advocates of liberty are simply
feeding willingly, or by omission, the Leviathan of
unlimited state power in its increasing efforts to
swallow economic freedom.
Apparently the homosexual lobby chooses not to eat
at Chick-Fil-A. Fine. The owners have decided that
the opportunity cost was worth it to them. Should we
force adherents of the radical homosexual lobby to
eat at a place they find objectionable? Chick-Fil-A
does not deny food to homosexuals. It simply
expresses in the public square its defense of
marriage.
Many people do not buy from corporations that
support abortion or other policies that they find
objectionable. Entrepreneurs compete, and some have
expressed ideological ends publicly. These incur
opportunity cost, or greater profits. No problem. It
is their free choice to jump into the arena. But
they must do so freely.
The loss of cultural freedom should not go unnoticed
by the advocates of economic freedom. The simple
reason is that the power grab of the government in
the cultural sector (cultural freedom) of a
democracy always has implications and carries losses
in the realm of economic and political freedom.
These matters are not disconnected.
In the case of the photographer, the situation is
even more obvious. The photographer, who attends
events to make a living, must first decide freely,
before he transacts business, if he wants to even be
present at an event. Is the photographer obliged to
attend a strip club to create a video recording of a
rowdy bachelor’s party? Is the videographer who
belongs to People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, (PETA) obliged to film a BBQ festival? May
the photographer not refuse to participate in the
wedding of his former wife, if he so pleases? What
if his wife is marrying another woman?
The bakery (and the photographer and the florist)
are also not vital public services. There is no
ius— no debt of justice—that obliges anyone to
bake an “ideological cake,” let alone when the
writing on the cake is objectionable to their
reasoning, morality, or even religious principles as
an entrepreneur.
The “homosexual cake,” is not just a cake, it is an
ideological statement, and here the vendor must
decide if he wants to engage or participate in an
ideological statement. If the “gay couple,” wants a
generic cake, by all means, it should be sold. But
the wedding cake they seek is involving a free
citizen and a business in making a political or
ideological statement, and here the vendor must
weigh questions of conscience and opportunity cost.
Does the entrepreneur want to be involved in these
questions?
Political statements and questions of conscience are
clearly within his right to decide. He may want to
protect his brand and his corporate ethos, and these
considerations will come into play in his decision.
He is not obliged to make a “Republican cake,” or a
“Democrat cake,” either.
What should prevail here is the freedom of
conscience (cultural freedom) and the protection of
economic freedom to transact business with a
costumer or not. All participants in a free market,
both client and vendor, have the freedom of carrying
out business or refusing a transaction. The
opportunity cost of lost profits, is the freedom of
choice necessary in the case of non-necessary
services.
The issue here is that the specific kind of
intellectual and ideological participation in cakes
and weddings is quite different than the services a
hospital, restaurant or airline performs. In these,
there is no ideological participation, mostly
because they are dealing with matters of the body
(material transactions which do not involve values
or beliefs, non-intellectual); the restaurant feeds
you the same food everyone else gets, and the body
is quite non-ideological. The plane moves you from
one spot to the other. The hospital helps to heal
you, and disease is quite non-ideological. There is
no sufficient reason in these cases to refuse the
service, but the provider is in no way being coerced
to participate in your ideology or objectionable
activities (from their point of view). A fire is a
fire to a fireman. There are no gay fires or
heterosexual fires, just flames. Clearly, providing
electricity and water supply to a citizen is
necessary and does not involve anything but a
material transaction.
The difference is that, in the case of the baker,
the photographer, and the rest, they are being
coerced to actively participate in an action that
they find intellectually objectionable. Simply
providing a service is quite different from making
someone participate unwillingly in my activities,
ideology, or aims. That participation requires, in
the controverted cases previously stated, a free
consent from the vendor.
This is not segregation. There is no reason to deny
entry to someone into a restaurant because they are
black; again, the body is non-ideological. A person
of any race eating, is simply entering into the
service they are providing without engaging in
approval or participation in their love life, or
their political or ideological aims. This is quite
unproblematic.
No one licitly denies a homosexual entry into a
restaurant if they are civil, as all customers
should be. For, in simply providing food, the
restaurant and its owner do not participate in favor
or against any ideological aim. They render a
service without an active participation in anything
the customer may believe or ideologically seek. But
the radical homosexual lobby is not satisfied with
using services; its position is that people who
disagree with them must nevertheless actively and
coercively participate in their ideology. This is a
serious reach.
Frankly, if not getting their cake is such a drama
and scandal, then maybe they should not get married.
Much greater difficulties in life will occur than
being denied a cake by some baker. They should do
what most people do when someone does not transact
business with them—take their business elsewhere.
There is no law banning homosexuals from getting
cake in America. If there were, we would all be
objecting to that.
Ironically, one should observe that it is the gay
lobby and its advocates, who are banning services to
many Americans today. The radical gay lobby and its
political friends are intent on denying the
possibility for American youngsters and adults to
seek counseling or psychological attention when
confused or having doubts about their gender
identity. In a country where people can seek
counseling and psychological help for any or no
reason at all, it is astonishing that some
irresponsible politicians, propelled by the radical
gay lobby, are making it illegal to listen to and
serve young people who may have gender
identification questions or difficulties.
Since December of 2014, California, the District of
Columbia and New Jersey have banned psychological
therapy to transgender youth and others. Whatever
happened to patient rights? Whatever happened to
affording people the ability to avail themselves of
services if they so choose?
In these states, and the homosexual lobby clearly
wants this to be a national ban,
psychologists and counselors are forbidden by law to
intervene in sexual orientation matters with
transgender minors. In a nation where even dogs and
cats can have specialists assist them in their
behavior and difficulties, young people today are
denied services, in utter disregard for patients’
rights and the desire of parents for a consultation.
Who then is denying services to whom?
This loss of cultural freedom, plus the erosion of
freedom of conscience and the abuse of the rule of
law is something that should deeply concern our
libertarian friends.
Libertarians and others are keen to observe the
progressive takeover of the economy and the loss of
economic freedom in our current democracies, but
they often fail to object when the state, under
cover of social issues, swallows up cultural freedom
– dealing an equally powerful blow to economic
freedom by falsely attributing to itself the power
to decide with whom one transacts business.
My libertarian friends and others should not be mum
on these matters. They should notice that growing
losses of cultural freedom are yielding more and
more losses of our economic freedom. They sit idly
by while businesses get shut down for exercising
their freedom to execute or reject a commercial
transaction. In some cases, these entrepreneurs have
their lives threatened and are savaged in the biased
media until sent into hiding.
Whatever became of stating the free-market
principles by which one lives and dies when economic
freedom is threatened? I submit that the lack of
single-mindedness by advocates of economic freedom,
to protect liberty when political and cultural
freedoms are involved, is playing into the hands of
a rampant state that seems so intent on controlling
every aspect of our lives. As many of them know, the
European Union regulates even what light bulbs
citizens are allowed to use—a feat not accomplished
even under the Soviet regime. America now chooses to
do the same and goes a step further in regulating
cakes, flowers and pictures – there’s no big
difference.
Men of intellect need to stop self-flagellating over
these matters.
Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, is a philosopher and theologian
involved in public discourse on economics,
philosophy, ethics and theology.