Larryd at Acts of the Apostasy has a first rate response to the attempts by gay activists to coerce businesses into providing services for gay marriages:
As more states allow so-called same-sex marriages, either by vote or governmental fiat, more and more small businesses owned by committed Christians, such as this bakery in Oregon, will be pressured to act contrary to their religious beliefs, and be forced to close, or fined beyond their ability to pay.
However, it needn’t be that way. At all.
While I commend and applaud the bakery owners cited in the above story, and fully stand behind them and other business owners in the exercise of their 1st Amendment rights, it must be understood that the instigators aren’t being motivated by matters constitutional. These gay activists aren’t looking for justice under the law per se; their goal is the minimization and outright obliteration of any Christian influence within the marketplace. They detest the influence of Christian morals, and have found a means by which they can reduce said influence, under the agreeable guise of “equality”: filing discrimination lawsuits against small business owners.
And for now, it appears they are winning. Courts have been ruling in their favor – rightly or wrongly – and with each victory, the gay activists are becoming more emboldened, and momentum is on their side.
It’s time to put an end to that right now, and there’s a legal way to do it. A way that respects the religious beliefs of the small business owners. A way that eliminates the “rights vs rights” battle.
Let’s use the example of the Christian bakery owner. All he would need to do is enact a company policy stating that some level of the profit, up to and including 100%, from any wedding reception contract, will be donated to organizations and/or candidates who support traditional marriage as between one man and one woman. This policy would have to be publicly posted within his establishment so as to remove any doubt from any customer where he stands on the issue. Thus, gay activists who want to order their cake from that bakery would understand in clear and precise terms that they will be funding organizations and/or candidates who stand for traditional marriage. Furthermore, this policy would affect every and any customer wishing to order a cake – gay, straight, whomever. Every wedding cake. Every platter of cannolis. Every dessert cart. That would eliminate any charge of discrimination, because everyone’s order would be helping to fund, say, the Family Research Council, or NOM.
If you think about it, there is nothing new about this. Large corporations publicize who they support all the time, and people decide whether or not to patronize them. Boycotts have been waged against Target and Walmart and other companies, for instance. It’s a thing. What I’m proposing is a bit more assertive, especially for small businesses and proprietorship, but it might be the protection – or at least a stopgap measure – they need.
Imagine it – Michael and Justin enter a bakery wanting to order a cake from John 3:16 Baked Goods. The owner sits down with them as they look over his portfolio, and select cake #19.
“How much for #19?” they ask, fully expecting him to tell them he can’t in good conscience make cake #19 for their reception. Their lawyer’s phone number is on their iPhone’s speed dial, and they’re ready to hit send.
But the owner doesn’t go there. Instead he says, “Well, that cake goes for $1500. But let me remind you guys – John 3:16 Baked Goods’ policy is that 100% of wedding contract profits goes to NOM, and I make about 10% on #19. So you’d be donating $150 to NOM, for all intents and purposes. Just so you know.”
“B..but we don’t want our money going to NOM!” they exclaim.
“Well, guys, here’s the thing about business. I provide a service for which you pay me money. Once you give me a check, it’s no longer your money. It’s my money, and last time I checked, I have the right to spend my money any way I please. But I feel it’s fair to tell you the store policy when it comes to any and all wedding reception contracts.”
At which point, Michael and Justin leave the store in a huff, and John 3:16 Baked Goods isn’t dragged into court. Because let’s face it – no militant gay activist will ever do anything to support traditional marriage. Their goal is to destroy and dismantle, and the very thought of any money going to organizations and candidates opposed to them – especially money from a check they just wrote – would prevent them from signing a contract.
Mind you, this won’t prevent persecution, or bad press, or personal attacks. And the bakery risks losing other business because, unfortunately, a good number of Christians don’t see a problem with so-called same-sex marriage. But the baker stays in business – earning a lower profit, mind you, I understand that – in order to provide for his family and his employees. And he’s witnessing to his faith, and putting his money where his mouth is. And every Christian baker that stays in the marketplace is good for the faith, and ultimately the marketplace is better for it.
Such a policy can be used by any business that provides wedding services – florists, photographers, limousines, and the like. It takes the “rights vs rights” element off the table, and turns it into a financial/economic circumstance. No discrimination. No bias. Merely a public company policy, informing customers upfront where the money will be going.
And believe me – like-minded Christians and traditional marriage supporters will flock and rush to help these businesses. So any lost profits from the wedding side of their business would be compensated. I truly believe that.
Go here to read the rest. I love this proposal. It is imaginative, positive and in-their-face. Christians for too long have only listened to the first half of Christ’s admonition that we be as innocent as doves and as wily as serpents. With this proposal Larryd brings some serpentine wiliness onto this current problem.
Chick-Fil-A
Thanks for the link, Don.
On a serious note. My children and I “Trick or Treated for Unicef, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. Everybody did in the 1970s. We later learned that the money collected and donated by our children went to buy guns. I see UNICEF America is seeking funds which will probably be used to elect Obama a third time or Hillary Clinton.
As for Pope Francis and his social Justice, the unborn souls, aborted, aren’t buying it. Perhaps, equal Justice under the law is a more fitting topic.
Oh, I just remembered. The United Nations population agenda will use the UNICEF money to abort babies to end hunger. This was the rationale for fighting cancer in the 1970s. Abort the baby so he will not have cancer when he is 70 years old. I kid you not.
e Pluribus Odium
Do what Christ would do: Live, and let live.
That is hardly what Christ would do, as the money changers would attest.
[…] […]
[…] activists take it to court? Not as the piece suggests. What an interesting point. See more at: Gay Thought Police Take Note | The American Catholic __________________ The truth of California history @ Father Serra's […]
I admire the ingenuity. But isn’t this close to doing evil for a good result? I assume the whole point of objecting to providing a service for a SSM is that it would cause you to cooperate in an evil. Now there may be arguments that it is remote/immaterial or something, but I am assuming the objector objects because he does not believe it to be so. Therefore, how do you get around the prohibition against using evil means for a good end?
“Therefore, how do you get around the prohibition against using evil means for a good end?”
The main problem with providing a service to a gay marriage is participating in an evil act which causes scandal. The scandal element is largely neutered by using the money received to combat the evil one was forced to participate in by the state, and by giving wide publicity to the fact that you are doing this. The force element from the state frees one from the prohibition against using evil means. The evil means, the gay marriage, is not chosen, but rather participation is forced by the state. If someone could simply opt out of providing such services, that would be a different case, but the state is mandating such participation and that fact allows a greater latitude in the tactics to be used in response. Christ and the tax to Caesar is instructive. Christ does not come out and say the tax should be paid or not paid. Instead he says that they should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are Gods. An ostensibly simple answer that leaves up to the hearer to determine just what is Caesar’s and what is God’s and also to determine what, if anything, should be done if the State decides that what is God’s, in the opinion of the hearer, should be rendered unto Caesar.
“Christ does not come out and say the tax should be paid or not paid. Instead he says that they should render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are Gods. An ostensibly simple answer that leaves up to the hearer to determine just what is Caesar’s and what is God’s and also to determine what, if anything, should be done if the State decides that what is God’s, in the opinion of the hearer, should be rendered unto Caesar.”
Donald R. McClarey is your legal name, but Donald R. McClarity, has been you nickname since I signed on this page. Clarity by any other name would be so clear.
Why thank you Mary! That is one of the kinder variants on my last name that I have encountered over the years.