Conscientious Abstention

I've been reading about celebrities refusing invitations to perform at the Trump inauguration.  Honestly, I couldn't care less about who performs, so that's not the point of this post.

It did, however, lead me to wonder about how this relates to some other news making abstentions in the past few years.

It seems to me that abstaining from an activity approved by the left is considered an egregious affront to humanity, whereas abstaining from activities blackballed by the left is considered heroic.

As I've said in previous posts, I'm not interested in telling anyone what, or what not, to do, thus, it troubles me when one group forces their will upon another person or group.

That's why I don't really care which celebs attend Trump's inauguration.  That's their business.  It is true that they may face criticism amongst their celebrity peers and may possibly face some degree of censorship, but that's just part of doing business in America because we're free to make our own decisions.  Likewise, others are free to make theirs.

Here's the steps in the Trump inauguration paradigm:

     1. We don't like Trump.

     2. You appeared at his inauguration.

Therefore:

     3. You can't have a part in our movie.

You may find it interesting that I actually think that that's fine.  As I said, it's just part of being American.  We have the right to associate and do business with whom we please.

That's why it's so galling when the shoe changes feet.

Consider the case of bakers over the past few years.  There are bakers in America who don't believe that gay marriage is acceptable.  It offends their understanding of Christianity.  Therefore, some of them refuse to make wedding cakes for gay marriages. 

It's the same paradigm:

     1. We don't accept gay marriage because of our religious belief.

     2. You want me to make a cake for a gay marriage.

Therefore:

     3. I must conscientiously abstain for religious reasons.

It's the same paradigm with one important distinction.  The second is based upon deeply held religious conviction.  The first is based upon political considerations.

If the paradigms are the same, one must assume that all parties would be ok with the whole thing, right? 

Not exactly.

The bakers in question have been sued and harassed for being 'homophobic.'  Bakers in Colorado, Texas, Oregon, and Massachusetts have had to pay enormous fees to defend themselves in court because they want to make cakes that they don't find offensive.

Courts have often, if not mostly, ruled in favor of the gay couple.

OK, I get it.  I see just where this is going: anyone can have any baker make a cake that says anything or supports any cause.  That should settle the issue.

Well..... not so much.

Jack Phillips

Consider the case of baker Jack Phillips.  He was found to be in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).  The ruling was that Jack had to make the cake.

So, now we finally have clarity.

The CADA allows a person to request a cake from a baker even if the baker disagrees with the message, right?

Uh, no. 

It turns out that the CADA applies to Jack Phillips, but it does not apply to:

     1. A black cake artist who refused to make a cake promoting white-supremacy at the request of the Aryan Nation.

     2. A Muslim baker who refused to make a cake which denigrates the Quran at the request of a Christian church.

     3. Three cake artists who refused to make a cake which carried an anti-gay marriage message at the request of a Christian patron.

So much for clarity.

I guess I'm just confused about this whole thing.  Ever heard the saying, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander?"

Seems as though America has collectively forgotten that one.  I hope you'll notice that I've not commented about the issue of gay marriage itself.  I'm commenting on something more fundamental: Consistency.

I think that we, as Americans, need to decide which way we want to go on this issue.

If we want bakers to make cakes for anyone, no matter how offensive, then let's get on with it. 

If we want to protect the rights of an individual baker no matter how much we disagree with his position, then let's give them that right. 

But, for heaven's sake, let's quit being schizophrenic on the issue.

Hmmm... I know a cat-loving baker.  I think I'll demand that she make me a cake.

Gathering recipes,

TheCurmudgeon