The Supreme Court is now considering the infamous gay wedding cake case. A gay couple sought out a certain baker to bake a cake for their wedding, knowing the baker in question is a Christian. He politely refused service, saying he couldn’t give sanction to a practice that is against his faith.
Now the case is before the highest court in the land, and the controversy surrounding it hasn’t died down in the least. The case is about religious liberty, and liberty in general: people have the right to not participate in something that opposes their faith.
But to people like Salon writer Nick Lingerfelt, who likely wouldn’t appreciate being forced to write a column praising Jesus, it’s discrimination. “[Greg] Locke is a well-known pastor at Tennessee’s Global Vision Bible Church, and his outrage stems from a Supreme Court case over what some call religious freedom and others say is flat-out discrimination,” Lingerfelt writes.
The secondary question people keep missing in this debate is one of character: Just who in the hell decides to spend years of their life trying to force another human being to prepare food? What kind of values does this person have?
The argument from the Left is that those who oppose gay marriage or other LGBT issues do so from a place of hatred. They do not. But if you truly believe someone hates you, why would you want to force them to cook something? Why not just get a life, live and let live — as the baker was doing — and not include people who hate you in it?
This was never about discrimination, but about silencing people who bear different beliefs. I’ll bet the gay couple would never demand a Muslim baker make the cake. I’ll bet the gay couple would object to a Jewish baker being forced to cater a Nazi meeting.
But those two outcomes are exactly what MUST happen if they win this case. They don’t care about discrimination or free speech unless they feel like they are on the wrong side of it.