Ever since Indiana's grotesque so-called "Religious" so-called "Freedom" so-called "Restoration" Act was passed, and then almost immediately backtracked and "fixed" to neuter its most obvious unstated intention, proponents of that intention -- to which many are still unable to admit -- have been parsing and splitting hairs and coming up with false distinctions and unrealistic analogies in order to try to make hypocrites out of its opponents. Rick Santorum and Piyush "Bobby" Jindal are the most high-profile examples.
It basically goes like this: "Christian" merchants don't really want to discriminate against gay people who come into their retail stores to buy stuff. They just don't want to "participate" in gay weddings, or put their business's imprimatur thereon by providing services, products or facilities for them, because they don't want to express approval or celebration of a thing that is against their religion. And, they don't want to have to inscribe on their products any "messages" that "support" gayness, gay people, or gay marriage.
So, a "Christian" baker would gladly sell Nathan Lane and RuPaul an off-the-shelf vanilla-frosted orange marzipan cake with Crème de Menthe and lime zest and let them take it to a gay wedding celebration at Elton John's house, but the baker shouldn't be "forced" to put a "pro-gay message" on it (like, I don't know, "Congratulations, Adam and Steve!") because that would "force" him to "express" something he "does not agree with" (i.e., he does not wish to congratulate Adam and/or Steve) and that is "against his religious beliefs."
This is a thing now.
Here's how the thing goes:
Should the government force a merchant who is [A] to inscribe [B] on [C] for [D]?
Where:
[A] = an historically oppressed group.
[B] = a message or symbol of hatred, intolerance or violence toward [A].
[C] = any consumer product that might have writing on it or be shaped like a symbol.
[D] = a private club, or a voluntary member of a private club, that is either (i) universally-despised, (ii) the historical oppressor of [A], and/or (iii) exists solely to promote hatred and violence against [A] and has in fact done so.
So, apparently, to "force" a "Christian" baker to inscribe a message in icing, arrange flowers or take photographs, thereby "forcing" him to express salutation, joy, happiness and love that a wedding represents, is exactly the same as "forcing" a black, Jewish or gay printer to create a "sign" or put writing on a cake expressing hatred, intolerance and violence against him and everyone like him.
Seriously, I don't get this whole writing-on-cakes thing. Are people really expressing their "beliefs" through pastry now? Sure, I remember as a kid I used to get a Carvel ice-cream cake for my birthday, and it always had some insidious pro-Zeppelin message on it that the employee probably didn't agree with, like "Happy Birthday, Graf!" When I turned 10, the government forced Carvel to make my parents a cake for me shaped like the number 10, even though Carvel's religion holds that two-digit numbers are sinful and wrong, so it violated their deeply-held beliefs to make a two-piece number-shaped cake. I think that's in Numbers somewhere, but I'd have to check.
All kidding aside, this whole writing-on-cakes and making-signs thing is ridiculous, it's not adult behavior, and it's a stupid means of creating unrealistic hypothetical analogies whose only purpose is to try to shame critics of commercial discrimination motivated by a merchant's purported "religious" "beliefs." Again:
Should the government force a merchant who is [A] to inscribe [B] on [C] for [D]?
[A] = an historically oppressed group.
[B] = a message or symbol of hatred, intolerance or violence toward [A].
[C] = any consumer product that might have writing on it or be shaped like a symbol.
[D] = a private club, or a voluntary member of a private club, that is either (i) universally-despised, (ii) the historical oppressor of [A], and/or (iii) exists solely to promote hatred and violence against [A] and has in fact done so.
First, the only recourse in a scenario like this is a private civil lawsuit. Civil litigation between private parties is not "the government" "forcing" anyone to do anything; creating a private right of action by statute or ordinance is not a use of "force" by "the government" against
you. When you refuse service, the only thing you risk is being sued; if you think you can win, that you didn't break the law, or that the customer won't sue, then go for it. With respect to your particular case,
"the government" doesn't care.
Second, a merchant who is [A] would not inscribe [B] on [C] for anyone, so his refusal to do so for [D] is not discrimination.
Third, [D] is not a "suspect class" or a "protected class" for the purpose of anti-discrimination statutes. You don't get a statutory right of action or any legal presumptions by virtue of being [D]. You can still sue, but the burden is yours to prove unreasonable treatment, economic damages, and breach of a legal duty independent of any anti-discrimination law.
Fourth, for a merchant who is [A] to refuse service to [D] is reasonable.
Therefore, if customer [D] sues merchant [A] for discrimination, based on [A]'s refusal to produce and sell [D] a [C] with [B] written on it, [D] would lose. And it is in no way illustrative of whether a discrimination lawsuit against a merchant who refuses to provide goods, services or facilities for gay weddings, let alone for "religious" reasons, would or should succeed.
Let's quickly dispense with this other bit of self-martyring nonsense, this from Jindal:
"...you could see Christians and their businesses face discrimination in Indiana[.]"
No, shitbird, it's the other way around. Are you saying that in Indiana, non-Christians
can refuse to provide services for gay weddings without risk of liability, but Christians can't? No? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. "Christians" aren't being held to a different standard or having liabilities imposed on them that are not imposed on anyone else. What Piyush and the other proxy martyrs want is for the state, his and others, to discriminate against
non-Christians, by giving "Christians" a defense to and immunity from liability that would not be available to anyone else. Why should a "Christian" be allowed to refuse service and avoid liability when a non-Christian in the same position
would be liable?
I don't know if it's the rhetoric or the fact that people like Rick and Piyush know better that is more infuriating. As I've written before, marriage equality is coming and it's not going away, but its opponents are gearing up for decades of electoral and fundraising efforts that promise to bring back exclusivity. This effort to exempt "Christians" from having to acknowledge marriage equality is just the first, pre-emptive step in a battle that they know they will never, ever win. Maybe that's the "Christian" strategy: If you can't win, be a martyr. Sometimes being a martyr feels better than winning.