It’s not that business owners want to “refuse service” to gays simply because they’re gay; it’s that some business owners — particularly people who work in the wedding industry — don’t want to be forced to employ their talents in service of something that defies their deeply held religious convictions.
This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is, because some gays in some states have specifically and maliciously targeted religious florists, bakers, and photographers, so that they can put these innocent people in a compromising position, and then run to the media and the courts when — GASP! — Christians decide to follow the dictates of Christianity.
OK, let's think about what Jim Crow laws really were. There were likely plenty of folks in the segregated south who just wanted to feed people and make money. They really didn't care who sat with who. But the law said, "You can't have Whites and Coloreds sittin' with each other! That's illegal!!"
Yet, the cases that sparked this law are hardly discussed. The progressive mob claims that this legislation is about shoving gays to the back of the bus and making them drink out of separate fountains. George Takei echoed the sentiments of many when he likened the Arizona bill to “Jim Crow.”
Yes, the law forced discrimination on everyone, whether they wanted it or not. If you can't understand the difference between this bill and Jim Crow laws, then just keep your mouth shut while the grownups are talking. There is no moral difference between a law denying freedom of association, and a law denying freedom of disassociation.
Back in Minneapolis, there is--or was, ten years back, a soul food joint called "Big E's." I have eaten until I was full. I have eaten until I was stuffed. But at Big E's, I ate until I literally thought my stomach was going to rupture, and I could. Not. Stop. His food is that good. Everyone should experience that at least once. The man is a Master Chef, and soul food is his medium of choice.
But if Big E--God forbid--wanted to say, "no honkies allowed," I would respect that. It would be a crying shame for me, but it's his business, and he has the right to run it the way he wants, regardless of whether I like it or not. Freedom is not convenient or safe, and it's not all fuzzy unicorns farting patchouli. Freedom is, however, the greatest good for the greatest number; you know, what leftism pretends to be.
(And does anyone find it interesting that these activists are actually fighting tooth and nail to give their money to businesses that they find 'morally' reprehensible? Guess they figured that whole boycott thing wasn't working for 'em.)
People, if someone doesn't want your business over what you think is a bullshit reason, fine. Vote with your wallet. Tell them, "Thank you for making your views known before I made the mistake of giving you my money." Then go on down the block to someone who wants your cash. They'll go out of business soon enough. And if they don't, then maybe your pet issue isn't the Big Deal you think it is.
PS: George, I got nothing but love for ya. You seem to be an awesome guy--intelligent, talented, funny, and a great sense of humor. But this planet doesn't revolve around your sex life, so please have Scotty beam you out of this discussion, kthxbi.
PPS: TSM has something to say. Different tack, but same point.