Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Baker Boycott

    Baker Boycott

    I came across a story about a Christian baker in Iowa who is being boycotted for refusing to work with a gay couple.

    I love boycotts with a passion, regardless of which side I’m on. Commerce is meant to be a voluntary association where goods are exchanged. Oftentimes prices, competitors,  or quality factor into purchase decisions, but the phrase “value is subjective” is epitomized by a consumer who flexes a moral objection to the producers of a certain product.

    I didn’t feel particularly strongly about this article until I got to this line:

    The Iowa Civil Rights Act was amended in 2007 to include protections for sexual orientation. The couple told the television station they had not decided whether they would file a Civil Rights complaint against the baker.

    A spokesperson for the Iowa Civil Rights Commission declined to confirm or deny whether they’ve launched an investigation.

    Once again, the government obscures commerce.

    What good is a boycott in a land where commerce can’t be voluntary?

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    1. The government should not meddle with a small business like this bakery. It’s tantamount to meddling with a transaction between two individuals. A large, publicly traded company could be a different story.

    That’s just my gut feeling. I leave justification or refutation to better dialecticians than I am.

    2. I suspect that the Iowa Civil Rights Commission would love to receive a complaint. During tough times, they need pretexts to justify their budget and phony baloney jobs.


     
     0 
     
     0
    theduchessofkitty | November 15, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    So, a Christian baker must lose her livelihood because of her religious conscience?

    This tells me that “gay marriage” is truly not a “civil rights” issue as they claim, but an issue of “I-will-ram-it-down-your-throat-and-like-it” thuggery and intimidation. And using the government to do the Mafia-like intimidation, to boot.

      Did anyone read the link before they went all Jim-Crow here? Victoria Childress is no Christian martyr.

      The nosey parker had already consented + prepared the tasting menu when she pried + pursued an inquiry into her customer’s personal affair. That’s when she turned her counter into a pulpit and customers into sinners. She asked first. They answered. Perhaps they should have said, “None of your damn business”.

      If she was really a ‘Christian’ and had a ‘conscience’, she would have Mark 2:13-17 memorized.

    I think I might differentiate between whether an individual is being asked to perform a personal service that of necessity would further an offensive ideology, or whether it’s a business that is selling an impersonal product or service (e.g. auto mechanic), such that the refusal to do business is just plain old discrimination. Some businesses might be hybrid. Does baking a wedding cake involve getting personally involved to the point in which it is sanctioning the wedding? If she were in the business of renting chairs, should it matter what the event is for which the chairs are being rented. Etc.

    I would not want anyone looking at my donuts with lust in their heart.


     
     0 
     
     0
    el polacko | November 15, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    so are the folks defending the baker’s right to disciminate saying that whites-only restaurant counters are okay again? i prefer the boycott method of protesting, but boycotts and suits are not mutually exclusive. the non-discrimation law is on the books for just this sort of situation.
    but the big question for me is why any businessperson would want to limit their customer base this way. gay people don’t eat sweets? jesus will hate them if they sell a cupcake to a gay person? i don’t get their rationale. if they don’t want to sell baked goods to the public, then maybe they are in the wrong business.


       
       0 
       
       0
      theduchessofkitty in reply to el polacko. | November 16, 2011 at 10:07 am

      There’s a reason why many small businesses place the Christian fish on their ads and signs.

      Christians make over 50 percent of the population.

      Gays? Pick a number, any number, to represent their percentage. Their actual percent of the population is… 2.

      Encouraging boycotts only does one thing: marginalize Christians (the majority of the population) from society. Making them into renegades. Outlaws. Not worthy of belonging in polite society. Lepers. Who wants to buy a cake from a “Christer” nowadays if you can be “trendy”?

      But that’s OK. With Obama and his gang about to force Catholic hospitals to pay for employees contraception and forcing them to do abortions, and even taking them from the adoption and foster agencies because of their stand on homosexuality, to teachers being fired from their jobs because of their own Christian stand against it, among other things happening in our current society, pretty soon there will be no Christian with a job worth having in this country. No pharmacists. No teachers. No doctors. No scientists. No…

      In short time, Christians will be confined to working in the “waste management” business, just like the Copts in Egypt! Even in spite of that pesky Religious Freedom clause of the First Amendment. Isn’t that great?


       
       0 
       
       0
      dmacleo in reply to el polacko. | November 16, 2011 at 11:44 am

      they are ok with me.
      and so is a blacks only.
      and both of those would go out of business soon if they did.
      what gives you the right to tell me who I have to work for?
      of I choose to not work for someone, its my choice.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend