Discrimination?
Today, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Christian graphic designer who creates wedding websites, that she is not obliged to extend her services to same-sex couples who are getting married. Of course the instant outrage over "Gay rights denied!" has been noted, with people and the dissent from the liberal justices on the court saying this will "make gay people second class citizens".
But, will it? When you talk about discrimination, everyone automatically goes "Oh, discrimination bad!", as well they should; but wherein lies the truth in cases such as this? Was it really a gay couple who so sincerely wanted this designer's services and she was the only person who could do the job; or was it on the other hand, a group of people who wanted to 'prove a point' about supposed equality? The fact of the matter is that while there are legitimate cases of discrimination which occur every single day; cases such as this one before the Supreme Court, are based more in attempt by the modern Alphabet mafiosos to subjugate everyone to their own will. This isn't about a couple who were denied services based on their sexuality and had no other place to turn to so they had to pursue justice; this is about an ideological battle to force those who do not and cannot accept what they believe to be wrong, into subservient and outlawed positions.
My own question has always gone unanswered, because it proves the hypocrisy of the progressive's claim to discrimination- "If you are a same-sex couple getting married, why on earth would you go to a person's small business who markets themselves as a Christian business; and demand they celebrate your nuptials?" Surely one would know what manner of response that would be expected! That would be akin to me walking into a Halal or Kosher butcher's shop and claiming I was being discriminated against because they won't sell me bacon; or going to a gay graphic arts designer and demanding they produce signs and pamphlets condemning homosexuality.
Newsflash- businesses have always held the right to "refuse service" to people who do not follow their rules or guidelines. I'm sure many of us remember seeing "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs at restaurants at some point in our lives; and there are other businesses with even more discriminating rules. There are restaurants you cannot enter if you aren't wearing a suit, there are clothing designers who will not sell to you if you are not in their idea of the right economic bracket, there are food producers who will not do business with you if you are outside of their religious circle because of dietary restrictions; and much more.
The only "right" that has been denied in today's supreme court ruling is the notion that one has the right to force anyone to violate their conscience in order to provide you with a service that you could have obtained from other places by other means equally easily. No private citizen (who is not an employee or representative of the state) may be coerced into violating his or her conscience, regardless of what your ideology demands for "equality".
