No, I get it jar, and I agree with the basic premise. To me where things get sticky is when one person's rights are put aside for the rights of another. I think that people shouldn't be so quick to cast stones at a particular group of people because they feel they have the right to exercise their freedoms. It goes both ways! This is a significant shift in culture that will take some time to sort out.
To me a good example is smoking in restaurants or other public buildings. I agree that people have a right to smoke if they so choose; I would not want to infringe on that right. But I have a right to not smoke that also should not be infringed upon. When someone sitting behind me in a restaurant is exercising their right to smoke, they are forcing me to breathe smoke which infringes on my right to not smoke. It becomes a balancing act to accommodate everyone's rights. (I am so glad they passed a law in Michigan prohibiting smoking in public buildings, but I am sure many people felt it infringed on their rights)
I think that is where we are at here, with this issue. We still need to respect people's right to believe what they believe, even if we see it as bigoted or discriminating. I think we all agree that a baker should have the right to refuse to bake a cake for a KKK rally where they wanted to have "We hate ******!" printed on the cake. And I think this pastor made a good point as to why this is... because it forces the baker to use his speech to endorse something he doesn't believe in. This is also the same reason why that pastor should not be forced to perform a gay marriage - it would force him to use his speech to endorse something he doesn't agree with.
To me, I think that is an obvious and important line to draw in preventing one person's freedoms from infringing on another's. But there is still a lot of grey area involved. It seems even baking a generic cake for a KKK rally would make me uncomfortable; it would be a form of endorsement, would it not? Wouldn't knowingly baking a cake for that type of event suggest that you approve of it - or at the very least don't find it repulsive? Should I be forced to serve that "class" of people regardless of my personal feelings on the subject?
Why would baking a wedding cake be all that different?
The problem, I think is it becomes a slippery slope - what services would you have the right to refuse because it "endorses" something? A lot of services could be justified on those grounds...
The bottom line for me is we need to find a way to preserve everyone's basic rights - even if you don't agree with their position. It seems the "Christian" position (not meaning all Christians or the "True" Christian position) is being thrown under the bus when all they are really saying is that they have rights too. I agree that no one should have the right to discriminate, but I don't think it is as cut-and-dried as it has been made out to be.
I think that pastor's point is a good one... no one should be forced to use their speech to endorse a position that don't agree with. Working out the particulars of that... not quite so easy.
HBD
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
™ Version 4.2
(1)