The other foot!

what follows is part of an exchange  stemming from the following posts on a (gay former student) friend's Facebook page:

"I'm from the Right Wing but I would simply haul ass to a place that would serve me. Has anyone refused to serve a gay couple? I must have missed that."

At this point I felt  my interest piqued so I looked at the respondents bona fides. Amazingly enough, she  (this person) "studied at the London School of Economics" and now works at a volunteer fire department in Maine!

My first response:

"Yes, XXXXXX, it has happened all over the country, most frequently at bakeries who don't want to make a same sex couple cake. It extends, or has done , to refusal to rent. It has kept lifelong partners from deathbeds, disenfranchised surviving partners, and the list goes on. Apparently the London School of Economics didn't cover historical persecution of England's own gay population (Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing (forced chemical castration) in our lifetimes. It seems that you subscribe to the "I'm not gay, so screw 'em" school of thought. Of course one could use that vastly bigoted point of view to justify allowing discrimination to any group different from oneself. And for the record, I am a happily married (50 years) straight man. I just happen to be sick of seeing such ignorance in print. Kick this one around the firehouse, I'll bet they agree with you,  more's the pity.

She then asked why if a photographer refuses to shoot a wedding, so what? " Were other photographers available? If so, why the fuss?"

I responded:

"Because, if you offer your services in an open commercial setting, then you should provide those services to any legitimate customer who asks for them and can pay. The concept was (supposedly) settled by the USSC in Heart of Atlanta Hotel vs US in 1964 (yeah, 50 years ago) Although the case was brought by a motel chain wishing to avoid providing rooms for Black potential customers, and sought to enjoin enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it related to any business involved in commerce. As  federal Law, it relates only  to "interstate" businesses, and therefore, if your photographer or baker isn't an interstate entity, there is the possibility that persons like yourself could deny service based on prejudice. Many Americans supported the abandonment of Jim Crowism, discrimination and bigotry during the Civil rights era. Some still cling to the idea that it is just fine to treat one group different from another based on bias and prejudice. The same principle you seek to justify would allow a very broad range of discrimination, not just anti-gay, but anti-single parent, anti- black, anti- Jew, Muslim , Hindu ....in fact against anyone who isn't just like you. The only conceivable reason one would support these "religious freedom" laws is if one, in extremely un-Christian fashion, I might add, given the example of the Biblical Jesus, chooses bigotry, bias and hatred over love. If that is you, XXXXX, you need to look to your soul."

"One last note, It amazes me that the only people we hear complaining about this reaction to the "religious freedom" laws, are persons who have never been the specific targets of discrimination ....not until their own allegedly religious based patterns of behavioral and overt discrimination were finally met by people of good will who challenged their right to be bigots. The shoe is on the other foot and apparently it pinches. Of course these "victims" of equal opportunity will never be lynched shot or burned for their complaints. They will, like you, just be scorned and shamed for their "pick and choose the scripture" religiousity. See a difference here?