Latest from The Conservative Mom

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker: What The Lesson Is For Our Children

One of the most difficult challenges we face as moral beacons for our children is remaining consistent, specifically when certain situations tempt us to deviate from our original stance.

Being consistent with our values is far more difficult than we let on to be, and it’s one of the reasons kids have trouble adapting to certain codes of conduct. If mommy and daddy can’t afford the same considerations to an individual or group of people that they do to another, then mommy and daddy are teaching little Susie that virtue is subjective; that personal opinion shapes one’s code of ethics, not the other way around.

It’s a common mistake all of us do but should be addressed and watched carefully because it’s a HORRIBLE approach to life.

Recently, the news has been inundated with situations like these. As the political climate continues to swell with emotion, reasoning has taken a backseat to anger and that’s NEVER a good lesson to teach our kids. A resolution should never be derived from acrimony.

When someone of the other political party – or, more pointedly, someone in the spotlight we simply don’t like – does something inexcusable and wrong, we acrimoniously condemn their behavior and believe the consequences should be swift and severe. But when one of our “own” does something unjustifiable, our knee-jerk reaction is to downplay the severity, then distract it by pointing to someone ELSE who got away with it. We saw it just as recently as last week with the Samantha Bae vs. Roseanne Barr situation.

And, in as little as just a few hours ago, we saw it with the Court’s decision to uphold a Colorado baker’s right to not serve a married gay couple.

Now, I’ve been somewhat outspoken in my belief that the government should have no say in gay marriage. I realize it’s not a popular position among my readers, but if my position is going to be that the government should have no say in who we should love, then I damn well better be consistent in my belief.

Because I believe that gay couples have every right to marry, you would think I would be of the belief that this recent Supreme Court ruling was abhorrent… but I don’t. I think it was the right decision.

NOT because I think it’s morally ok to turn down someone because they are gay, but because I don’t believe the government (or anyone for that matter) should tell you how to run your business or who you can or cannot serve.

If I owned an ice cream shop and a pedophile or rapist or Neo-nazi or extremist Muslim or drug addict wanted to patron my business, I certainly think I have the right to turn down their business.

Now, TO BE VERY CLEAR BEFORE THE SOCIAL WARRIORS START BLOWING UP MY EMAIL, I’m not suggesting a homosexual couple looking for a wedding cake is the same as any of the aforementioned groups. What I’m saying is that it doesn’t MATTER if they all fall into the same category or not. As a society, we have to be CONSISTENT with how we make decisions and implement laws, and if you favor one group of people over another, it becomes a dangerous, slippery slope.

If liberal groups get to voice their opinion through public forums, so should White Supremest groups. If we have to amend graduation speeches, so they don’t discuss religion or God, then that same standard better be held to others that want to inflict their beliefs on fellow graduates. If we’re going to crucify the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Harvey Weinstein, Roger Ailes, Al Franken, and Matt Lauer, for being sexual predators, then we can’t give a pass to the likes of Bill Clinton, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Spacey, and yes, even Donald Trump.

Why? Because a moral foundation should never be contingent or flexible based on who you LIKE or who you WANT TO BELIEVE is a good person. That’s now how virtuality works. That’s also not how the judicial system works. If it did, we would all be in a world of trouble.

And this is an incredibly important lesson to teach our children, one that becomes convoluted because it’s easy to let our emotions supersede rational and moral obligation.

In the case of Jack Phillips, the decision was actually premised largely around Phillips’ right to a fair and unbiased trial. It was declared that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission grossly mishandled the case by letting THEIR personal opinion muddle due process. And that’s probably true. Because it’s hard to stay committed to a virtual platform when someone you really dislike demands you show them the same latitude you would a person you do like. However, it’s vital that we do; it’s vital that we as a society hold everyone up to the same standards, regardless of their political, social, or economic beliefs.

The next time a public figure that you admire does something inexcusable, let your kid know it’s wrong. Fight every urge you have to say, “oh but so-and-so did the same thing and they didn’t get persecuted for it.” Because it really doesn’t matter what OTHER people do; what matters is that YOU don’t deviate from your own set of standards just because someone you like does.

Teach your kid to always hold themselves and each other accountable for their actions. Teach them that, just because one of their peers does something and gets away with it, it’s not any less wrong if THEY do it. Teach them that ethics and virtue are not subjective nor contingent on favoritism.

If a business can turn down a client because that client goes against their religious belief, then you can’t cry persecution when another business turns you down because of your religious beliefs. If a baker is forced to make a gay couple a cake, then bakers everywhere will have to make cakes for White Supremacists and Hillsboro Baptists.

Once these clear lines become muddled with personal opinion, we no longer live in a democracy with free speech.

And that’s what this country is all about.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

About Mcclain W.

3 comments

  1. I believe you are well-intentioned but extremely naive as concerns the objectives of the homosexual movement. They will bully their way into silencing any expression of dissent – we’re almost there – and promote homosexuality through every means possible, including indoctrination of impressionable school children. It has nothing to do with discrimination. Marriage is not only a cornerstone of society, but an expression of the highest ideals of nature’s design.

  2. Let me start by saying that I consider myself conservative and consistently vote Republican. But I’m not sure I agree with your article in its entirety. I believe that businesses should NOT be able to turn away customers based on race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. But I do not believe this was what the Colorado baker was doing. Nowhere I have I read that he refused to serve them ANYTHING. He refused to bake their wedding cake because it violated his religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. That, in my opinion, he had every right to do. No one has the right to force another to violate their religious beliefs. And that apparently was the intent of the gay couple. This is liberal Colorado, for heaven’s sake…they could have chosen almost any other bakery to make their wedding cake. They chose that one because they wanted to force their values on this man. And that’s very wrong. If they had walked into his shop and ordered say a birthday cake or cookies and he had refused to serve them, I believe that would have been wrong. But there is no evidence that that was what happened. They, like the entire LGBT movement, are trying to cram their beliefs, along with their lifestyle, down everyone’s throat…that’s where their freedom to live their lives as they choose interferes with the rights of conservative Christians to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Most Christians have a live-and-let-live attitude, but no so with the LGBT movement. They will not be satisfied unless/until Christians renounce their beliefs.

  3. Traditions and historical symbols are not meaningless. That includes religion. The gays never challenge Muslims. Just thinking if a gay tells a portrait artist he wants his portrait painted having sex with a farm animal, should or does the government have so much power that it can force the artist do it? The subject being government power, the government fist. Now forcing religious to go non religious If it has that much power can it force the gay to go straight , or straights to go gay? Ten years ago gay marriage was inconceivable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...
x

Check Also

Facebook loses teen market at rapid pace

As parents, we are often concerned about what our young social media connoisseurs are watching ...

Conservative icon Charles Krauthammer: “I have only a Few Weeks Left to Live”

The devastating news Friday afternoon that Fox’s beloved resident conservative, Pulitzer-prize winning columnist, author and ...

Oh Mickey, You’re Not So Fine

Conservative parents across America are outraged at Disney’s decision to release a full line of ...

Venezuela Follows North Korea Releasing Another American Hostage

Venezuela has followed suit after North Korea’s recent liberation of American prisoners, releasing Joshua Holt ...

Obama: “What if we were wrong”?

That stunning question came just days after Donald Trump captured the White House.  It was ...