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.

10 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.

    • Good points, Linda and David. I must also agree if I went somewhere to order a cake for any reason and was told they wouldn’t or couldn’t, I’d simply go somewhere else. Why would I want to force someone to do something they weren’t comfortable with – under ANY circumstances? One can only imagine what someone being forced to do something against their beliefs would do to sabotage the order! Nope, I’ll be glad to take my business somewhere else!

  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.

    • Ten years ago there were already three states where gay marriage was legal, so I’m pretty sure it was conceivable. Also, the court ruled pretty clearly that an artist wouldn’t have to make any art they don’t want, but if they can’t sell something to one person then refuse to sell that same thing to another person because they’re gay.

  4. How can you make the statement you made, and still support the baker’s right to discriminate? As you said:

    “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.”

    The only way I can see to reconcile that quote with the rest of your article is to conclude that you don’t consider gays to be people.

  5. Just to note – the Court’s decision was not that he had the right to refuse their business, only that his own rights were violated. It’s the same as someone who is found guilty of committing a crime and is then let go on appeal because the police illegally gathered evidence without a warrant. Colorado’s (or any government’s) violation of a defendant’s rights is considered to overrule any other facts of the case. I suggest you go read Kagan’s concurrence, as it speaks to the narrowness of the ruling and how she (and other justices) feel regarding businesses turning away customers – you can pick what you sell, but not to whom you sell it.

  6. colored people next, the native americans, then jews, and on and on….what is the right thing to do not what religions want….

  7. I tried very hard to ignore these 3 replies….I really did try, but you guys make it almost impossible.

    Let’s start with EMMA—I would be quite willing to wager that you’ve never sat down with a gay person and actually asked them what they want in life. I think you will find that they want the same things you do: they want to be accepted in society and have equal opportunities in this world. They don’t “bully their way into silencing any expression of dissent…and promote homosexuality through every means possible, including indoctrination of impressionable children”!!!! Talk about naive! Talk about uninformed! They don’t PROMOTE homosexuality. They don’t ask, entice, lure, cajole….they just want the freedom to be what/who they are.

    Now on to LINDA—You were doing pretty well until you got to, “They, like the entire LGBT movement, are trying to cram their beliefs…down everyone’s throat”. Then you became EMMA.
    Have you ever sat down with a transgender teen and heard them ask only for acceptance? Do you know what it is like to be so uncomfortable in your own skin as to contemplate suicide? Have you ever been assaulted for the crime of simply being different? Somehow, I doubt it.

    Finally, we come to DAVID—Traditions may not be meaningless, but the are fluid. In early Rome, it was completely acceptable for adult men to have sex with boys. For thousands of years, it was not only acceptable, but encouraged, that sex within royal family occur to keep the royal line pure. Ever notice how the Russian Tsar Nicholas II and King George V looked like twins? They were cousins! Intermarriage among royal families was common. It was traditional that Christians burned non-believers at the stake. In Salem Mass., it was traditional that women and girls could be accused of witchcraft and burned or drowned. Check out your history of the Pope. Find out that, while marrying was discouraged, many Popes had children. Celibacy is a relatively new tradition.

    Bottom line….you 3 could benefit from expanding your horizons and your knowledge. Conservatives accuse liberals of being elitists who live in a bubble. Maybe it is you, without exposure to “others”, be it blacks, be it Jews or Muslims, or gays, who are living in a bubble. Open your eyes, your minds and your hearts. It might be good for you.

  8. First of all, the basis against serving perverts is one based on private property rights. If a government, any government, can order you to do something and if you refuse, punish you then you cannot in any possible way own you body, and life. This property right extends to things a person owns. For example, a bakery. The nine men in black robes made the right decision but for the wrong reasons. Damn them all!

Leave a Reply

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

*

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...
x

Check Also

North Korea Returns Remains Of US Soldiers

It would have seemed inconceivable just six short months ago, as both President Trump and ...

California DMV worker slept 4-years while at work, and is still on the job

The assault on hard working Americans continues in “La-la land,” where Governor “Moonbeam” rules. This ...

Why Melania Trump is a Role Model for Young Girls

Having a good role model to look up to is important for young children, whether ...

Fiery Sanders Slams Abusive Media… Again!

The long-running feud between the media and the Trump White House erupted once again last ...

Trump bumper-sticker enrages woman

If you’re a Trump supporter, you likely have your own tales of former friends and ...