I still don't get it: Why does Christianism want to die on that hill?

[elfs]

Since traffic was terrible this morning and my iPod's batteries were too dead to work effectively, I was stuck with the radio, and as is my unfortunate wont, I dialed into the morning's AM radio and stumbled upon right-wing talk show host Mike Gallagher commisserating with an interview subject about how "Government had become God, the arbiter of right and wrong, and was forcing Christian businesses to have to serve sin."

One of the cases cited was of a bakery in Oregon that, last year, had refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple and been consequently sued under Portland's anti-discrimination ordinance. A local alt-weekly called them up a few times over the course of the following year and ordered: (1) "Get Well Cupcakes" for "a friend who'd just undergone a stem cell transplant" operation, (2) a black "divorce party" cake, (3) a baby shower cake "since my girlfriend is about to have our second child," and (4) a 30th anniversary cake "for our coven's solstice celebration," complete with a pentacle design.

Arguably, divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth are far more dangerous to the well-being of society than consensual love and marriage. I really don't get why Christianism wants to die on that hill.

Comments

[sirfox.livejournal.com]

i'm totally with you, but it's been painfully obvious that their methods to shed that label not only failed in that effort, but failed spectacularly.

rather than step right up and say "It should be a protected expression of my religious freedom that i can call somebody a homo and not serve them" to instead bury it in some quagmired grey area, and nibble their way up on it a bit at a time, quietly and gradually. It's exactly the strategy they've used against abortion and it's been frighteningly successful. That's what confuses me, they've got better strategies in their playbook and this one was ham-fisted to say the least.