Many stupid loony things have been written about the Arizona hate-the-gay love-the-Jesus horseshit, but thank Gay Christ, we have Erick the Son of Erick to uncork the Deep True Bananas.
In December of 1865, the several American states ratified the 13th amendment, constitutionally ending involuntary servitude in the United States. In the 21st century, Americans are coming full circle. In a number of states, a black man can again be forced by the government to work involuntarily for a white man.
Yes, the Son of Erick is quite seriously arguing that if you run a wedding catering business and you might be "forced by the government" to bake a gay couple a cake, that is the fuctional equivalent of chattel slavery.
Not since the nation eliminated Jim Crow laws during the civil rights era have we seen such a bizarre conundrum. But if the black man is a Christian and the white man is gay, a court can forcibly order the black man to serve the white man or drive the black man from business. A number of states have been working to pass laws to prevent this weird conundrum, but in an irony that knows no bounds, gay-rights activists are comparing these religious freedom laws to Jim Crow.
I certainly agree that right here, "irony knows no bounds."
I mean, wow. No further comment.
But there's more snark!
Therein lies the problem. One side is arguing that Christ would not do this so they should not have to do this. The other side is arguing that not only would Christ do this, but the government should be able to force Christians to do it. Gone are the days of turning the other cheek and going to another baker.
This is not actually a "my Jesus is bigger than your Jesus" argument.
In one real world case, a florist had a long-time relationship with a gay couple. She had sold them flowers on multiple occasions. She knew they were gay. She gladly served them. When they asked her to provide flowers for their gay wedding, she declined because of her faith. She assumed they were friends. They sued her business for discrimination.
Because she discriminated against them. Kind of open and shut....
She did not take the position that she should be allowed to deny gays any good or service. She only objected to participating in a gay wedding.
These are two sentences next to each other. No, honestly. These are two sentences next to each other.
This is also grand:
Christian merchants do not see themselves as passive participants in a transaction, but active in a ministry. Their work cannot be separated from their faith.
The son of Erick apparently has no clue that what he just said is exactly the reason why civil rights laws exist in the first place.