The final tally is in. Springfield citizens voted to repeal the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity ordinance. I am glad to see this result. Many people are already saying it is because Springfield citizens hate gay people. Their tolerance has become very intolerant of opposing viewpoints.
I’m not against people in the LGBT community. I may not agree with their lifestyle, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to get married or anything else I can legally do. Even with that view, I do not believe the SOGI ordinance should exist. Not because I hate the people it would apply to, but because I believe in the opposite approach.
For one, I believe same-sex marriage laws are unnecessary. Not because I think same-sex couples should not be able to get married, but because I believe ALL marriage laws are unnecessary. Marriage is a religious act. By enacting same-sex marriage laws you discriminate against those who believe in other arrangements, such as polygamy. As far as government is concerned, “marriage” should be a contract between two or more people. Government should have zero involvement unless there is a dispute, which would be handled in the same manner as any other contract.
The second thing is that anti-discrimination laws should not even exist because the private business owners should be allowed to make that decision. Some will argue that by opening your business to the public you then become a public business, but that is not true. If it were, no business should pay taxes just as a public (governmental) organization does not pay taxes. A private business can be privately owned while being open to the public. Now, back to the anti-discrimination laws, they shouldn’t exist. Private businesses should be allowed to implement their own policies, even if they discriminate against others, because we have a system called a free market. If people disagree with a businesses discriminating against a group, they don’t have to do business with them and can take their money elsewhere. While it is possible that “white only” or “straight only” businesses may do well, it is likely that discrimination free businesses would do just as well or better. If a city or region fully supports such businesses then those who discriminate will likely cease to exist. A former coworker of mine would say “that’s the cost of doing business.”
Those who claim to not be discriminating are often doing just that. We already have the Constitutionally protected freedom of religion (not freedom *from* religion), so those who choose to not participate in certain acts because of their religion are allowed to do so. It’s not because they hate people. In many cases, the businesses are more than willing to provide services to those they disagree with, but are not willing to “endorse” the act that is the base of the disagreement. The act of forcing them to perform services against their religion is, in fact, discriminating against them because of their religion.
Lastly, I recently saw an article where Rick Santorum asked if a gay print shop owner should be required to print banners for Westboro Baptist Church saying “God Hates Fags”. It is an interesting question given the current climate. No, they should not. The problem is that this, as Santorum said, “is a two-way street.” If a Christian bakery is forced to participate in a same-sex wedding by baking a cake acknowledging that marriage then a gay print shop owner should also be required to print banners that say “God Hates Fags”. It’s not one or the other.
I do not expect this to be over. There will be court battles for years to come, but that would have happened even if the ordinance had remained. I also foresee supporters of SOGI continuing to attack those who are against the ordinance and will never attempt to understand the reasons why people might be against it unless it supports their narrative that they hate gay people.
My Political Stand 