FROM ONE NEWS NOW/AFA

Half-baked idea undermines Constitution


Micah Clark - Guest Columnist - 10/4/2010 9:35:00 AM

"Just Cookies" bakery in Indianapolis has come under severe criticism and threat of eviction from the mayor's office and perhaps a fine from the city's Human Rights Commission. The owners chose not to be a part of using their talents for the promotion of a homosexual event. They did not refuse to serve or sell cookies off the shelf to a homosexual at the counter -- they merely declined an order of uniquely designed cupcakes, which they would have had to make specifically for a politically inspired "National Coming Out Day" at a local college campus.

The Constitution protects Americans from being forced to promote messages and ideas against their will. Surely, something as controversial and as medically, spiritually, and psychologically suspect as the homosexual lifestyle is one of those moral matters upon which the right of conscience should be protected.

The critics of Just Cookies point to a controversial city ordinance that passed a few days before Christmas of 2005. Proposal 622 narrowly passed on its third attempt that year. This occurred only after a councilor traded votes on a police consolidation proposal in exchange for passage of his "sexual orientation" ordinance. Indianapolis is one of only a handful of Indiana cities that equate homosexual behavior with the benign genetic and immutable traits of race or skin color.

Constitution signer William Livingston noted: "Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation." A questionable local ordinance should not trump the rights of conscience, religion, or even the right to remain silent enumerated in the Constitution. The owners of Just Cookies should have the right to say "no" to being part of a homosexual recruitment event. Just Cookies shouldn't be intimidated by the mayor's office or by homosexual demands groups into using their business to advance a political agenda that violates their core beliefs.

Thomas Jefferson observed that "no provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience." Those attacking this business demonstrate a stunning disregard for the liberties protected by the First Amendment and other tenets of the Constitution.

Homosexual-"rights" groups see this as discrimination. In fact, they often see anything which does not fully embrace their lifestyle as discriminatory -- rather than as a difference of moral viewpoints. This may explain why a similar "discrimination" ordinance in Philadelphia was later used in an effort to evict the Boy Scouts from a building they had occupied for over 100 years. The Salvation Army, which like the Scouts does not accept homosexual leaders, has also been targeted by sexual orientation ordinances in Michigan and Chicago. "Tolerance" no longer means diversity of opinion; it means "embrace homosexual politics and beliefs or else."

We all know that the activists attacking this business would be singing a different tune if a homosexual-owned business were being forced to promote a message with which it disagreed, like protecting marriage between a man and a woman. If a Muslim-owned business were approached by a Jew and asked to make cookies in the shape of the Star of David, would the city have this same reaction when they said "no"? I doubt it. It seems that these types of controversies always surround the issue of forcing an acceptance of homosexuality.

Since this controversy, business at Just Cookies has been booming. Hundreds have purchased cookies and stopped by just to encourage the owners for standing for the values that most Hoosiers hold. Thousands more have contacted the mayor's office to complain about his position. Most Hoosiers understand that it's one thing to approach the counter and order a cookie. It's quite another to use the power of a city or political coercion to force someone to promote ideas against his or her will.