The Justice System v. the Baker Man

I know this is old news, but it's still important. Below is a copy of my facebook thesis I posted on August 29, 2015 about how the Colorado Court of Appeals tortured reason and justice in upholding punishment against the baker man who conscientiously refused to bake a cake that celebrated someone else's gay marriage (case filed August 13, 2015). As in the original facebook post, the below blog post is only the introduction; the specific points - the meat of the discussion - take place in the Comments below it. So be sure to check out the Comments. Enjoy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have spent over two weeks trying to make sense of the reasoning behind the Colorado Court of Appeals’ recent upholding judgment against the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. for discrimination against patrons based on their sexual orientation. The entire court decision can be read at: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceAppealsDecision.pdf, as well as in Comments below.

This court decision involves many topics, like religious liberty, the right to refrain from speaking other people’s messages, motion to dismiss, etc. However, the only topic concerning me presently is the court’s decision to equate the baker’s actions with orientation-based discrimination. This topic is covered in paragraphs 25-39 of the decision. Here is my quick summary of these paragraphs:

Discrimination because of patron orientation is prohibited (para. 27). The baker insists that his discrimination was because of his moral refusal to get materially involved in a celebration of other people’s controversial behavior (para. 25, 30). Yet the court calls this a distinction without a difference, because “but for” patron orientation, the baker’s discrimination would never have happened and the patron was part of a “protected class” (para. 28, 34). The court asserts that same-sex marriage and same-sex orientation are “inextricably tied” (para. 35) and “cannot be divorced” because the act of same-sex marriage is “engaged in exclusively or predominantly” by gays (para. 34). When the baker’s defense cited a previous court case actually requiring plaintiffs in discrimination lawsuits to prove that defendants have some “class-based…discriminatory animus,” the Colorado Court disregarded this precedent, insisting that CADA (Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act) “requires no such showing of animus” (para. 36, 37), and added that even if CADA did require such “intent to discriminate” (animus), the previous judge could have simply “inferred” it from the baker’s conduct - that he intended to discriminate because of sexual orientation (para. 38). The court even likened the act of same-sex marrying by gays to the act of yarmulke-wearing by Jews, intimating that gays are expected to pursue same-sex marriage just as Jews are expected to wear yarmulkes on their heads at all times (para. 39).

But don’t take my word for it. Please read paragraphs 25-39 for yourself, either at the link above or in Comments below (which omit footnotes for space). Each Comment quotes one paragraph and includes my response to it. You are welcome to Reply to either of these or just add general Comments at the bottom. I’m not looking for fan support and don’t need inquisitions. If you want to discuss personal matters, please send a private message or post a new discussion on your own page with my name tagged in it.

You may now proceed to Comments. Make sure you start at paragraph 25. You may need to click "View more comments" or something.

The New Rainbow

The supreme court has finally declared state constitutions unconstitutional in their bans on same-sex marriage.  It's hard to see where this trend in post-moral relativism will end, mostly because I can't see the world going on much longer as this trend continues its progress.  I can't see it being reversed by anything short of a massive Christian revival powered by divine intervention.  Perhaps God will give our nation some hard times to discipline us and wake us up.  But haven't we had enough of those already?  I've lost hope in our nation's future.  They're taking over our laws, our schools, and worst of all our children's minds.  Even the rainbow has been redefined and paraded proudly in the streets.  Rainbows used to stand for a heavenly reminder of hope that the world would not be destroyed by flood again, presumably because all evildoers were wiped out with the first one.  Yet just like those sammael monsters in Hellboy, they came back in greater numbers than before and may not be finally destroyed by anything short of the fires of hell on earth.

"By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." (2 Pe 3:7)

 

It's tempting to predict that the next big move the left makes will be to crack down on our religious liberty to be intolerant of things God finds intolerable, or to prohibit talk of judgment day or even the fact that God made the world, owns the world, that it is his art project and no one has the right to tamper with it without consequence.  Anyway, I'm already living in the next world.

Don't Blacklist Me, Bro!

Please read my original post (down the page), "Blacklisted Math Tutor" [11.17.08] for the Correspondence I've received because of antigayblacklist.com, and for an introduction to me and my purposes in blogging.
_____

Update! The Sacramento News & Review today [12/11/08] published my Letter to the Editor (sent 12/1/08). For copyright purposes, you can read it at their website (at the very bottom of the page) at: http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=886892. (In case that page expires or something, it is in the Letters to the Editor section of the 12/11/08 SN&R publication, available online.)

Blacklisted Math Tutor

I have been placed on antigayblacklist.com because of a $3,000 donation I made to Proposition 8 (the marriage amendment) in California (and I gave $1,000 before that). This blacklist is designed to cost me business and expose me to various correspondence.

I created this blog for three reasons:

(1) to explain my support for Proposition 8;
(2) to provide some answers regarding my position on gender issues and compassion; and
(3) to publicize correspondence I receive from people, good and bad.

Your comments and questions are welcome at my e-mail mobilemt@att.net, and they may be quoted on this blog. Or feel free to simply hit the 'comment' button.

(1) WHY I SUPPORT PROP 8

I do not consider myself antigay. I just believe in erring on the side of protecting children's vulnerable minds the best I know how. Society protects children, sometimes at the expense of liberty. We the people conspire to ban things, even when we can't "prove" them wrong or harmful. This is true for pedophilia, R-rated movies, gambling, and aspirin at school without parental consent. And we will continue to ban things until society morally evolves and votes for change, or until the judges declare our Constitution unconstitutional.

As for why Prop 8 is important, I discuss that further in e-mail correspondence below, but basically it's in children's best interest not to learn that same-sex spouses are a perfectly normal or acceptable alternative to traditional spouses. First of all, children need a mom and a dad, and they should not have to learn that there is any equivalent substitute for mom and dad. Secondly, many heterosexual children already have enough trouble growing up learning to like the opposite sex, and they do not need their difficulties exacerbated beyond what nature throws at them.

For further consideration, I refer you to David Blankenhorn's op-ed piece in the LA Times, "Protecting marriage to protect children," http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-blankenhorn19-2008sep19,0,2093869.story. (And for what it's worth.... Jesus cautioned heavily against causing children to stumble into sin - Luke 17:2).

(2) GENDER ISSUES, COMPASSION, AND JUSTICE

Apparently, some people have real gender identity and attraction issues that don't fit the heterosexual ideal. We should be fair and compassionate to them, and not demand that they change their disposition. I elaborate greatly on this in an e-mail below, where I respond to an e-mail question about transgendered adults and children [11/16/08].

Now, a key distinction exists between dispositions and decisions, between what we're born with and what lifestyles we choose. It is not legitimate to argue that: (a) whom people marry is tied to who they are, and (b) who they are is tied to how they're born, therefore (c) whom people marry is tied to how they're born. Dispositions do not justify lifestyles or choices, including marital choices.

(3) CORRESPONDENCE

Blacklist correspondence is made public below. Names and e-mail addresses are omitted for privacy, but dates are provided. These were all sent between 11/14/08 and 11/18/08:
__________________________________

One message (possibly from antigayblacklist.com itself?) reads as follows:

The First Amendment gives you the right of freedom of speech and to support political views, but people also have the right to criticize them. We're noting just here these contributions have come from and the individuals' associations and we have every intention of directly impacting the bottom line of individuals and businesses involved or which employ these people,
including contacting your clients.

In your case that would be:

Robert Eakin / Tutor, Mobile Math Tutoring / Carmichael, CA / $3,000 [11/16/08] [emphasis added]

I wonder how they would contact my clients? Is there a Freedom of Private Information Act too?
___________________________________

There were also a couple sympathetic people who contacted me to alert me about my presence on the blacklist. One of them said:

I didn't vote for [Prop 8], but I despise their tactics with a passion. [11/14/08]

He was referring to "terroristic attitudes on individuals," the "attack of the cowardly" provoked by antigayblacklist.com. Thanks Mike.
___________________________________

An out-of-state lawyer had the following things to say:

That as an educator you would spend $3,000 of money you receive from helping CHILDREN to take away the civil rights from a small minority.

I hope you get some compassion and that you get some tutoring to open your mind. [11/15/08]

I replied:

Actually, I spent a total of $4,000, and it was for the children's sake. [11/15/08]

He replied:

You would have supported anti miscegenation laws I am sure. [11/15/08]

This lawyer is suggesting that a ban on same-sex marriage is the moral equivalent to a ban on interracial marriage.

I replied as follows:

People are born with their race. People are not born engaged or married.

And I do not oppose interracial marriage. [11/15/08]

__________________________________

Another inquirer simply asked:

What is your opinion of transgendered children and adults? [11/16/08]

I responded with the following e-mail:

I have great compassion and sympathy for people with legitimate gender issues. They need love more than the rest of us, and I long for the day that I might fight to the death in order to rescue one of them from any hate crime in progress.

Regarding children, they are still developing sexually, and we should compassionately encourage them to turn out heterosexual whenever possible, for two reasons: (1) Many non-heteros wish they were hetero simply so that they could fit in; and many ex-gays are unspeakably grateful for crossing over; and (2) There are a lot of forces nowadays that work against people turning out hetero, like the quirks of adolescence, the lessons being taught in schools in MA and San Francisco, the influences of music, movies, movie stars, and various mass media. Some people, for instance, would not turn out gay if they had only learned not to sooner, like Michael Glatze. Sometimes nature may need a push, or a C-section. And, hey, if anyone must turn out transgendered, we should still love them.

I may have personally benefitted from this encouragement to turn out hetero (or "normal" as I would have called it at the time) when I was growing up, whether it came from mom or from the oftentimes crude kids at school. I am glad I was made to learn the normal life. And in accordance with the golden rule, I want to pay it forward to other children, and help them turn out normal inasmuch as it is possible. A good start is keeping Adam and Steve out of public affirmation, because children learn things without being taught them (like yelling, when they're told to "Shut up!"). If I had had to grow up in a world with same-sex marriage, I would have been either morally discouraged at the trends in society, or worse, I might have been derailed in my own sexual development and identity.

But again, if anyone simply cannot turn out to be normal and heterosexual, we should love them all the more.

This is all to speak of dispositions, not lifestyles. Dispositions do not justify lifestyles.

Sincerely,

Robert Eakin
Blacklisted Math Tutor [11/16/08]

Perhaps I should have referred to lessons being "learned" in schools, not necessarily "taught." Again, children learn things without being taught them.
___________________________________

And then I got this:

I just wanted to call you out on your bigotry. You should be ashamed at perpetuating hatred and fear that ultimately leads to violence, teen suicide and destroyed families. The thought of your having any influence over children is troubling.

Shame on you. [11/17/08]

I replied as follows:

How am I a bigot? Are you aware that 70% of California's black voters voted for Prop 8? Are they bigots too? Do they simply not understand the implications of the Civil Rights Movement? Also, a quarter of Obama voters throughout CA voted for Prop 8. Are they bigots too? Bigotry concerns race and other conditions that people can't control; marriage is a decision and a lifestyle, and it is regulated for society's sake. You need to be more considerate before using that word.

Have I perpetuated hate simply because your people hate me? If people hate me, it is their own fault. Or are you suggesting that I am the one being hateful? You can say so if you like. Or am I making others be hateful? Just give me something to work with, please.

How am I ''perpetuating hatred and fear that ultimately leads to violence, teen suicide and destroyed families''? Seriously, I am not responsible for any violence or any of this, and you should not accuse me of it.

Why don't you read my blog at www.blacklistedmathtutor.blogspot.com and learn what I really think about these issues. Then ask yourself the question on a lot of people's minds: "Where's the real hate?"

Robert Eakin
Blacklisted Math Tutor [11/18/08]

This individual was kind enough to respond with the following:

I do not hate you.

I see you as asserting what is right for your life onto my life. You believe that you have all the answers. You judge choices other people make and aspects of themselves that they do not choose.

A bigot is ''a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices... one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.'' Intolerance being key.

As to violence and division of families, perhaps you need to have walked in my shoes to understand. I was beaten. I considered suicide when I was a teenager because I only wanted to be just like everyone else. I stepped away from my family because our church told me I was going to hell.

I thankfully got beyond that. I am now close with my family, have two step children, and will soon be a grandfather. I would like to save other kids from wanting to destroy themselves and their lives.

You are right that my own assertions displays intolerance of other viewpoints. I guess the name-calling and my difficult journey has had an effect that I would rather not acknowledge.

Good luck to you. [11/18/08]

Thanks, and good luck to you.

I still do not see how I am "judging...aspects of [people] that they do not choose." I think perhaps we didn't read all the above comments I made about my acceptance and concern for people with legitimate gender issues. But that's forgivable enough.
___________________________________

This concludes the correspondence I've received through today, 11/30/08. It suddenly stopped after 11/18/08 when I put a note on my website alerting potential e-mailers that their "blacklist correspondence will be made public at blacklistedmathtutor.blogspot.com." Tonight I'll replace that with the following:

What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs. - Luke 12:3 niv

Recently a friend of mine informed me that I also made the hate list (literally, the "h(8) list") in the Sacramento News & Review publication [11/13/08]. Now I'm at a crossroads about whether to leave well enough alone, or to write a letter telling them and their readers about my experiences being hate listed and blacklisted, hoping to make them contemplate the million dollar question, "Where's the real hate?" I see enormous value in making people confront their consciences, for better or worse.