Society: Another Gay Area

A friend commented on a Facebook posting. I commented approvingly on the friend’s comment, and the Facebook poster told me to stay “the heck” off their Facebook page. The friend emailed me to explain. This is my reply.

Note: The posting was something to do with the Gay Wedding Cake Incident in the midwest. My friend placed a comment on a Facebook page:


How long will it be before a Jewish delicatessen is shut down because they refuse to carry a fine assortment of bacon?


I think that comment frames the issue perfectly. My reply:


Once again, I have come upon an issue in the news that is being reported fervently by its effects—but permanently divorced from its cause. Old examples include: Generation X, Generation Y, Red State/ Blue State. Try finding out what such terms refer to and you can google your fingers off in vain. It’s as if everybody is supposed to “just know” what these terms mean.

So it is with the current fracas over—what I gather is—a wedding cake for a gay wedding. All I can seem to find is who’s fer it, who’s agin it, who’s offended, who’s outraged, who’s parsing words and meanings and legislation… But I missed the launch, so I’m missing the message.

I was sincere in my compliment to you. I have learned to avoid written sarcasm at all costs. If I understand the issue, you framed a perfect analogy. Personally, I had grave reservations about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it singled out one class for special protection under the law. Going forward, this might imply that other groups are not protected unless they are also specified. Unfortunately, subsequent events justified my concerns. We now have a laundry list of protected gripers. Once the ball started rolling, as with our military adventures, the cause became forgotten in the effects. Apparently some gay people feel,they’re not sufficiently “protected.”

But that’s only half of the issue. The other half is about the rights of any business person, for example, to serve or not serve any potential customer. They can’t deny service, based on that ever-expanding list of race, color, religion, etc., etc. This should be a sticky question. I saw a picture of a supposed ER nurse with a caption saying that she would treat an injured neo-Nazi—regardless. Which is nice, but is it—or should it be—mandated by law? What about a Nazi wedding cake?

I keep thinking: What if somebody’s religious beliefs were really detested by the majority? Like, if they sacrificed babies in blood sacrifices or something like that. Fortunately, I can’t think of any cases. Many religious beliefs could be considered annoying or silly or maybe offensive by non-believers, but detestable? Polygamy maybe comes close, and that was solved pretty simply: Want to join the United States? Then cut back on the nooky. And so it was done. But that may have been jealousy more than just rage. 😉

What I’m learning is that, on Facebook, if you comment on a comment on a post, or you comment on something that was shared—however that business works—the poster or sharer can still have a fit because your comment disagreed with that they had to say. And so you should just “stay the heck off my page,” I am told. (Note: I see my latest post has been removed.)

Which was why I started visiting Facebook instead of sending emails: Less unsolicited traffic, right? Wrong. Everybody wants to feel offended. By something. Or somebody. Who is doing nothing to harm them. Laws are supposed to keep passions in control.

The good ones, anyway.

BTW, isn’t Stephen Fry gay? I hope so.

Bah! Humbug.

== PT

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s