Skip to content

No Shotgun Weddings Please

So now even Mitt Romney has urged Arizona governor Jan Brewer to veto that bill that would allow business owners in the state to decline to participate in gay weddings if doing so would violate their religious beliefs.  I thought I was told that Mitt was a really religious guy.  I guess being loved by the political/media/entertainment establishment is more important to him than following any sort of principle.

And there is a very important principle at stake here.  Important to me anyway.  And it should be important to you.

Like I’ve said so many times…honest, peaceful human beings have a right to live their lives free from coercion and the threat or use of force.  And the people of Arizona shouldn’t need a law such as their legislature is attempting to pass, or even the U.S. Constitution, to acknowledge that right.  That right is an intrinsic part of their humanity.  They already have it.  If someone doesn’t want to do something, for any reason but particularly if it violates his or her religion, they have a right not to do it.

Suppose you’re Lillian Lottie.  Now I don’t even know if there is a Lillian Lottie.  But there is a couture bridal shop in Scottsdale called Lillian Lottie Couture.  Maybe there is a Lillian Lottie and she’s gay.  I don’t know.

But just for argument’s sake let’s say that there is a Lillian Lottie and she’s a deeply religious woman.  And ever since she was a young girl she wanted to make wedding dresses.  She labored for years at the fashion institute and then spent decades building up her bridal couture shop.  The whole while she never even imagined that she would one day be required to participate in planning a gay wedding, an action she believes for her, would be a sin.

Remember, gays have no problem buying hamburgers at McDonalds or gas at the Hess station.  Maybe even Lillian Lottie worked her way through school by working at McDonalds and happily served hamburgers to plenty of gay people.  Nobody cares.  This isn’t, as the media wants you to believe, about serving gay people.  This is about people being forced to be active participants in gay weddings.

So should Ms. Lottie be forced to create dresses for a lesbian wedding?  Or maybe two transvestites want to be married.  Ms. Lottie doesn’t care if they want to be married.  She just doesn’t want to make dresses for men.  Should she be forced to?

And it doesn’t have to be about gay weddings or even about religion.  Suppose I was looking for a piano instructor for one of my daughters and I heard there was a woman in town, let’s call her Ms. Melody, who was the best piano teacher in the area.  Let’s say when I contact her she tells me she’s a feminist and she’s heard of me and my blog and that she finds my views abhorrent and she doesn’t want to have anything to do with me.  Am I going to force Ms. Melody to come to my house and force her to sell me piano lessons?  Of course not.  Does she have a right to choose not to associate with me?  Of course she does.

My message to gays:  You’re winning.  Put the shotgun away.  It’s only hurting your cause.


  1. Teddy Ehmann wrote:

    To quote Robert Klein’s brilliant song/comedy routine about gay marriage, “They (gays) have the right to be miserable too.” It all reminds me of a dear local friend, Steve Edelman who passed away 12/29/13. Steve would relay to me everything from the Belmar Superintendent and a Belmar lady architect who refused his support and business because he was a Republican. They had every right. Steve didn’t haul them into court. And as a friend of Steve’s I can choose to have little to nothing to do with the two of them. I am not a Republican, I am gay, but this type of behavior I choose not to reward with my hard-earned dollars.

    Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
  2. Mark Fitzgerald wrote:

    1) FALSE analogy at play by you here, 2) What will be the “gay litmus tests” to be used to deny service, 3) why do you care? 4) “religious freedom” really? You don’t see that as a smokescreen issue and 5) (last but not least) why do you call this “Common Sense for Belmar?”

    Saturday, March 1, 2014 at 12:25 am | Permalink
  3. admin wrote:

    Hi Mark

    This “gay litmus tests” to “deny service” is the real smokescreen. It’s not like gays can’t buy things. Go to any gay person’s house and they have everything that you do. To have a law about people who won’t sell a hamburger or furniture to gays is a solution in search of a problem. How can they even tell if their customer is gay? Why would they even care?

    It’s not about gays, it’s about gay weddings. And if a wedding planner or wedding photographer or caterer or whatever doesn’t want to participate in a gay wedding we shouldn’t force him or her to do so. What are you going to do next? Require anyone who’s invited to attend?

    Anyway I’m sure most people who provide wedding services are happy to do it for gay weddings too. Money is money and gays’ money is just as good, or actually nowadays just as crappy, as everyone else’s. So if a few people don’t want to do it the hell with them.

    And I call it Common Sense for Belmar because I like that name. (?)

    Saturday, March 1, 2014 at 6:11 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.