On Taking Your Chimp to the Beautician

Liars are usually clever — you have to give them that. And one of the things the really smart ones know how to do is to use the last lie you caught them in as a basis for getting you to believe the lie they are currently telling. Take the specter of Jim Crow laws and the current “scratch a liberal, find a totalitarian” frenzy that we have going on right now. Or, as Iowahawk aptly put it, “Hey, great job, ‘coexist’ bumper sticker community.”

The enabling problem with Jim Crow laws was the fact that they were LAWS. The sin involved was bigotry. The crime involved was coercion by the state. Bigots focus on the fact that people are white or black, and they run screaming to their first refuge, which is “there oughta be a law” that mandates the imposition of their bigotries. Entrepreneurs notice that everybody’s money is green, and they don’t demand that anybody do anything. And in a mixed community, where the free market is allowed to work, the general result is cosmopolitan.

So Jim Crow laws did not simply allow bigoted business owners to refuse service to those they detested. You don’t need a law for that. Jim Crow laws required non-bigoted business owners to act in a way contrary to their consciences. Sound familiar? And Jim Crow laws enshrined bigotry in the law, such that institutions governed directly by the state (e.g. schools) maintained and enforced the currently approved bigotries.

Got that? The problem was the government. If you were a white restaurant owner in Alabama, and your conscience said that you should be able to serve anyone who came in your one and only front door, well, then, too bad for you.

“It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment.”

Now why do people make such laws? They do it because if they didn’t make them, then other people would start to do the thing prohibited. Bigots don’t believe in argument because they consistently lose them. They routinely have bad experience with arguments. And so if you want to identify the bigots in any situation, then look for the screechers. Look for the people who are shouting everyone else down. Look for the coercion. In response to this the liberals say, “It is not like that at all.” “How is it not like that?” I ask. “Shut up,” they explain.

They want tolerance on the ballot the way Kim Jong-un wants to be on the ballot — he just loves those landslide victories. Nothing better than unanimous elections. Makes you feel warm all over. The problem with Jim Crow laws is that they cudgeled people to keep them from doing the right thing. The problem with the current application of “anti-discrimnation” laws is that they cudgel people to keep them from doing the right thing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The problem is that we should not entrust the power of the cudgel to cowards and idiots. The government is a cats paw for thugs and bullies, and is usually headed up by “profiles in courage” like Pence and Hutchinson, who can be counted on to go white in the face and weak in the knees whenever they are confronted by an angry mob.

I have been predicting this kind of nonsense for many years, and have repeatedly pointed out that it flows necessarily from certain incoherent principles that the secular state wants to regard as axiomatic and virtuous. Take, for example, “discrimination is wrong.” This needs to challenged every time it rears its little pinhead because discrimination is inescapable. The only question concerns the principles used for discrimination, not the fact of it. And when back in the day I predicted the orgy-porgy that was coming, a lot of Christians wanted me to shut up because “why are you making trouble like this?” Well, we are there now, and so I consider myself as someone who would be vindicated if anybody were still paying attention. There is no profit in being vindicated by the fulfillment of your prophecies if the fulfillment of those prophecies could only occur because of a widespread judicial stupor. When the court seers have their drunken heads on a table covered with vomit and filthiness, no one sits up suddenly in order to say, “Hey! Didn’t Isaiah talk about this?” (Is. 28:7-8).

So, then, what should our conclusion be? To refuse to glorify a detestable act is not sinful, it is both virtuous and courageous. This does not mean Christians believe that they have a responsibility to participate in a parallel economy, distinct from all “sinners.” The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness of it. We don’t get ethical cooties from standing on the opposite side of a cash register from a homosexual, or adulterer, or embezzler, or Republican congressman. If I can buy a roast from a priestess of Aphrodite (1 Cor. 10:25), then I can certainly buy one from a homosexual. And if we are on opposite sides of the counter, I can sell something to a homosexual. Fine.

So the professions in question, then, the current battleground professions, are the glorifying professions. They are the professions that say on their business card that “we make your event look good.” These are the photographers, the florists, the bakers, the caterers, the videographers, the graphic designers. Our job is to glorify what you are doing. The problem is caused when people demand that they use that expertise for an event that is perfectly appalling. It is like taking your chimp to the beautician, and blaming the beautician for the results. When there is social turmoil as a consequence, you can count on somebody suggesting that we fix everything with fines and sensitivity training for the beauticians. And that somebody will be part of the coexist crowd.

And even if these people were entirely wrong about it — which they are NOT — why the coercion? Leave the fellow alone, and quit trying to get your ham sandwich at the kosher deli.

So whatever they say (to the extent you can make it out under all the yelling), whether they like it or not, the current crop of progressives are the heirs of Jim Crow. They are the ones using the law to violate honest consciences. That’s just how they roll.

38
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
35 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
20 Comment authors
BarnabasSteveTomtimothyTim Etherington Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
ReformedCE
Guest
ReformedCE

I love this idea of professions which glorify. It makes so sense of the confusion and disgust I feel at various events which should be glorious, but ultimately fail. Marriage is beautiful and glorious. Weddings are a celebration of that glory, among other things.

But the current trends mock the intended glory, whether the “wedding” is between two dudes or two unrepentant fornicators presided over by a lady justice. No amount of booze, flowers, country club atmosphere or pretty dresses could make the joke look glorious. Not that anyone noticed…

Jon Swerens
Member

Relatedly, Hopper from “A Bug’s Life” instructs us on the reason a tiny pizza parlor in Middle-of-Nowhere, Indiana, had to be attacked with such singular ferocity.

Rick Davis
Guest

This tweet from Lutheran satire seemed apropos to the conversation about discrimination.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

The Memories Pizza situation represents a further turning of the economic screws on anyone unwilling to shill for the homo variety of social justice. First Christians and conservatives were blocked from the tastemaking positions in media and academia. Then the Brandon Eich affair showed that you weren’t safe in large corporations, even if your views weren’t expressed at work. Thousands of small businesses are difficult to police ideologically but with rapid economic consolidation it will be hard to avoid radical HR departments. I have often thought that Christians may be driven out of such large corporations and into running small… Read more »

bethyada
Member

The recent comments about glorify are interesting, though I suspect it is also about participation. They want you to approve. The diabolical ploy is to get men to sin against their conscience. The goal is that men may blaspheme God. It has attempted to be played out with abortion and it will continue here. It matters not that doctors routinely treat infections and heart attacks and hernias in all people. They are and will continue to demand that doctors kill their children, and prescribe their transgender hormones, and surgically remove the contents of their scrotum. Just a pinch of incense… Read more »

BJ
Guest
BJ

Would any of those who peruse this blog that have defended gay marriage or criticized Doug in his opposition care to defend the blatantly bigoted mob attacks like thst at Memories pizza or elsewhere? I mean even Andrew Sullivan (new friend at all to the defenders of traditional marriage) spoke out against the Firefox guy getting tossed. Can you guys really continue to call us paranoid about being attacked?

BJ
Guest
BJ

As a follow-up, I am very quick to oppose fellow Christians who do harm to others. We try to police ourselves as much as we can. Are you all willing to do the same? If so, then any reasonable person must say this is too much.

Ben Bowman
Guest

These last two blogs have been exceptional. Here is what this whole situation reminds me of, South Park gets it right sometimes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbduLLatolw

Moor
Guest
Moor

Hidden camera attempt to get Muslim bakeries to make a gay wedding cake (along with some rational commentary):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

BJ
Guest
BJ

Moor,

Thanks for the video. Enlightening.

Matt
Guest
Matt

Got that? The problem was the government. No it wasn’t. Where do you think those laws came from? Do you seriously believe that racism would have disappeared if not for “the government”? You constantly treat the government as this occupying force, foisted upon us by powers unknown, but that just ain’t how it works. Alabama had racist laws because Alabamans were racist. Without laws, they would have been racist anyway. There was plenty of racism in the northern states that was never expressed legally, yet achieved the same segregational ends. And if we are on opposite sides of the counter,… Read more »

Christopher
Guest
Christopher

“Do you seriously believe that racism would have disappeared if not for “the government”?”

Racism disapeared? when and where has that happened?

Lawrence
Guest
Lawrence

Hi, just curious if your webmaster can change the image back to the caricature of Doug, because when these posts are put up on Facebook, the image is an advertisement for a conference or book, and it does not look like an article, so people skip over it.

I had lots of debate and lots of readers of this blog from my page before it was changed to the advertisement. I think it would be helpful!

jesuguru
Guest
jesuguru

“How about a bed?”

How about a better example? Nothing in the Bible (or any other religious doctrine, afaik) says homosexuals aren’t allowed to sleep, only that marriage is between man and woman. A believing bed seller could sell a bed to a practicing homosexual, the same as selling a bed to a promiscuous unmarried/adulterous heterosexual.

Tim Etherington
Guest

First, a slight typo: “This needs to challenged every time…” should be “This needs to be challenged every time…” Second, a quibble. These are the photographers, the florists, the bakers, the caterers, the videographers, the graphic designers. Our job is to glorify what you are doing. The problem is caused when people demand that they use that expertise for an event that is perfectly appalling. I get that. So there is no way an evangelical, Bible believing Christian should be glorifying the distortion of the meaning of marriage by glorifying a homosexual union. But, what if the couple are heterosexual… Read more »

Tim Etherington
Guest

Hey Lawrence, when you post it to Facebook, there are little arrows over the picture. You can click through and select Doug’s mug or the dog logo.

Ben
Guest
Ben

Matt, you might want to hold off on debating some of these matters. You’ve made some pretty glaring argumentation errors in this post. “‘Where do you think those laws came from? Do you seriously believe that racism would have disappeared if not for “the government”?” This is a straw man. Doug never said he thought racism would have disappeared entirely. “You constantly treat the government as this occupying force, foisted upon us by powers unknown, but that just ain’t how it works.” Another straw man. Doug never said the government comes from “powers unknown.” “Alabama had racist laws because Alabamans… Read more »

richard
Guest
richard

Him very disappointed in you. Let me get this straight you have a woman to marriage with a pedophile. Christopher Hitchens was nothing but a half mike but you are worse. You should read the bible more we don’t forgive them

jesuguru
Guest
jesuguru

“The adulterous hetero couple are distorting marriage just as badly and as legally as the homosexual couple, they’re doing it less visibly.” Not accurate. Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman (John 4) whose has literally gone through five husbands before shacking up with her current SO, against Biblical teaching. He in no way condones her actions, but importantly still refers to them as husbands. In other passages (e.g. Matthew 5) he likens divorce and remarriage to adultery, but again He is still calling it marriage (or remarriage). In contrast, in no way, shape or form is any union not involving… Read more »

ashv
Guest
ashv

It’s also worth considering the idea that the Jim Crow laws weren’t entirely, or even primarily, motivated by bigotry.

Jamie Soles
Guest
Jamie Soles

If a Christian bakery owner is asked to cater for a wedding between a man and a woman who have both broken their previous vows in order to marry one another, the owner should still have the right to refuse to do so if he wishes. He would need to know the situation well enough, though, to discern this to be the case. It is not his job to do background checks on his customers, digging for reasons not to serve. If he doesn’t know, he can participate without sin. Not so when two men come, requesting him to help… Read more »

Tim Etherington
Guest

jesuguru, I never said the marriage was legitimate, the fact that it was illegitimate was exactly my point. We use the term “marriage” to describe wedded people but the Bible is clear that these marriages are not really marriages. How can two people marriage to each other commit adultery by sleeping together? That proves that though married, they are not married. Jamie Soles, so what you’re saying is that we only need to go by appearances? So it is okay for me to glorify the marriage of two people who have had a long term adulterous relationship with each other… Read more »

Matt
Guest
Matt

This is a straw man. Doug never said he thought racism would have disappeared entirely. He said: Entrepreneurs notice that everybody’s money is green, and they don’t demand that anybody do anything. And in a mixed community, where the free market is allowed to work, the general result is cosmopolitan. Demonstrably false from history. So all your left with is quibbling with my word choice. Another straw man. Doug never said the government comes from “powers unknown.” Another quibble. Maybe try to engage with what is being said. This is broad sweeping assertion for which you could never in a… Read more »

jesuguru
Guest
jesuguru

Tim, fair questions, but I still think you’re missing it. I don’t agree the Bible is clear these marriages are “not really marriages”. Two divorced people who marry can commit adultery, not against each other, but against their former spouses with whom the marriage bond was not properly broken. It doesn’t prove they aren’t married, just that they weren’t properly divorced. Jesus referred to the Samaritan woman’s five husbands as “husbands”, a point you didn’t engage. David commits adultery with Bathsheba, murders her husband, then marries her (she’s called “his wife”, 2Samuel 12:24) and they have Solomon together. Jesus comes… Read more »

Tim Etherington
Guest

jesuguru, interesting! So two people who have been unbiblically divorced and are married are guilty of adultery (Matt 19:9). What I don’t follow is how they, as you said, “can commit adultery, not against each other, but against their former spouses.” Are they not committing adultery with each other? And are they not committing adultery with each other while married? If that’s the case, then their marriage is not a marriage because adultery is a violation of marriage. This is the implication of Romans 7:2-3. And by extension of these two verses, they can never be “properly” married if they… Read more »

Ben
Guest
Ben

Matt, I’m not quibbling, I’m showing how you intentionally misrepresented Doug’s statement. Do you really think Doug thinks that racism would have disappeared entirely? If not, then don’t use the word “entirely.” It’s a misrepresentation meant to make your opponent look bad. That’s a straw man. But it actually makes you look bad. It makes you look bombastic, inflammatory, and “ranty,” for lack of better word. Doug never said anything at all about where government comes from. It’s not quibbling to point out that you attributed a statement, and a rather big statement, to someone who didn’t actually say it.… Read more »

Matt
Guest
Matt

Nothing in the Bible (or any other religious doctrine, afaik) says homosexuals aren’t allowed to sleep Well yeah, but nothing says they aren’t allowed to eat or buy flowers either. You’re drawing a distinction, and you have to define that. If it is impossible to contribute in any way to a gay wedding, then why is it not also impossible to contribute to anything sinful? What and where is the line? I mean I’m not saying you particularly have to have all these answers, but these are the kinds of things that will come up. Ben, if you are that… Read more »

jesuguru
Guest
jesuguru

Hi Tim, one last go-around. You correctly quote the Bible (Matthew 19) as saying they commit adultery “if they marry”. We agree on the adultery part, that’s clear, but I see Jesus (and you) still using the terminology that they “marry” (albeit adulterously). Jesus doesn’t say they “pretend” marry, or “act” married. He says they commit adultery by marrying. Saying they married on illegitimate (adulterous) terms certainly does not equate to saying it is not a marriage by definition in the same way the way a homosexual union is not a marriage. Put another way, I’ll grant that they are… Read more »

Moor
Guest
Moor

@ Tim E. There is undoubtedly a fuller answer, but my gut response to your question about the adulterous couple and the gay couple both asking for a wedding cake is that the baker is beholden to his or her conscience, based on the evidence available. In the most simple of cases (2 couples, one homo, one heterosexual) the only evidence available is that which is obvious on the surface. In other cases, perhaps where the baker lives in a small town and more is known, or where the hetero couple is from his/her church and so on, the evidence… Read more »

Tim Etherington
Guest

I’ll grant that they are both “illegitimate” but in much different senses of the word illegitimate. Agreed. The adulterers who never divorced properly are married improperly. A homosexual couple cannot be married to each other, that isn’t what marriage is. a point you yet again failed to engage. I skipped it because I thought we were getting at it via a different route. you haven’t proven (to me at least) that an adulterous marriage is illegitimate – again, if illegitimate is taken to mean a non-marriage in the same sense as a homosexual marriage. Thank you for stating it this… Read more »

Tim Etherington
Guest

Thank you for the drachma, Moor. Good stuff. In the simple account, surface evidence is enough to avoid the one cake and bake the other. In the other, however the evidence was collected, the baker is presented with enough to potentially avoid both cakes. I think this is what Paul is getting at in 1 Cor. 10:25-30. If you know, act. If you don’t know, you don’t have to check every little thing to make sure. There, he is saying to do it for the sake of the weaker brother so maybe it is different. It doesn’t feel so. I’m… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

If I may recommend the latest post by Sultan Knish has a good take on the nature of this culture war. I submit that christian churches should be active participants in these tactics and strategems to defeat this enemy. Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. What we are seeing are the fruits of the flesh rampant in our land. It is our christian duty to defeat this enemy and return… Read more »

Tom
Guest
Tom

matt: your assertion regarding entrepreneurship and racial tension is, in fact, demonstrably false.
Atlanta was known as “the city too busy to hate” during the 1950s and 60s, and it is always the case that racial tensions rise when times are tough.

Steve
Guest
Steve

Maybe Westboro Baptist should find a homosexual bakery and demand they bake a cake for them

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

“…racial tensions rise when times are tough.”
Racial tensions also rise when the media deliberately concoct stories for the purposes of stoking racial tension.