What are the holidays for if not for politically-charged debates between family? Sitting around the rainbow lit tree last night, I was the referee between two family members (who shall remain unidentified) in a debate about…gay wedding cakes and Duck Dynasty.

We were discussing the now old news about the Christian couple who owned a bakeshop, but found themselves in the middle of a lawsuit for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Their stand against homosexuality cost them their business.

Then, we talked about Phil and his GQ interview where he stated his beliefs (rather crudely, but still Biblically). Likewise, his stand against homosexuality cost him his job. Although, I wouldn’t even call what he said a “stand.” He was simply stating his “preference.”

Here’s how the wedding cake conversation went:

Family Member #1: I am for traditional marriage, but if I owned a bakery, I would totally bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. When you’re a baker, you’re providing a service and that service is making cakes. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then you don’t believe in gay wedding cakes. A cake is a cake.

Family Member #2: Knowingly baking a cake for a gay wedding is an act of showing support. If Christians don’t take a stand on this, where will we take a stand? It’s just like the Duck Dynasty thing. He took a stand, and look where it got him.

My opinion: Although I’m actually closer to Family Member #1, I had to side with Family Member #2 on this. I think that the Christian bakers who refused to bake the wedding cake for a gay wedding did the right thing. They made national headlines for being different and standing up for their beliefs. There was nothing hateful or Westboro-Baptist-y about the way they stood up for the Bible.

“Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will.”
-Romans 12:2

Is This Really About Freedom of Speech?

Yes and No.

No

Looking at it apart from Christianity, the bakery owners had a private company. A private company has the freedom (and should have the freedom) to refuse service to anyone they want. I mean, just look at the Duck Dynasty fiasco! While I’m right there with Christians who are standing with Phil Robertson, I don’t think A&E did anything wrong by getting rid of Phil. They a private company too and they can air the shows they want to air. It’s like the Starbucks thing. As Christians, we have every right to boycott our Gingerbread Lattes in response to the Founder’s comments on traditional marriage, but we can’t accuse him of breaking any laws. Starbucks is a private company.

I say all this to say, A&E is not the enemy. Should we boycott them? Sure! Should we sign petitions to stand with Phil? Yes! But, A&E can’t be accused of breaking the first amendment. If we don’t allow them the freedom to choose what they air on their station, we can’t rightfully demand the freedom to deny service to the gay community.

Yes

While we can’t nail ’em on 1st amendment rights, we can very well accuse them of enforcing the freedom-stifling PC culture our government has brainwashed the culture into believing.

American culture has swung so far left that a Christian gets booted for vocalizing his Biblical views. He may not have articulated his view in the most polite way, but he should not be punished for expressing that view.

The PC police has taken our freedom of speech away – that I agree with. In that sense, both of these cases are free speech issues. It may not be written in stone, but the Duck Dynasty thing and the Christian bakers going out of business prove that you really can’t say how you feel anymore without losing your job.

In that sense, these two cases are all about freedom of speech.

What’s your opinion? How have you responded to the Phil Robertson headlines?