Erick Erickson Missed the Mark

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Well, here we go again. Another day and another discrepancy with a conservative stalwart. What the heck. It seems to be the week for it. Maybe, hopefully, this will be the last.


As painful as it is, I have to be honest about where I stand, even if it is in disagreement with a true conservative, or conservatives.


A few days ago I posted an article in disagreement with Dr. Thomas Sowell regarding Ted Cruz.


This time it is Erick Erickson of RedState. My disagreement is over a diary post he wrote entitled, “Yes, Jesus Would Bake a Cake for a Gay Person“. 


His post begins: “Jesus Christ would absolutely bake a cake for a gay person. He would bake a cake for a straight person. He would bake a cake for a girl, a boy, a person who isn’t sure what they are, a black person, a white person – Jesus would bake that cake if it, in some way large or small, drew that person closer to him.”


“And Christians should too.”


“Christians should show love and compassion for gays, straights, and everyone else. Christians should show God’s love in hopes of drawing people to a relationship with Christ. 95% of that may just be relationship building, but it should still be done.”


I agree with some but not all of his sentiment. I agree that we should show love and compassion to all, although it is easier said than done, being that we are neither God nor angels.


I do not however, believe Jesus Christ would bake a cake for a homosexual. Recall that Jesus said to the adulterer, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more”.


He didn’t say, “If you cease your sinful ways, I’ll bake you a tasty treat”. He would love her and show compassion but he did no more for her than to forgive her and tell her to stop sinning.


Now being that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, by extrapolation, Jesus would say the same for a homosexual.


But in my opinion, this whole business about homosexual marriage, cake baking and the like isn’t or shouldn’t be about Christianity or religious freedom. It is about freedom, period.


Erickson continued: “If a Christian owns a bakery or a florist shop or a photography shop or a diner, a Christian should no more be allowed to deny service to a gay person than to a black person. It is against the tenants of 2000 years of Orthodox Christian faith, no matter how poorly some Christians have practiced their faith over two millennia.”


And here is my problem with the whole mess we find ourselves in. The premise itself is flawed.


Should someone not be allowed to deny goods or services to someone else? Where in the Constitution does it say that?


I understand the premise of his argument is religious, not constitutional, but we should be allowed to deny service to anyone. Right or wrong, God will never force us to do anything or tell us we are not allowed to do something. Only that we shouldn’t.  He gave us free will.


I know that people naturally recoil when the term “slippery slope” is mentioned, but that’s what this is and has been for a long time.


The government should not be able to tell its citizens that they cannot discriminate. Yeah, I can hear it now. I’m a hatemonger, blah, blah, blah!


Those who say that have given this issue no reasonable thought that all.


The answer, the solution to all discrimination, whether it be racial, gender, religious or whatever, has been and always will be a free market, where people are free to sell to, buy from and discriminate against anyone they choose.


“The market” will take care of what jackbooted government edicts, by force, can never.


Erickson states that, “The disagreement comes on one issue only – should a Christian provide goods and services to a gay wedding. That’s it. We’re not talking about serving a meal at a restaurant. We’re not talking about baking a cake for a birthday party. We’re talking about a wedding, which millions of Christians view as a sacrament of faith and other, mostly Protestant Christians, view as a relationship ordained by God to reflect a holy relationship.”


No it isn’t. It’s never about one issue. This isn’t solely about the Christian sacrament. Again, it’s about true freedom to choose. It’s about a slippery slope. It’s about our freedom to sell to, buy from and congregate with anyone we choose.


Picture this: I open an establishment that allows only heterosexual white smokers in the door. Another entrepreneur sees an opportunity and opens a non-smoking all-inclusive establishment across the street.


Now you tell me, who will be the more successful. I will eventually end up closing because I can’t compete unless I change, but because I’m a piece of crap racist homophobe, I won’t, so sayonara to me. Oh, and fear not; I will be judged later.


The marketplace takes care of itself. We just have to be open-minded enough to allow it.


If people don’t wish to cater to homosexuals, whatever the reason, it is, or should be their right as Americans. Others will step in to more than fill that void. That’s the American way.


It may not seem it at times, but a free market is the most fair and just system ever devised by humans, if we give it a chance.

About the Common Constitutionalist

Brent, aka The Common Constitutionalist, is a Constitutional Conservative, and advocates for first principles, founders original intent and enemy of progressives. He is former Navy, Martial Arts expert. As well as publisher of the Common Constitutionalist blog, he also is a contributing writer for Political Outcast, Godfather Politics, Minute Men News (Liberty Alliance), Freedom Outpost, the Daily Caller, Vision To America and Free Republic. He also writes an exclusive weekly column for World Net Daily (WND).

One comment on “Erick Erickson Missed the Mark

  1. I read an article yesterday that got it mostly correct: Should a Pro-Abortion Printer be Forced to Print “Abortion is Murder” Signs and Shirts? ( Turns out the answer, under the law, is no. Homosexuals are a protected “class” (in our supposedly classless society). And so slavery was advanced. Being forced, against one’s will, to do something…sounds like slavery to me. Or rape.

    I remember when “discriminating taste” was a good thing. Something to be desired. It meant you chose good products and services over poor products and services. Good people over “bad” people as associates. And a business owner was not excluded from that. If he/she didn’t want to serve someone for any reason, they could. Then it was up to the community to decide if they supported that choice by continuing to do business there. As you say, free market. As a Canadian PM said, [paraphrased], liberty means the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong.

    There’s the rub. Is it “doing wrong” to refuse to participate in any association for whatever reason? It is now…selectively…and the “selection” will expand more.

    When will we have to prove we do equal amounts of business with “minority” owners as with non-minority owners? Think it won’t happen?

    Think churches won’t be forced to perform “gay” marriages?

    It is a first amendment issue with Christianity specifically targeted. Think not? Then why has this not been on the news: If you drink, some cabbies won’t drive –…?
    Jan 26, 2007 – The Muslim drivers have been refusing to take passengers carrying alcohol, … and five cab drivers would not give him and his daughter a ride.

    But it’s more fundamental than that. This is Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” How ya liking it so far?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *