Thursday, December 19, 2013

It's All in the Principle of the Matter...

I do not like arguing. 
In fact, I am horrible at it, and usually will end up in tears if I try.
Tears of doubt.
Tears of frustration.
Tears of impatience. 
I have just never been able to control the water works.

I don't want to get involved in the whole mess of it, but recently as I have been observing the events in American Society, it has become very clear to me that this country is DIVIDED. 
I am very interested to sit back and watch what unfolds over this new year, and with that, I just wanted to put in my two cents about a double standard that is happening right before us.

source: http://thegunfeed.com/http://thegunfeed.com/
If you haven't been keeping up, it might surprise you that the words of one man have caused a stir in media and social networks in the last 24 hours. This stir has set whole groups of people against each other in a battle of "what's right and wrong."
Phil Robertson, famous for being the eldest Robertson of a family of entrepreneurial rednecks in Louisiana, is a self-proclaimed missionary bent on spreading the news of Jesus to anyone who will listen, along with those who will not.
If you would like to know more about Phil and his clan of duck-hunting enthusiasts, this article is a great source, and it cuts straight to the heart of the matter, as it is Robertson's statements from this particular interview that have caused such a riot.

Now, I am not writing to agree or disagree with what was said, but what I am concerned about is the double standard I am seeing here.
Did you hear the one about the baker in Oregon that refused service to a lesbian couple because she felt that baking a cake for their wedding went against her religious belief and moral standard. Any other cake, she would have created with a smile on her face. Had they come in for a birthday, holiday, party, etc. I am sure she would have obliged and made a great treat. It is the principle in the matter, though. She believes marriage is instituted between a man and a woman and felt that she had the constitutional right as a private business owner to refuse service to anyone she felt she could not serve, for whatever reason she saw fit. In this case, she felt that baking the cake would some how go against her moral code. 
She has since had to close her shop down and relocate to a smaller location in her home due to a court ruling and persecution.
(If you'd like to know more about this story, read here). 

Now, if American's decided in a just judiciary manner that this is the direction we would like the country to move toward; where capitalism is slandered and PRIVATE business owners are not allowed to decide to whom they will and will not give their services, then so be it. The key principle is that these rights are enforced everywhere.
In the case of the Phil Robertson, it is too early to tell what the outcome will be. As of this afternoon, Phil has been suspended indefinitely from the filming of his current hit reality television series, Duck Dynasty, on A&E.  This is the kicker for me; Phil was asked to be interviewed in his own home, away from the censors that make reality television what is is... The most unreal experience you might ever see someone trying to portray as authentic. He was asked what he thought about sin, and he gave his wholehearted honest opinion. All he did was what was asked of him, and now a company he works with is trying to punish him. (In the scheme of things this will probably end up hurting A&E before it even touches the dynasty of Duck Commander). 
So right now, Phil is not filming, and DD fans are wondering if they have lost their beloved, witty, redneck entertainment. I am wondering how this case would be ruled if it were ever taken to the courts. If you think back to our baker friend in Oregon, you'd think it would be prudent that A&E are ruled to cater to (work with) the Robertson crew, regardless of their personal beliefs. That's only fair, isn't it? We're talking about a PRIVATE company who has been doing contracted business with citizens that they chose to associate with. The only reasonable explanation for this business to be able to break their contracted work with these people is if Phil Robertson was somehow in breach of contract. 

So, that's the puzzle to me. The principle of the matter. How can in one case, someone have to choose between catering to a source completely against one's moral code, or discontinue their business, while in a separate case with related issues, a man is fired from his job because he has expressed a moral code that is not in accordance with the code of they who hired him? 
I understand that the logistics of both of these stories are much deeper, but am I the only one seeing a double standard here?

Now, if you are still reading, I'd first like to say thanks for making it this far with me, but I'd also like to make two more quick points:
1. I believe that marriage was created to be between a man and a woman. I believe that children do best when raised in a home with both a mother and father present, and following their divine roll. I do not, however, believe that I have the right to judge another man or woman based on how he or she chooses to live his or her own life. I believe that any person should claim the privilege of worshiping how, where, or what they may, according to the dictates of their own conscience. I also believe, however, that men should be subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Right now, the law stands, and federally, as far as homosexuality is concerned, it is aligned with my beliefs. If the majority of America chooses to change the law, though, I would be subject to it, no matter my moral standards, just like people who currently support homosexuality are bound to the law although it may not represent what they truly believe. 

2. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it." ~Voltaire.
If the law of the land changes, I will follow it with my whole heart. All I ask is that the law be enforced equally. If one person is allowed a voice, should not all men be allowed to speak on the same matter without fear of loosing their jobs, families or even their own lives? I know that many men and women have lived and died for this country and the freedoms we observe. What a shame it is that those freedoms have standards. What a shame it is that on one end of the spectrum, the opinions expressed are applauded, and on the other end of the same spectrum they are shunned. Phil Robertson was not working when he said what he said. His quote was taken out of context and slandered through ignorance and yellow-journalism. He was stripped of his right to work with the company that he has done so much for. He is dealing with the consequences of his actions, I'm sure.  Honestly, it's probably one of the better things that has happened in his life because he has gotten a myriad of publicity in these hours since this interview was published, and his message is being spread far and clear. I just hope that we can all look into what he really said from the heart. "That we might not ever judge each other, but that we can leave that up to the Almighty. Whoever you might be, just know that I love you, and I'd like to share this happy life with you, and we'll let God sort everything else out."
"You see what I'm saying?" 

No comments:

Post a Comment