How Christian Small Business Owners Can Defeat Gay Activist Economic Terrorism

(Ed. note: the Catholic Blogger Reparative Therapy Review Board hasn’t reached consensus on whether I’m ready for full-time blogging. However, I was given permission to publish this post while my case remains under review.)

(That was a joke, btw. I’m actually in blogger rehab, and Sr Patricia smuggled me a laptop, wrapped in her labyrinth rug.)

As more states allow so-called same-sex marriages, either by vote or governmental fiat, more and more small businesses owned by committed Christians, such as this bakery in Oregon, will be pressured to act contrary to their religious beliefs, and be forced to close, or fined beyond their ability to pay.

However, it needn’t be that way. At all.

While I commend and applaud the bakery owners cited in the above story, and fully stand behind them and other business owners in the exercise of their 1st Amendment rights, it must be understood that the instigators aren’t being motivated by matters constitutional. These gay activists aren’t looking for justice under the law per se; their goal is the minimization and outright obliteration of any Christian influence within the marketplace. They detest the influence of Christian morals, and have found a means by which they can reduce said influence, under the agreeable guise of “equality”: filing discrimination lawsuits against small business owners.

And for now, it appears they are winning.  Courts have been ruling in their favor – rightly or wrongly – and with each victory, the gay activists are becoming more emboldened, and momentum is on their side.

It’s time to put an end to that right now, and there’s a legal way to do it. A way that respects the religious beliefs of the small business owners. A way that eliminates the “rights vs rights” battle.

Let’s use the example of the Christian bakery owner. All he would need to do is enact a company policy stating that some level of the profit, up to and including 100%, from any wedding reception contract, will be donated to organizations and/or candidates who support traditional marriage as between one man and one woman. This policy would have to be publicly posted within his establishment so as to remove any doubt from any customer where he stands on the issue. Thus, gay activists who want to order their cake from that bakery would understand in clear and precise terms that they will be funding organizations and/or candidates who stand for traditional marriage. Furthermore, this policy would affect every and any customer wishing to order a cake – gay, straight, whomever.  Every wedding cake. Every platter of cannolis. Every dessert cart. That would eliminate any charge of discrimination, because everyone’s order would be helping to fund, say, the Family Research Council, or NOM.

If you think about it, there is nothing new about this. Large corporations publicize who they support all the time, and people decide whether or not to patronize them. Boycotts have been waged against Target and Walmart and other companies, for instance. It’s a thing. What I’m proposing is a bit more assertive, especially for small businesses and proprietorship, but it might be the protection – or at least a stopgap measure – they need.

Imagine it – Michael and Justin enter a bakery wanting to order a cake from John 3:16 Baked Goods.  The owner sits down with them as they look over his portfolio, and select cake #19.

“How much for #19?” they ask, fully expecting him to tell them he can’t in good conscience make cake #19 for their reception. Their lawyer’s phone number is on their iPhone’s speed dial, and they’re ready to hit send.

But the owner doesn’t go there. Instead he says, “Well, that cake goes for $1500. But let me remind you guys – John 3:16 Baked Goods’ policy is that 100% of wedding contract profits goes to NOM, and I make about 10% on #19. So you’d be donating $150 to NOM, for all intents and purposes. Just so you know.”

“B..but we don’t want our money going to NOM!” they exclaim.

“Well, guys, here’s the thing about business. I provide a service for which you pay me money. Once you give me a check, it’s no longer your money. It’s my money, and last time I checked, I have the right to spend my money any way I please. But I feel it’s fair to tell you the store policy when it comes to any and all wedding reception contracts.”

At which point, Michael and Justin leave the store in a huff, and John 3:16 Baked Goods isn’t dragged into court. Because let’s face it – no militant gay activist will ever do anything to support traditional marriage. Their goal is to destroy and dismantle, and the very thought of any money going to organizations and candidates opposed to them – especially money from a check they just wrote – would prevent them from signing a contract.

Mind you, this won’t prevent persecution, or bad press, or personal attacks. And the bakery risks losing other business because, unfortunately, a good number of Christians don’t see a problem with so-called same-sex marriage. But the baker stays in business – earning a lower profit, mind you, I understand that – in order to provide for his family and his employees. And he’s witnessing to his faith, and putting his money where his mouth is. And every Christian baker that stays in the marketplace is good for the faith, and ultimately the marketplace is better for it.

Such a policy can be used by any business that provides wedding services – florists, photographers, limousines, and the like.  It takes the “rights vs rights” element off the table, and turns it into a financial/economic circumstance. No discrimination. No bias. Merely a public company policy, informing customers upfront where the money will be going.

And believe me – like-minded Christians and traditional marriage supporters will flock and rush to help these businesses.  So any lost profits from the wedding side of their business would be compensated. I truly believe that.

Maybe this idea has been floated elsewhere on the Internet – I’ve not seen it or read about it, but if it has, I’ll gladly give credit to where credit’s due. I think the idea has merit, and Christian small-business owners ought to seriously consider it. They’re in a fight for their lives and existence as business owners. They have as much right to earn a living as the militant gay activist has a right to buy a wedding cake. But the fight has to be fought on economic terms, in order to preserve religious rights. The courts and legislatures and much of the culture has been turned against Christian values – to try and win this fight in the very arena where the game is rigged against us is futile. As long as it’s legal for a business to earn a profit, and as long as it’s legal for a business owner to spend their money as they choose, then perhaps the best way to fight back is to use those profits to their advantage.

So tell them their money will be funding pro-traditional marriage organizations and candidates. They do it all the time with the groups and people they support – groups and people opposed to Christian values.  The Christian small business owner has to do it too. Now.

About Larry D

LarryD has been blogging since March 2008, making observations on trends within the culture and the Church. His goal? Poking hornets nests with a stick and injecting humor into the New Evangelization, with the gentle reminder that everyone's taking themselves way too seriously. He currently resides in Michigan.
This entry was posted in Christian Life, Gay Activism, So-called Gay Marriage, Thoughts. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to How Christian Small Business Owners Can Defeat Gay Activist Economic Terrorism

  1. I agree fully with this idea. It should be done, it’s a much better approach than what’s being tried so far. Perhaps the Church herself could use this in her battles on the “religious liberty” situation…

  2. Eve says:

    1 agree 100%. Beat them at their own game.

  3. Terry Nelson says:

    Welcome back Larry!

    Great idea too.

    Are wedding cakes really that expensive? $1500?

    • thelarryd says:

      Hi Terry. I just pulled a number out of the air for example. I have no idea how much cake #19 at John 3:16 Baked Goods’ costs.


    • Adrienne says:

      Wedding cakes are exorbitantly expensive. $1500.00 is not out of the realm of possibility. Many, many years ago I helped a friend plan a wedding and an $800.00 cake was just average size. Instead, I suggested she buy a very small wedding cake which we placed on a rented cake fountain stand. The guests were served from three different flavors of Costco cakes decorated to match her theme (which tasted MUCH better than the “wedding” cake.) Saved a ton of money. She had a cake to cut and a top to save for the first anniversary and the guests had some great cake to eat.

  4. Pingback: How Christian Small Business Owners Can Defeat Gay Activist ... | FindMeO

  5. Anonymous says:

    I just wanted to say I am really, really, happy to see you are back…your coherency, bravery, and wit, and love of truth and God, increase ones will to live– to keep going and working in the midst of of this dark time. Thank you, thank you, a thousand times thank you. I look forward to your blogs so much!

  6. J Balconi says:

    I don’t see any problem with this whatsoever. In fact, it’s a lot more honest than business owners who don’t say upfront where they’re putting their profits until I read it in the paper.

  7. Fantastic. Why hasn’t that been thought of before? Love it.

  8. Adrienne says:

    Hide that laptop well. We need you! Great idea, btw.

  9. Cathy says:

    Larry D., BRILLIANT idea. The Catholic blogosphere needs to spread this idea far and wide. I think, BTW, that it is a policy that all dioceses that do hall rentals should instantly adopt.
    (It is so good to see that you’ve gotten at least a temporary reprieve from blog rehab).

  10. Burton Burkholder says:

    But what if Michael and Justin make the calculated decision that throwing a few dollars at a pro-traditional marriage cause is worth it if they can lead a Christian business owner to violate their conscience?

  11. RobJ says:

    Taking this a step further, the business owner could choose to donate 100% of the revenue from same-sex marriage services to the traditional marriage cause, and treat revenue from traditional marriage services normally. Then every dollar that a same-sex couple pays goes to support traditional marriage. That would probably help with the business’s finances, and would make an even stronger statement.

    • futurefatherz says:

      Except I think the idea is that that would be construed as discrimination–as there’s “no difference” between either “kind of marriage”.

      • Eric says:

        Nope. If the SS couple walks into the store and gets the same cake at the same price, they got the same service. Their rights (whatever that may mean) end there. To make a donation only when a same-sex couple orders a cake would, IMO, be legal.

        But IANAL, so it might be wise to check with one.

  12. Proteios1 says:

    A good idea. Just inform these businesses that when they get the homosexual couple who could care less about political agendas that they still need to make the cake. As long as someone thinks all scenarios through to their logical conclusions, I like the methodology as the culture wars evolve. maybe the pendulum can swing our way. Now what about hate-groups like FFRF? Id love to hear one on those nutjobs.

  13. Donald R. McClarey says:

    Fantastic Larry! Please cross post this at TAC!

  14. Pingback: Gay Thought Police Take Note | The American Catholic

  15. You make me want to hug Sr. Patricia. Yay! Don’t let ’em find the laptop Larry!

  16. Pingback: Judge Orders Pregnant Mom Off Life Support -

  17. John says:

    but the cake makers need to make a profit to survive. This would force them to give money away and work for free whether they can afford it or not.

    • thelarryd says:

      That’s true, which is why I said “some level of the profit, up to and including 100%”. That leaves the baker free to donate at any percentage he chooses, such as 5 or 10%.

      Plus he’s making profit on all his non-wedding business.

      • Dan says:

        It would be more prudent for such a business person to make the verbal declaration and include in the text of a contract the simple statement of “I reserve the right to donate the proceeds of this service to organizations that serve my faith based belief” That would prevent the crybullies from claiming that the proprietor was openly targeting their chosen preference to be directly contradictory to the values of the business person.

  18. cminca says:

    Interesting comment:

    “Well, guys, here’s the thing about business. I provide a service for which you pay me money. Once you give me a check, it’s no longer your money. It’s my money, and last time I checked, I have the right to spend my money any way I please.”

    You realize you just destroyed the CC’s argument for funding an insurance company paying for birth control? Because once the money is paid to the insurance company, it is no longer the employer’s money.

    What you don’t understand about this whole situation is that these “Christian” companies have business licenses. And if they are offering goods and services to the market, than they have to offer similar services to the whole market. And, horror of horrors, that includes gays.

    So post your signs. But be prepared to lose business as gays, and gay allies, walk away from your establishments.

    • BThompson says:

      “You realize you just destroyed the CC’s argument for funding an insurance company paying for birth control?”

      I don’t think it does. The hypothetical gay couples, upon being notified of the donation scheme, can (and hopefully would) choose to not buy the product, answering, “Okay, it is still my money now, and knowing what you are going to do with it, I don’t want to give it to you.”

      However, the Gov’t is seeking to compel the Church to buy the objectionable product anyway, leaving no ability for the Church to walk away from a toxic proposal.

    • enness says:

      What you fail to take into account is that the use of the money for that purpose still has to be authorized, which is why the Little Sisters are still in court, because that they will not do.

      Since when has any business owner been required to offer “similar services to the whole market”? Do you realize how ludicrous that would be taken to its logical conclusion? Do you mean to say that anybody in America who has ever posted “no shoes, no shirt, no service” should be hauled into court on account of their offense to the Shoeless-Shirtless Community? I’m not an expert (not that there aren’t plenty I could ask), but I Ann confident that is a near-complete fiction produced by somebody’s fevered imagination.

      I would never knowingly choose to participate in a false wedding of ANY kind. I would be happy to do a birthday party or something similarly innocuous instead. Learn this: not everything is personal, for crying out loud. The universe doesn’t revolve around gays and their gayness for us small biz-people. I suggest growing up and dropping the puerile need to use the courts to force people to kiss your @$$, which — although I have never thought much of Freud — I cannot help but suspect was born out of festering insecurity.

    • Marissa says:

      But be prepared to lose business as gays, and gay allies, walk away from your establishments.

      Maybe you miss the point–the original bakery did not want the business of homosexuals.

    • Scott W. says:

      So post your signs. But be prepared to lose business as gays, and gay allies, walk away from your establishments.

      Yeah, don’t let this happen to you:

  19. Pattymelt says:

    Make the donation in the names of the couple so that their names are associated with a donation with the Christian organization in favor of one man/one woman marriage

  20. imssaitfiiss says:

    (My site handle is imssaitfiss, for “If MSNBC Says Something Alone in the Forest, Is It Still Stupid?”)

    I’m afraid that it would only be required for the National Organization for Marriage or the Ruth Institute to be declared legal, to defeat this otherwise noble idea.

    I perceive a similar level of infeasibility to my idea: Charge exorbitant prices, so high that Adam & Steve would never buy, then refund to the normal price level as a “gift”.

    An Oklahoma TV station is reporting that State Rep. Mike Turner (R. Edmond) is proposing to outlaw marriage altogether.

    My thoughts on this issue:

    “This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.” – G.K. Chesterton

    If the Court presumes to equate our Matrimony, the Queen of Sacraments, with Sodomy;

    Can we not regard the action as having abrogated the terms of the civil rite, rendering what was formerly a mirror or echo of the essential Sacrament, now a ludicrous parody?

    Ryan T. Anderson, (one of the most physically brave men I’ve ever witnessed in person–he stood up single-handedly to a studio full of 300 or so Sodomite Pseudo-Marriage supporters ), refers to the fact that in all fifty states, religious institutions are legally capable of performing [counterfeit] “marriage” ceremonies for people of any lifestyle persuasion; therefore, why is it necessary that government attempt to alter the definition of authentic, natural marriage?

    In light of the universal availability already of this “marriage” parody, why should we continue to legitimize the civil rite, if the Court so unwisely equates it with a civil abomination?

    Should we not turn the tables and stop suffering the tax-code marriage penalty?

    Can we morally go through civil divorce en masse?

  21. sparrow says:

    Won’t work because someone will call your bluff and to get you to bake a cake. Then John3:16 Bakery will have committed scandal NOM donation or not.

  22. Wayne says:

    While you raise an interesting proposition, I doubt it will work ….


  23. Micha Elyi says:

    They’re not gay, they’re homosexual.

  24. Pingback: The Thinking Housewife › Economic Freedom vs. Homosexual Tyranny

  25. Jewel says:

    Another thing my brother suggested is to pray in the presence of the purchasers, and state it up front that you will be doing so, since you disagree with it. It will be up to them to purchase the cake at that point or not.

  26. Eric says:

    They can donate X% of all profits received from selling cakes to same-sex couples without discriminating against anyone. They don’t have to make it stick for all customers.

  27. Terry Nelson says:

    This was even mentioned tonite on the State of the Union Address. Kudos Larry!

  28. Scott W. says:

    Say the money is going to Focus on the Family. Yes, it’s not Catholic, but in my experience, Political Correctinistas would rather eat glass than do anything that supports them.

    This might work under the principles of (iirc) Humane Vitae where it talked about how a politician could support incremental legislation against abortion as long as his absolute opposition to abortion was well known.

  29. Pingback: Saturday Shorts – 2-1-14 | Designs on the Truth

  30. Rocket Scientist says:

    Great post!

  31. Viterbo Fangirl says:

    Oh LarryD… how you have been missed! You are my kind of evil! >:)

  32. Cooper says:

    Why do you say that gay activists won’t do anything to support traditional marriage? Not a facetious question; trying to understand your reasoning.

Comments are closed.