Updated: Oct 27, 2017 2:48 PM ET | Originally published: Oct 24, 2017
Munn is the mother of Charlie Craig, a respondent in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission U.S. Supreme Court case.
___________________________________________________________________________________
This article first appeared in Time Ideas, here.
Last
month, my son Charlie celebrated his fifth wedding anniversary with his
husband, Dave. Him finding the love of his life is a source of great
joy for me. Planning the hometown reception should have been a joy, too.
But there was a hitch. They were subject to discrimination that has
left its mark even now, five years later. And that discrimination is the subject of a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Five
years ago, Charlie and Dave asked me to join them in Colorado as they
shopped for a cake for their wedding reception. Like so many mothers
before me, I was honored and excited to be a part of this step. But what
should have been a fun afternoon turned into a very disturbing event.
We
walked into the bakery for our appointment with a baker whose shop was
close to where the reception would be held. Charlie had a portfolio full
of designs and a list of flavors for their five-tier cake. We were
motioned to a small table inside the bakery. The owner looked at Charlie
and Dave and asked if this cake was for them. They said yes.
Immediately the owner told them that he would not sell them a wedding cake because he would not bake one for a same-sex couple.
My son and Dave never even got to say what kind of cake they liked, nor
what type of design they wanted. They were just turned away, because
they are two men who love one another.
We went into that store happy. We left broken.
When
we returned to our car, I noticed Charlie’s shoulders were shaking. I
soon realized he was crying. All I could do was embrace him and tell him
I loved him and that we would get through this. As a parent, no matter
how grown your children are, you want to shield them from harm. I felt I
had failed him. He felt he had failed me; he was embarrassed that I had
witnessed such a heartless response by a stranger in a public business.
The
next morning, I called the bakery to ask a question that I had not
asked him the day before: Why? Why did he turn away my son and his
fiancΓ©e? He said he is a Christian
and did not believe in same-sex commitment celebrations or marriages. I
told him I am a Christian, too, and that my God teaches us to love one
another, to not judge. I asked him, How can you turn away two of God’s
children?
When
some people hear our story, they say, “Well, it was just a cake, why
not order a cake from somewhere else? What’s the big deal?” But it was a
big deal — a very big deal, and not just for Charlie and Dave.
This case is not about a cake. It’s not about artistic expression. It’s about discrimination.
It’s
about whether bakeries and other businesses can hurt people like
Charlie and Dave because of who they are. It doesn’t matter if they can
get another cake. It’s about what happened that moment when they were
denied service, and what that’s meant for them every day since. They
were told they weren’t good enough to be served in their own community.
Life in this country has never been easy for gay people.
In fact, five years ago, it wasn’t even possible for Charlie and Dave
to get married in their home state of Colorado. They spent thousands of dollars
when they hired a lawyer to draw up legal documents so they would be
given the same legal rights that a heterosexual couple receives when
they marry. They had to travel across the country to get married in
Massachusetts, where it had become legal.
That
day in Masterpiece Cakeshop, they got hurt. They live in a state that
has a long-standing law that protects its residents from discrimination,
including discrimination based on sexual orientation. But in that
moment, they were not protected.
I
still see today how that day changed their lives. When they walk into a
store, there’s that nagging feeling in the back of their mind telling
them that this might be the day that they get turned away again. Charlie
and Dave now think twice, and sometimes don’t even reveal, that they
are husband and husband when they’re around strangers.
And
they wonder, now that their case will be heard by the Supreme Court, if
the Court will affirm the promise that they deserved to be treated like
any other customer when they go into a store. Should the bakery prevail
here, Charlie and Dave and countless others will have to live under
that constant cloud of uncertainty, of fear.
I
hope the Supreme Court justices see this case for what it is: an
attempt to attack others and broaden discrimination. I want nothing more
for my son, for Dave — for everyone — than to be able to live their
lives without fear of discrimination because of who you are and who you
love.
Correction:
The original version of the author’s biography misstated her son’s role
in the mentioned Supreme Court case. He is a respondent, not a
plaintiff.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.