Yoked (v): when two oxen are connected via a yoke such that they pull the same load, as with a wagon
Yoked (adv): a symbolic reference to two people acting as oxen pulling a heavy load together; or in ironic mode, when referred to two people opposing each other as in oxen pulling in opposing directions on the same load resulting in no forward motion
Yoked (n): verbal play on Germanic pronunciation of “Y” as “J” and verb tense conjugations, such that using “yoked” is slang for “joke”, as in “The yokes on you”, or “You got yoked”, also suggesting that someone has egg on his face for being foolish, thus joke represents egg yoke.
Recently, far right Republicans have been throwing eggs at their perceived opponents. But, as is often the case the egg does not break until it is tossed back at the aggressor. Or, maybe they are just laying eggs which are easily snatched up and tossed back such that they end up with the egg on their face.
Recently, our House of Representative member has been pounding his chest over his perceived victories. He is a member of the House Freedom Caucus, which has many lines drawn in the sand. Whenever, they can force the House to vote on some meaningless legislation, which is not likely to achieve much or get brought up for debate in the Senate, he sends out e-newsletters claiming symbolic victories.
Recently, the Supreme Court handed them a symbolic victory. I will describe the case below, in my letter to my representative. Of course, as is becoming the norm with the far right, the case is dubious in that the person who brought it through the courts, claimed only a hypothetical case. They did not actually run the said business, but wondered whether they might be placed in such a situation; and they did not actually have said a client, but wondered what they would be forced to do if the hypothetical company were approached by the hypothetical client to post a hypothetical website forcing them to make a hypothetical statement against… their hypothetical Christian beliefs.
Such a basket of eggs deserved being whipped up into a hypothetical pie and tossed at their clownish face, hypothetically, of course. Were these actual eggs, I would rather make them into a frittata for brunch.
Representative M,
In your July 4, 2023 e-newsletter, you praised the Supreme Court for ruling that a website design firm in Colorado did not have to work with same-sex couples (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis) because producing a wedding website about a gay marriage would violate the company owner’s freedom of speech. You stated that this ruling prevented the government (in this case the State of Colorado) from compelling a citizen to say something which did not conform to their Christian religious beliefs.
In the majority decision Justice Gorsuch stated that the company owner claimed to be willing to work with people who identified as homosexual, but just did not want to appear to endorse such lifestyle, by designing a website for their marriage. Thus, the status of the person (homosexual) was not the issue, but government compelling speech which the individual would not otherwise say.
I am trying to figure out how this could apply to other businesses which would not be as directly identifying a gay couple (e.g. two women or two men submitting photos of their wedding for the website design). For instance, the owners of Hobby Lobby craft supply store and Chik-fil-A, are outspoken Christians who wish to run their business according to their religious beliefs (such as not being open on Sundays). If some homosexual people went to those businesses, say to buy a rainbow of color craft supplies, to make decorations for a Pride picnic, and ordered chicken sandwiches to serve at this event, would Hobby Lobby and Chik-fil-A being violating their religious beliefs and expression by providing these products of their businesses? If so, are these businesses allowed to somehow request information on their customer’s sexual activity (say verification that their customers are heterosexual or celibate) before filling their orders?
Or, if some company owner interpreted Paul’s admonish in 2 Corinthians 6:14 to not be “unequally yoked” to mean that people of different religious faiths should not marry (e.g. Christian and Jew/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/WICCA, or Catholics and Protestant, etc.), could that owner refuse to design a website for their wedding? Or, if someone interpreted that passage as excluding interracial marriages, in essence coming from different cultural and religious traditions, as being unequally yoked (e.g. White and Black/Hispanic/Native American/Asian, et al), would that owner be allowed to refuse to provide the website design, party decorations, or chicken buffet to those people?
Rather, I would look to Jesus’ example in Matthew 9, in which the Pharisees challenged Jesus’ disciples when Jesus gathered in Matthew’s customs post, with other tax collectors and sinners. The Pharisees pointed to their interpretation of Jewish laws, suggesting that Jesus was violating those laws. But, Jesus replied that the righteous (e.g. Pharisees) were not the people who needed him.
He challenged the Pharisees to meditate on the Hebrew scripture “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”.
I hope that in future e-newsletters, you can identify some homosexual people (or people of color) whom you know, how you are interacting with them, how you can be neighborly and loving toward them without endorsing a lifestyle that you do not believe in. Saying that you do not discriminate against someone’s status, while advocating only for white Christians, seems to be more of the attitude of a Pharisees, not Jesus.