Monday, January 06, 2014

Homosexual intolerance is now State-supported

Surely there are plenty of bakers who would bake a cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig, the gay men who wanted the cake. But they went to Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, CO. When Phillips declined because of his religious beliefs, Mullins and Craig went to the ACLU, which in turn complained to the state that Phillips was discriminating.

There will be no accommodation between gay rights activists and those seeking religious freedom to opt out of the gay rights movement. Gay rights activists demand tolerance for their lifestyle, but will not tolerate those who choose to adhere to their religious beliefs.

Increasingly, courts around the country are siding with the gay rights movement against those relying on the first freedoms of the country. While many would prefer to sit this out, they will be made to care.

Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominate and then it seeks to silence good. We are more and more rapidly arriving at a point in this country where Christians are being forced from the public square unless they abandon the tenets of their faith. In our secular society, Christianity is something you do on a Sunday and who you sleep with defines you.

For Christians defined by their faith, this paradigm of being defined by your sexual preference instead of your faith is deeply troublesome and will see more and more of these stories crop up.



Anonymous said...

Perhaps next time they'll go to a bakery owned and operated by Muslims. Would be interesting to see which protected group get the adoring media coverage.

Anonymous said...

So we must tolerate those whose religious beliefs do not tolerate other people - ? Yet how many gay-run businesses refuse to serve Christians and Muslims? And if they ever did, I doubt if religious groups would be any more silent about it than gay-activist groups.

Brian from Rochester, NY said...

Anonymous 2:56,

The bakery has no problem serving everyone as individuals, it is only a same-sex wedding that they chose not to cater. The couple bringing this suit against the bakery acted like spoiled 2 year olds who didn't get their way.

The bakery owners are far more tolerant than the couple who brought this case against them.

Anonymous said...

3:27 -your last sentence is patently nonsense. Who provoked this situation in the first place? Is this bakery in business to serve the general public or not? There are established laws and regulations about discrimination, and so-called religious views cannot be an excuse any more than a racist business owner can claim some deep-felt belief about a right to serve people of a favored ethnic group.

Anonymous said...

...or rather claim the right not to serve people of a dis-favored ethnic group.

Anonymous said...

My, my. Is freedom really such a difficult concept? Freedom to serve, or not, whom you choose. Freedom to be offended and take your business elsewhere. Freedom to go out of business if your customer base doesn't support your policies.

Supporting the "right" of an all powerful government to compel individuals or groups to serve against their will. Sounds like supporting slavery to me.

Anonymous said...

3:57 Sounds like you prefer a more Wild-West or anarchist type culture. Good luck with that as it usually ends with little personal freedom at all - aka slavery - so you come full circle!

Anonymous said...

Yes, freedom is so Wild West. In the socialist society of the USSA uniformity of thought and action, as decreeded from on high, will be rigorously enforced. No exceptions will be permitted (unless you are a shill for the State).

Let's not mention that the closest thing to the Wild West in this country can be found in the urban cesspools that have been run by the closet Socialists for decades. In these shining examples of progressive policies in action, catching a bullet fired in pursuit of equality of outcome, i.e theft, is just another minor bump on the road to utopia. Knockout game ring any bells? Detroit anyone. If you haven't heard, the police chief of that lovely burg has urged the law abiding citizens (if there are any left) to arm up, as the police can't protect them. The ex-mayor could not be reached for comment: he's in jail for corruption.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:41,

It is much more difficult than you are making this out to be. This is not a case where someone is being denied a seat at a lunch counter. In a case like that, the owner of the lunch counter suffers no injury or harm if they serve a hamburger to someone irrespective of their race. The same burger is served to all racial groups.

However, what the bakery is saying is that the wedding cake is an artist creation. There are no laws demanding that an artist take on a commission. The bakery also argues that they are creating a cake that promotes and or supports an ideal that is contrary to their widely held and respected religious beliefs.

Taken in its best light, this case is one where two rights (religious freedom and equal protection in the public) come crashing into each other.

Historically, courts have ruled that in cases where rights collide, the case should be resolved with the path of least resistance. In this case, Masterpiece Cake Shop is not the only bakery in town. There are alternatives rather than forcing the bakery to create an artistic work that goes against their rights.

The thing I find interesting about this case is that if the bakery hired a person who then had a specific religious belief, the government would require the bakery accommodate the employee if the burden was not to great. Yet here we see the business is not afforded the same religious accommodation from the government.

Just because a person decides to work within the public arena does not mean they lose their rights at the whim of the government. The government has to demonstrate a compelling interest to deny or suppress one's rights and given that there are other bakeries, the government is overreaching here.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:01 has it right. If these were the only bakers who were readily available then it would behoove them to make that cake regardless of their own beliefs about marriage, as a sole source you must not discriminate, that is clear.

But in this case since there are many bakers in that area who are willing to serve that couple they have no right to demand that a specific baker make them a cake, this frankly stinks of arrogance and a "accept me or else" attitude. The judge who ruled in this case has his head where the sun doesn't shine because he didn't allow for a moderate balance between competing rights.

Frankly, its stupid to make such a demand because if I were forced against my will to make a cake for such a wedding I think I would do my best to make sure it was unpalatable.

Stefan v said...

I'd have baked them a cake that was so awful they'd never want cake again. Money back guarantee! If you think the stench of dung is romantic, and want to celebrate it, I will help you.

President Not Sure said...

I cant wait until the KKK goes into a gay run bakery in Colorado and forces the owner to make a cake in the shape of a guy in a white robe beating up some fornicators. Im sure the guy people will love the fact that the state will force them to make the cake for the KKK.

Anonymous said...

President Not Sure:

The problem with your scenario is that the KKK is not a "protected class" under the law.

The 14th Amendment no longer is applicable in the US.