Posted on 02/22/2015 10:38:04 AM PST by walford
Ultimately, this is about the government designating an Official Position on a social issue and using force to impose it as a minority on the rest of the population.
When the Civil Rights laws were enacted during the '60s, it was determined that places of "public accommodation" could not discriminate based upon race, sex or age. These are groups into which people are born. Hence, to be permitted access to offer goods and services to the public, they are obligated to offer them to all of the public, regardless of which group one is born into.
And there is no religious accommodation permitted for this. If your religion tells you that one race is inferior or that women are livestock, you may not conduct commerce if everyone is not granted equal access.
There is no controversy or disagreement about being born female, black or getting old.
There is indeed as to whether one is born, chooses or is led by dysfunction into the various sexual preferences currently exhibited in our society. Certainly psychological disorder -- and even lack of character -- can have a genetic element, but it is not proof that sexual behaviors fall into the same category of race, sex or age.
Offering no scientific evidence showing otherwise, a minority that has influence far beyond its numbers is increasingly imposing its will upon the minority to make it so what one does in bed and with whom one does it is to be legally considered a demographic group that must be accommodated in the same way as those into which there is no argument that one is born.
These people can get their cakes made or their flowers delivered by a company that would have no problem accommodating them, but they are deliberately seeking out those who would object upon personal, moral, and/or religious grounds so they can have their value system -- or lack thereof -- rammed down all of our throats using the coercive power of government.
The ultimate object is to have the minority marginalize the majority in the pursuit of transforming society into an Utopia in which the Laws of Nature are trumped by how a very few wish and hope things can and should be.
Part of this is to transform the primary purpose of reproductive organs into those of pleasure, and babies are to be regarded and treated as STDs. Hence, Westerners are building more coffins than cradles as we blithely indulge our fleeting sexual desires with no sense of obligation to the world we leave behind.
If our prehistoric ancestors had such a mindset, we would not be here.
The problem is, Nature ultimately has Her way, so if we institutionalize mores that are in conflict with survival, we will find ourselves replaced by those who do not share our perspectives with respect to freedom for all based upon race, sex or religion.
And the perpetrators of this atrocity will be the first to go once an infantile culture that comports more with Natural Laws supplants the juvenile mindset that dominates our culture today.
Anyone who would attempt a mature, analytical discussion of the logical conclusion of our present choices -- citing principles that transcend time and place -- are smeared as being backward, stupid and even mentally ill.
Meanwhile, the ship of Western Civilization continues to sink.
http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/video-grandmother-going-lose-home-lifes-savings-not-selling-flowers-gay-wedding/
This too shall be fixed in the next Civil war.
It’s coming.
I really wish opponents of SSM would think of a different metaphor than “ramming down the throat.”
I really, really wish opponents of SSM would think of a different metaphor than “ramming down the throat.”
I suppose you could highlight your preferred orifice in your own essay.
If CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations wanted to throw an ISIS beheading celebration party, would the black-robed-judge force an American business owned by Christians or Jews to provide the cake?
I know of no Islamic commercial or religious institution in America or anywhere else that would accommodate homosexual marriage.
People such as those who are trying to force Christians to make wedding cakes or construct flower arrangements certainly are not asking Muslims to do so. They’re not crazy, after all!
And, given that they are not reporting stories about Muslims hanging homosexuals, the media certainly isn’t going to touch any stories about Muslims turning them away for wedding accommodations.
Remember, for the Left, the mutual hatred they share with Muslims for capitalism and the United States trumps all else.
It’s like the old saying goes; there’s a reason the violent animal rights extremists target little old ladies in fur coats ... and not leather-clad bikers.
Turnabout is one response. Approach gay-owned bakeries and florists with orders for anti-gay and anti-ssm celebrations, FRC events, conferences on conversion therapy, etc.
To add: that would be a neat thing for James O’Keefe/Veritas to try; have some folks posing as same-sex partners try to obtain goods and services from Muslim-owned businesses. Capture what happens on camera ...
Why does the Black man get hundreds of thousands of dollars online when his admirable story of faithfully walking to work comes to light, but this grandmother is destined to be penniless and homeless for living her faith? Something is terribly wrong here. Is there a crowd fund site for her, or is the internet banned from helping conservative Christians now?
The concept of “public accommodation” is a direct infringement of private property rights and the 5th Amendment.
good luck but they will never be held to the same standard
“The concept of “public accommodation” is a direct infringement of private property rights and the 5th Amendment.”
Having bathroom facilities offered based upon race today would be offensive to most Americans — and rightly so.
I can see the point that when one owns a business and doesn’t want to serve blacks or women that they should not be forced to do so, but ultimately, it was decided that if one is actually born into a group in which they had no choice in becoming a member, they should be served by any business that offers its goods and services to the public at large.
I don’t have any objection to that, but do when it regards belonging to certain groups is possibly a matter of choice or dysfunction.
This is why the concept of “born that way” is such a big deal to the Gay Agenda crowd. They want it to be Official policy and hence to be Officially accommodated.
The ultimate object is to have the minority marginalize the majority in the pursuit of transforming society into an Utopia in which the Laws of Nature are trumped by how a very few wish and hope things can and should be.
And that very few is, in fact, a very, very few: Queers: "We are the 2.3%". 07/15/2014 192kb.pdf
Sorry for the double post. Not sure why that happened.
Muslims only hang certain homosexuals:
Boys of the Taliban
Dec. 29, 2006
Just recently, the Taliban issued a new set of 30 rules to its fighters...
But there is a curious rule that the Western media has typically ignored. Rule No. 19 instructs that Taliban fighters must not take young boys without facial hair into their private quarters. (snip)
Rule No. 19 obviously indicates that the sexual abuse of young boys is a prevalent and institutionalized phenomenon among the Taliban and that, for one reason or another, its widespread practice has become a problem. (snip)
The key issue here is that the demented sickness that underlies Rule No. 19 is by no means exclusive to the Taliban; it is a widespread phenomenon throughout Islamic-Arab culture and it lies, among other factors, at the root of that culture’s addiction to rage and its lust for violence, terror and suicide.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759923/posts
Double Post ⇒ DP
DP ⇒ Double Penetration
…Coincidence?
I think not.
Problem solved.
More specifically, these judges are deceiving people with a perverted interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC), wrongly subjectively reading gay marriage into the EPC.
But what these judges are ignoring is that the Supreme Court has already clarified that, regardless of the EPC, the 14th Amendment added no new protections to the Constitution. It only strengthens those protections which have been amended to the Constitution by the states.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
And since the states had never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay agenda issues like gay marriage before 14A was ratified, 14A’s EPC didn’t automatically create gay marriage rights after it was ratified.
So the states are free to make laws which discriminated against constitutionally unprotected gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
The bottom line is that, although activist judges are a major problem, and we need to get such judges off of the bench, it remains that patriots also need to get themselves up to speed with 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus constitutionally unprotected “rights.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.