Skip to comments.No, Arizona Bill Protecting Religious Freedom is Not “Jim Crow”
Posted on 02/23/2014 11:56:52 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Back when gay rights advocates were first pushing for gay marriage, they claimed that they only wanted equality and that no one would be compelled to participate in gay marriage events.
As soon as gay marriage went on the books, and in some states where it wasn’t even on the books, religious bakeries and photographers were assaulted with demands that they participate in gay ceremonies, sued if they didn’t and ordered to take part in gay ceremonies or face fines… and even jail time.
States have responded by trying to pass measures that will protect religious freedom and freedom of speech. That means preventing incredible abuses of power by the gay rights lobby like this…
Participate in Gay Wedding or Go to Jail for a Year
A Colorado bakery owner illegally discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to bake a wedding cake for the pair last year because of his Christian religious beliefs, a judge ruled on Friday.
Phillips is a devoted Christian who has an unwavering faith. She said he is a person of such deep faith that he wont even bake Halloween-themed treats at all.
Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer ordered Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, to accommodate sex-couples or face fines and other possible penalties.
The complainants can sue him civilly in the regular courts system or he can potentially be prosecuted by the district attorney for up to twelve months in jail.
At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses, Spencer wrote in his 13-page ruling. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.
No one in this country should be sent to jail for a year because their religious beliefs prevent them from participating in a gay ceremony.
The Supreme Court of New Mexico has ruled that Christian photographers do not have the right to decline photographing a gay wedding, even if doing so violates their religious beliefs.
The case began in 2006, when Vanessa Willock approached the Albuquerque-based business to take pictures of her ceremony with girlfriend Misti Collinsworth and was politely declined. She found another photographer for the event but pursued legal action anyway.
The Huguenins argued they did not discriminate against homosexuals but did not want to convey through [Huguenin]s pictures the story of an event celebrating an understanding of marriage that conflicts with [the owners] beliefs.
Cases like these do not belong in America. And the only way to stop them is by reinforcing the First Amendment.
The ACLU took in 63 million dollars in 2011. It has net assets of almost 300 million dollars. Anthony Romero, its Exec Director, takes in 342,858 dollars.
And like most bullies, the ACLU picked a target its own size, Barronelle Stutzman, a 70-year-old woman who runs a flower shop. For those who think that gay marriage can be folded on, the case of Arlenes Flowers provides another sobering wake-up call.
Homosexual activists are not looking to live and let live. They are out to force their way on everyone else at any cost. Even shamelessly going after a 70-year-old woman who was only following her faith.
The American Civil Liberties Union also stepped into the fray, sending Stutzman a letter announcing it would file a separate civil suit for damages on behalf of the engaged couple unless she agrees to provide flowers without discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, publish a letter of apology in the newspaper and donate $5,000 to a local youth center, in lieu of attorneys fees.
Your refusal to sell flowers to Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Freed for their wedding has hurt them very deeply. It is a disturbing reminder of the history of discrimination and disparate treatment that they and other gay men and women have experienced over the years, ACLU attorney Michael R. Scott said in the letter.
Gay rights activists have responded to these attempts to protect the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights from their assault by crying “Jim Crow.”
Protecting religious freedom is not Jim Crow. It’s the right of people to opt out of a religious ceremony whose premise their religion does not accept. The United States has Separation of Church and State, something that liberals insist upon. It ought to have a separation of Unitarian Church and State as well.
No American should be jailed for a year for not participating in a gay wedding. Any gay rights group that demands this isn’t protecting Jim Crow, it’s attacking the basic civil rights of every traditional American.
You would never even imagine this was the issue if you read the incessant media propaganda about the hateful anti-gay Christians who won’t even bake somebody a cake.
Greenfield is an American treasure.
I think this argument about the Arizona law will be academic a week from now.
The shyster lawyers are going to take a hit though. They won’t be making the big bucks here with their queer lawsuits. Brewer needs to sign this and just forget about it. His gayness, Eric the Holder is going to sue Arizona for something anyway. We’re his favorite target. I’ll be glad when he’s finally sent to prison.
Of course they lied, when do leftists not lie?
It never ceases to amaze how much some people hate blacks so much — that they would compare their struggle for rights to demands made by perverts with an anus fetish.
In just a few short years, we’ve gone from the Left wailing about gays being bullied.
Just who is doing the bullying now?
Well here is the HUGE problem with this issue and Bill. If this is held up as Constitutional (it won’t be), what happens when the non-Christians are in charge? What happens if a Muslim doctor doesn’t want to treat a Christian patient who is about to die?
The supporters of this Bill are only looking at it through one lens. There is no way that this Bill doesn’t become an utter disaster for Christians in AZ.
Oh everything is just fine and dandy when your group is in charge ... but what about when they aren’t? (and no, your group isn’t always going to be in charge).
So will a lot of Folks.
In the leftist mindset, any lie they tell that advances their cause(”utopia” on earth via a totalitarian state) is “truth”.
Take their money, do the job. No one says you have to do it with enthusiasm.
I don’t think you can deny service to a “class” of people if you are peddling your wares and services in the “public market place”.
I guess the photogs and bakers could just say; “Sorry. Family vacation that week. We’ll be closed.” And then take a vacation that week. What could the courts do then? A vacation week would be less than the fine.
That doesn’t fix the problem of bully gays, but might protect the particular person/business from loss.
The Ukrainians revolted and faced armed men with molotov cocktails and their bare hands. Americans just bend over and take more of the same.
There will be no battle here. I think it’s going to be an academic subject a week from now because I don’t think the brave AZ Governor is going to sign this, she’ll probably Veto it instead. From what I’ve read on it, she Vetoed a similar law last session.
She has already said she won’t do one or the other until Friday, which is the deadline. What’s that tell you? She wants every pressure group that’s against this law to protest loudly and publicly, so she’ll have an excuse to declare “the people have spoken!” and then she’ll Veto the bill. She will not hear the protests from our side.
Fine. Substitute sugar for salt.
This is why Conservatives should never surrender Social issues. Fiscal & social freedom are rooted in Constitutional framework.
The radical gays would jail us all if they could.
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.