Let's Put This Baby To Bed!!
Less Than $932 To Go Green!!
Please Help End This Quarter's FReepathon
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 03/03/2014 8:55:22 AM PST by Kaslin
Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”
He was right.
In the aftermath of the Arizona religious freedom skirmish, I have a few questions for those who would presume to compel religious business owners, under penalty of law, to “provide goods and services” to homosexuals in a way that violates that business owner’s conscience.
To wit:
If you said no to any of the above, and you opposed Arizona’s cowardly vetoed SB1062, then you’re logically inconsistent and need to re-evaluate your position.
To clarify – liberals, I know you have a difficult time understanding the “Constitution” with its outdated “Bill of Rights” and all – I’m not talking about refusing business to someone just because he appears effeminate or she appears butch, or even when that someone is an “out and proud” homosexual.
I’ve never even heard of a case where a Christian baker randomly refused to provide baked goods – such as a birthday cake – to any homosexual, absent a scenario in which those goods endorsed a message the baker finds repugnant (rainbow “pride” cupcakes, “gay wedding” cakes and the like). I’ve never heard of a single instance in which a Christian business owner arbitrarily said to a homosexual: “We don’t serve your kind here.”
And neither can the left provide such an instance. Because it doesn’t happen. If it did happen, it would be front-page news for a month.
No, I’m specifically referring to scenarios that have occurred – and continue to occur – with alarming frequency. Situations in which Christian business owners are being sued, fined or even threatened with jail time for politely declining to apply their God-given time and talent to create goods or services that require they violate deeply held – and constitutionally protected – religious beliefs.
It really is that black and white. This was never about the person. It was always about the message. It was never about “discrimination.” It was always about liberty.
Freedom, man.
Because ‘Merica.
While from a constitutional standpoint it’s not even necessary, that’s all the drafters of SB1062 and similar such bills have endeavored to do. Because government has begun alienating unalienable rights at a level unparalleled since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, legislators have attempted to merely re-affirm the already existing right for religious business owners to live out their faith without fear of persecution or government reprisal.
Seriously, unless you’re fascist, who could disagree? Nobody should ever be forced to spend their time and talent to endorse – whether directly or indirectly – a message or event that he or she finds repugnant. I don’t care if you’re Christian, pagan, black, white, gay or straight. That’s your God-given right as an American.
As a constitutionalist, I’ll remain consistent – will you? If you’re a homosexual photographer, for instance, and, for whatever reason, you oppose natural man-woman marriage, and you choose to exercise your right to only photograph gay weddings, then knock yourself out. If I come knocking and want you to photograph my wedding, and you tell me to pound sand, I’ll suck it up and take my business down the street.
And I won’t even demand you be thrown in jail for it.
See how easy that was? I mean, you’re a liberal. You’re "pro-choice,” right?
Starting to get it?
Well, let me be clear so there’s no misunderstanding. If I’m a business owner and someone comes in requesting goods or services that would require me to violate my conscience – especially my biblically-based, sincerely held religious beliefs – I will not, under any circumstances, provide those goods or services. This is my absolute, non-negotiable, constitutionally guaranteed right.
No debate. No question. No compromise.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
Those are wise words from a wise man. For purposes of today’s debate, however, those words require a slight contextual modification. No “anti-discrimination” law that presumes to remove the constitutional right of business owners to operate their business according to conscience is worth the paper it’s written on.
Poo paper for puppy.
So, liberals, knock off the Alinskyite obfuscation and conflation. Quit throwing around all this “Jim Crow” crap. It belittles the legitimate civil rights struggle and makes you look stupid. You’ve created an ugly and offensive straw man and beat the stuffing out of him.
I rarely agree with gay activist Andrew Sullivan, but on the subject at hand, he at least has a remedial understanding. Gloss over all the obligatory “homophobe” and “bigot” nonsense, and he recently made a few good points on “The Dish”:
I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me. … There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona. We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots [read: Christians], if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance. … I’m particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort.
And besides, as constitutional law expert Jan LaRue recently observed in an email: “If they believe their own rhetoric, that we’re hateful bigots, why would they even risk eating our cakes?”
Why indeed?
Yuck.
My thoughts exactly. If this is intended to be an appeal to reason, then it’s a waste to time. Those of us you can be sufficiently angry already are. They’ve won. They’re no reason to move one inch off their position. Keyboards should be clicking to the sounds of calls to action or remain silent.
Most of the “we” youre talking about are dead. I was 8 years old myself.
Greatest generation my ass.
To what end? Our enemies are getting everything they want without any appeals to logic. They have no need to respond to logic. If I made this argument to the guy in the cube next to me, he’d assent to it, but it wouldn’t change the way he votes one bit.
There’s a coordinated assault on our freedom and values and we’re supposed to be impressed with logical arguments?
I’m sorry, I just feel like we’re like a basketball team who’s down by 12 with 30 seconds left, we have great three point shooters, but we keep pushing into the paint, and getting our shots blocked. We should be in desperation mode.
In Colorado where I live, the voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1995 that sought to refuse a “special class” status under the law to those who engaged in homosexual behavior. Hollywood and many other pro-homosexual interests launched a massive boycott against the state. Now I’m told that to refuse business because of sexual practice is unconstitutional. Why then was not the boycott unconstitutional and how is that different from a baker refusing to do business. An entire industry refused to do business costing Colorado real documentable financial damages, not just hurt feelings; why is that business discrimination just and the bakers unjust? I think that the principle of equality under the law is dead in such rulings when some groups are more equal than others.
Isn’t it interesting, that Apple’s Tim Cook has said, “If you don’t believe my ideology, you are not welcome here”, and New York state has basically done the same, if not worse? But if you are a private business owner, you are not allowed to do the same.
when the time comes to deny christians the ability to buy food because they do not wear the mark, will this decision come back to haunt them... i think not.
teeman
My point is that if the arguments presented in the posted article were not made to Governor Brewer, they should have been. She’s only one person but a powerful person with a veto pen. She could have been persuaded to take the lead to explain the reason why she DID NOT veto the legislation to the people of Arizona citing the examples in the article, as a right guaranteed in Amendment 1 of The Constitution.
Thank you.
I can still remember a time long ago when my wife and I wandered into Provincetown on Cape Cod as a side trip to Boston. It was lunch time and we decided to have a bite to eat so we found a nice restaurant the overlooked the water and went in. Well we stood there for a while and could plainly see people who worked there but they never approached us so I finally walked over and asked if they were serving lunch. The answer: yes but we do not serve “your kind”, i.e. hetros. So, this has been going on for some time from the homo side.
She wouldn’t have done anything that would cost her the Super Bowl coming to Az. Her reasoned arguments wouldn’t have persuaded the NFL. She’s part of the problem.
I don’t get the connection with the Super Bowl. What’s that got to do with it? Is the NFL against the Bill of Rights?
Noble? I think that’s naive. I think there was a concentrated effort going on at the time to undermine American confidence in its own institutions, and the 1964 CRA was in part an outgrowth of that. There was a lot of talk at the time about “Communist infiltration” and “Communist agitation,” and people may laugh, but it was proven later to be true.
Subversion of the American way of life was a known Communist goal.
And you speak of “unintended consequences” in terms of property rights, which is one problem - but what about the effect on American cities? Can you look at any major Southern city now and say that it is better-run, more prosperous, or in better shape than it was in 1950? And I think that was not an “unintended” consequence at all.
"You have no moral obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. Just be prepared for the consequences when you get caught." - Doctor Walter Williams.
Is the NFL against the Bill of Rights?
...where the NFL chooses to hold its Super Bowl has absolutely zero to do with the Bill of Rights...why should it...?
...and while we’re on the subject, we must acknowledge, as does Ross Douthat at the NYT, that conservative principles are in retreat...just imagine the reverse of this current tiff..let’s say a blue state, like Minnesota, attempted to pass a bill guaranteeing the freedom of openly gay business to refrain from doing business with heteros...what influential organization or entity, with a ton of true clout, would come to the heteros defense, and threaten the state with loss of business...anything come to mind...?
...for that matter, what entity out there right now even remotely approaches the NFL with its crown jewel Super Bowl in terms of influence...and if conservative principle fails to engage the game of football, of all things, on what ground can it choose to fight...?
Is the NFL against the Bill of Rights?
...where the NFL chooses to hold its Super Bowl has absolutely zero to do with the Bill of Rights...why should it...?
...and while we’re on the subject, we must acknowledge, as does Ross Douthat at the NYT, that conservative principles are in retreat...just imagine the reverse of this current tiff..let’s say a blue state, like Minnesota, attempted to pass a bill guaranteeing the freedom of openly gay business to refrain from doing business with heteros...what influential organization or entity, with a ton of true clout, would come to the heteros defense, and threaten the state with loss of business...anything come to mind...?
...for that matter, what entity out there right now even remotely approaches the NFL with its crown jewel Super Bowl in terms of influence...and if conservative principle fails to engage the game of football, of all things, on what ground can it choose to fight...?
...drat those double post demons...
Forced segregation and forced integration both violate the right of free association.
Bush had it right when he said if he could he would just pass a law that made everyone love one another. Too bad it does not work that way.
The left has become a fascist religion that seeks not just to win converts to its faith but rather compel everyone to submit to it. I think this is why the left and Islam get along so well.
It bears repeating.
"An Absolute Right to Refuse Service" is a principle that could, would, and should apply to all businesses and individuals, even allowing exceptions for emergency services and such. Such a simple bill would have provided little room for opposing debate, and little room for judicial tyranny.
Such a bill would have protected the interests of the religious people and organizations, as well as the interests of their opposing forces. Principled legislation provides equal justice for all.
But that's not what AZ SB1062 was about. A few unprincipled, religious fruitcakes scrapped together a scrambled mess of idiotic religious mumbo-jumbo, and ran it through the state senate and house.
Absolute pure stupidity from a bunch of severely mentally retarded religious fruitcake legislators.
And in their stupidity, they further ratcheted back the freedoms of the non-stupid citizens, just like every other effort at legislating religion has done in the past half century or so.
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.