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To clarify – liberals, I know you have a difficult time understanding the “Constitution” with its outdated “Bill of Rights” and all – I’m not talking about refusing business to someone just because he appears effeminate or she appears butch, or even when that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.
We can clearly see whom you hate.
Probably not. I detest stupid people who mindlessly set back the causes for freedom for themselves and countless others.
If you see something other than that, then no, you do not see clearly.
God never guaranteed that doing right would get you applause.
Placemark
There is nothing right or Godly about submitting legislation loaded with preferential, unprincipled and nonsensical religious jargon that is most likely to get vetoed, or most likely to get thrown out in the judicial process.
This particular issue in AZ would have passed legal muster had it simply provided every person or business the right to refuse service to anyone, period, with appropriate exceptions noted for life-threatening emergencies.
That would be equal treatment under the law. That would be principled. That would be right and Godly.
Such a legally principled point of view is not sufficient for some unprincipled religious fruitcakes, such as the ones who crafted the Arizona bill. Their demands for preferential treatment to be encoded within the law, using their peculiar brand of nonlegal jargon, is just as much an abomination to constitutional law as are the demands of gays, minorities, illegal aliens, and other groups for their groups' preferential treatment to be encoded within the legislation, using the peculiar nonlegal jargon of their respective groups.
There are signs up in many establishment that simply state, NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO SERVICE.
Yet I have to face going to the Mall or other high crime shopping areas with OUT MY CCW LEGAL GUN, my child’s SOCIOPATH killer has made threats, and he now walks a free man after serving only a fraction of a BAD PLEA DEAL that took 2 years to reach, thanks to the RINO prosecutor. God had nothing to do with this man made nonsense.
I agree. People have the right to keep and bear arms. People have the right to defend their life, liberty, and property.
Memphis city schools are 95% black, 4% Hispanic and 1% white. Who is the minority there?
County schools reflect the population in percentages.
Last time I checked America is a Polyglot nation. I can trace down my mom’s side to Scot, English, German, French and a tad of Cherokee. My 2 younger siblings have a different father, they can add Italian to their ancestry besides our mom’s.
Yeah, I am very familiar with that school system. What we learn from the integration issue is that people still tend to live near and associate with whomever they want to. You can bus people across town to reach certain quotas but it does not really change people.
I think that church is the only place where true racial equality can happen. The secular version of equality is to try to force equality because the government really has no power to change people or human nature.
Further, racial equality and many other leftist ideals (I say ideal because the left has many goals which are never achieved no matter how much power and control they obtain) are in the domain of religion. The left cannot separate its religious dogma from the legal realm. They are determined to force everyone to comply with their religious views.
When it comes to homosexuality, they first claimed they just wanted privacy (sexual morality based on the principle of consenting adults). Then they wanted tolerance if homosexual acts become known. (This is what the supreme court ruled on against Texas in the manufactured case from Dallas which essentially made homosexual acts legal everywhere.) Then they no longer wanted privacy. (Clinton’s first act as president was to implement “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military, which was considered major progress for homosexuals at the time. Now that policy is supposed to be discriminatory.). Homosexuality must be openly praised, embraced, and celebrated. But that is still not enough. They want those who oppose homosexuality to be forced to support it. They want to punish and penalize any opposition. But they will NEVER be satisfied. They will not be satisfied to beat down people’s doors and rape their families like the men of Sodom wanted to do. They are currently demanding access to all children. They can be foster parents and adopt children in all 50 states. But they want access to all children through the public schools.
The Nazi movement was started by and made up of homosexuals. We are seeing the same pattern here in the USA. Germany was the most tolerant nation in Europe when the homosexual Nazi’s rose to power. They will continue to move the entire world toward the worst and most abusive kind of tyranny that exists until they are stopped.
He was right.
Unfortunately for the analogy, Einstein was a big lefty, which means he had in mind only leftists disobeying conservative laws. He'd doubtless be a cheerleader for "gay marriage" if he were around today.
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.”
Ditto, despite what his conservative relatives are saying.
So, liberals, knock off the Alinskyite obfuscation and conflation. Quit throwing around all this “Jim Crow” crap.
Liberals should have been made to understand from the outset that "jim crow" was wrong not because it violated secular standards of justice (which ultimately don't even exist), but Divine ones. But nobody, not even conservatives, want to talk about Divine law.
My personal opinion is that conservatives are going to have to adopt leftist tactics--mass resistance, protests, going to jail--to even begin to make headway on this issue.
It is none of those things you accuse it of. It uses language that is well precedented in judicial decisions.
If the applause of the left is what drives you, you might as well pick up your marbles and go home, we do not need you.
The left does not applaud constitutional conservatives.
They do, however, relish every public political effort of the evangelical fruitcakes, because you people maintain a solid record of 100% failure in the political and legal arenas.
The only problem with that is that all conservatives get the blame for the idiocy of the religious fruitcakes. It's almost like socons are secretly working for the Democrat party (shades of William Jennings Bryan).
There was a real good reason the communist National Education Association was such a big, big donor to Mike Huckabee's campaigns. Having goobers like him out there pretending to represent the Republican Party cuts the Democrat's campaign work in half.
You know the high profile failures like any mocker of God’s children, but totally ignore the successes. See, for example, aclj.org.
Nonetheless, I personally have been preaching that gospel outreach, very much outside of a political context, should increase. People should be reminded about why they should care about God and this effort needs to transcend the superficiality of politics. Without such a foundation, yes it is possible for too-energetic efforts in the political arena to backfire.
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.