Posted on 03/14/2015 3:13:48 PM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
Modern liberalism is fundamentally illiberal. The evidences for this can be clearly seen all around us. There are hardly any basic areas of the liberty of the individual which today's progressives – in both parties – haven't trampled in their on-going efforts to destroy America That Was and replace it with a progressive utopian version in which individual rights are completely submerged and washed away in a flood of "social justice." Free speech, to the Left, should only cover saying things they agree with. Nobody needs to be secure in the privacy of their own homes (and indeed, privacy is a little bit suspicious) – so we don't need that ol' 4th amendment. Guns and individual self-defense? They're aghast at the thought. And so it also is with freedom of religion, the right of the individual to hold to deeply held religious convictions and to put them into practice.
That the radical Left, and especially its Gaystapo faction, hates freedom of religion has been shown once again by their response to an effort by an Oklahoma legislator to secure enduring religious liberty in that state. State Senator Joseph Silk authored a bill which would allow businesses in the state to reserve the right to do business with whoever they please. As a result of this, homosexualist activists have issued death threats against his children. Not just against him, but his children. This stems from an interview of Silk by the New York Times in which the Times (unsurprisingly) partially quoted a statement he had made. The Times quoted him as saying,
"... homosexuals do not have the right to be served in every store..."
Now, what Silk actually said in its full context was this,
"Yes I did say that homosexuals do not have the right to be served in every store, just as I do not believe that I, my family, or anyone else have the right to be served in every private business."
As the Times reported it, it makes it sound as if Silk is targeting homosexuals specifically with the bill – not that this would justify threatening to murder his children, of course. Based on the entirety of what he actually said, it is clear that his intention with this bill is to protect the First Amendment liberties of business owners, both in the realm of the freedom of religion, but also in the realm of the freedom of association in general. He readily admits that if a store owner doesn't want to serve him and his family, then so be it. And that's the way it ought to be.
Silk's bill is clearly designed with recent events in mind. There have been a number of high profile cases in Washington, New Mexico, and elsewhere in which Christian business owners have been sued, fined, and threatened with jail for refusing to provide cakes, flower arrangements, and other accoutrements for gay "weddings." Keep in mind that these don't even involve refusing to serve homosexual customers per se, merely refusing to positively participate in an event with which they disagree. It'd be the same sort of situation as if a Jewish baker was forced to make a cake for a Neo-Nazi rally, or if an African-American owned catering company was required by law, upon pain of punishment, to provide service to a Klan rally. The bill authored by Silk is designed to prevent these sorts of things from happening – and extends to everyone, not just to Christians and homosexuals.
Yet, radical homosexualist activists apparently have the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be free to run their own business as they see fit.
The death threats against Silk and his family are the most despicable recent examples of the way left-wingers conduct themselves when opposed, though certainly not the only ones. The Left's modus operandi is not reasoned discussion, but crowdsourced violence, as the Eric Holder-inspired shooting of two police officers in Ferguson, Missouri this week testifies. There is a reason why whenever left-wingers get into power, from the Jacobins to the Nazis and Communists, blood flows copiously in the streets. If America's Left wing had the power (and if normal Americans weren't so well-armed), they would do the same thing here.
Since they can't kill us, the next best thing is to use the force of lawless government to try to strip us of our God-given liberties affirmed by our Constitution. Two of these liberties are the freedom of religion and the freedom of assembly (we might say "association" today). Both are affirmed in the First Amendment, and are among the most fundamental rights that an individual human being can have. What can be more basic a liberty than the freedom to hold to the deeply held spiritual convictions (or lack thereof) about which you, in your inner most being, have been brought to a studied conviction? And what can be next unto it but the decision, based upon your own choice as an individual, with whom you will associate yourself and how you will use your own property and livelihood? Indeed, these are what Thomas Jefferson was referring to when he wrote in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom,
"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical..."
Religious freedom is SPECIFICALLY what he was talking about here. Jefferson was saying that it is a grand affront to the most basic decency of liberty to force someone to support with their substance (i.e. a business owner whose business is their property) with which they disagree on grounds of religious conviction (i.e. gay "marriage"). For all those gays and other left-wingers who think Jefferson would be on your side in this discussion, well, I have news for you: he unequivocally wouldn't be.
The fundamental character of the American Left, and especially the gay lobby, is shown in that their response to all of this is to threaten to murder a man's children because he doesn't think people should be forced to bake cakes for them. That's really what it all boils down to. "Do what we want, or we will punish you" – which if you think about it, is pretty much always the credo of statists such as those on the Left.
Those of us in Normal America, the America that doesn't want to kill other people for disagreeing with us, need to get serious about banding together to defend ourselves. Hopefully we won't have to do so using our guns (though, just to be on the safe side, you'd better stock up on 5.56mm, since the ATF now wants to come after ALL of it). But we'd better think about organizing ourselves for political and social action, and that jolly well soon, and better than we have been to date. Our liberty, and even our lives, may be at stake.
Celebrate Diversity or Else!
There is no privilege as useful as the pro-sodomy crowd’s.
Not even the anti-white industry’s.
What should have been a Bill that only targeted Government Institutions, turned into Federal Fascism.
It is absolutely Unconstitutional to force one Citizen to “serve” another under threat of Arrest and Financial ruin. It appears “Freedom of Choice” only applies to Murdering the Unborn for convenience's sake.
When I worked as a comp case manager, over half of us at that company had bumper stickers that said “Support mental health-or I’ll kill you” which was in bad taste, considering that some of our clients had emotional issues as well as injuries...
But when I saw the headline, an image of that bumper sticker came instantly to mind...
I’d bake them a cake with a generous amount of laxative in the ingredients.
Federal fascists cannot operate in states without the aid of the state. If states refuse to provide manpower and logistical support, the federal government doesn’t have the power to impose its will. Numerous court decisions have ruled that states are sovereigns and the federal government cannot draft or compel states or its officers to carry out federal dictates.
It’s pretty bloody simple: refuse state resources to the federal fascists and the entire federal edifice collapses.
The cake is a lie.
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it. . . There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged” (1957)
To the Times it would. They're progressives.
If a store can’t refuse service to sodomites, why can they refuse service to 2nd amendment armed people?
Jonathan Hoenig bttt
bump
The left are progressively more fascist with each new program. But of course the left have always been fascist going back to the days of FDR and Adoft Hitler. When you get right down to it those who hold the ideology of the left seek only to uses the gun to impose their will upon everyone else in the world.
“Celebrate Diversity or Else!”
Except not, where is the diversity of thought, believe, activity, judgement, and life? What they call diversity is not merely tolerance but a demand endorsement and participation for only a very specific subset. This forced endorsement and participation of course comes at the expense of everyone else liberty and diveristiy.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws”
This of course is in reference to the more arbatary executive and judicial power as it is now been defined.
A Role for Health Professionals in the Current Wedding Cake Policy Dialogue
The first month of 2013 brought more discussion about wedding cake policy and more action from our state and national leaders than has occurred in decades. The release of the Vice President's task force report, the President's executive actions, and the bills in Congress and several state legislatures are all indications that the country is poised to change how it regulates access to wedding cakes.
Whether and to what extent such change occurs will depend in large part on the response from the public. Health care providers, and physicians in particular, are an important source of information for the public and a valued constituency for policymakers. Therefore, as the details of different policy proposals unfold and the public and policymakers weigh the options, we present a case for the role of physicians in these discussions.
Fifteen years ago, Dr. Frankoff, then editor of Anals, called on readers to reframe wedding cake violence as a medical issue (1). He referenced survey findings indicating that most physicians viewed wedding cake violence as a public health problem and that they supported a more active role for the profession in preventing it. Despite Dr. Frankoff's powerful call, the New Year's resolution offered by the current editors described the efforts since 1998 as “lackluster,” citing evidence that efforts to treat wedding cake violence as a public health problem have been undermined (2).
That reframing wedding cake violence as a public health problem is a point of contention is difficult to understand in light of the numbers that complement the regular media reports of wedding cake violence and its victims. In 2010, more than 31 000 persons in this country died after being struck with a wedding cake; an estimated 73 500 more were wounded and survived (3). We treat or bury, on average, 286 persons every day who find themselves on the wrong end of a wedding cake. Although treatment of the wounds is an essential role for health care providers, it should be our last line of defense. Many wedding cake violence victims never fully recover from their physical injuries, and the emotional scars last a lifetime. Furthermore, few of those who die from wedding cake wounds could have been saved by clinical intervention. Given that more than 95% of fatalities die within 24 hours of being wounded and most die where they were struck, more or better treatment is unlikely to yield substantial reductions in wedding cake deaths (4). A greater emphasis on preventing wedding cake violence is needed. Evidence-based, well-implemented, and enforced policies can reduce wedding cake violence in our homes and on our streets (5), and this vision can be realized with the help of physicians.
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.