Posted on 10/08/2014 3:08:00 PM PDT by PROCON
This MSNBC host appears better at exemplifying “convoluted” than defining it.
MSNBC host Alex Wagner celebrated how the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit “struck down two more same-sex bans” in Idaho and Nevada during “NOW with Alex Wagner” on Oct. 7. During a panel, she addressed the “convoluted argument” of religious liberty by calling religious exceptions “carve-outs for bigotry.”
To introduce the segment, Wagner gushed that the Court of Appeal’s move “comes on the heels of a landmark Supreme Court un-ruling on marriage equality,” and “is expected to bring the grand total of states allowing gay and lesbian Americans to marry the person they love to a whopping 35.”
When Republican strategist Hogan Gidley, a guest panelist, brought up religious liberty, Wagner criticized him, asking, “Don't you think that is a convoluted argument to say it is denying people religious liberty to let other people enter into marriage?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
So it’s bigotry.
Refusing to take pictures of a murderer in the act is bigotry too. It’s a morally repugnant situation and we’re bigotted against it.
Keep calling it that, and you’ll give bigotry a good name.
And doctors should be forced to treat Medicaid and Obamacare patients even if it doesn’t pay anything, right?
Personally, I think “racism” and “bigotry” are protected speech under the First Amendment.
Hey I wasn’t invited to this wedding so can I sue these straightaphobes?
There exist people with serious religious objections to interracial marriage. I don’t agree with them, but that doesn’t make their objections any less religious and protected by the first amendment.
The thing I don’t recall, from anytime in the past decades, is anybody trying to make people with these objections participate in the celebration of the marriage.
The closest I can recall is a justice of the peace somewhere in the South a year or two ago who objected to performing an interracial marriage and suggested they find somebody else. He, of course, was in a different position. He had chosen a profession where he had agreed to act as an agent of the state, and thereby lost his right to opt out.
He was, of course, if I remember rightly, removed from that position, as he should have been. In fact, if he disagreed with state policy for religious reasons, he should have resigned.
All this is very different from imposing your values on a private citizen.
There exist people with serious religious objections to interracial marriage. I don’t agree with them, but that doesn’t make their objections any less religious and protected by the first amendment.
The thing I don’t recall, from anytime in the past decades, is anybody trying to make people with these objections participate in the celebration of the marriage.
The closest I can recall is a justice of the peace somewhere in the South a year or two ago who objected to performing an interracial marriage and suggested they find somebody else. He, of course, was in a different position. He had chosen a profession where he had agreed to act as an agent of the state, and thereby lost his right to opt out.
He was, of course, if I remember rightly, removed from that position, as he should have been. In fact, if he disagreed with state policy for religious reasons, he should have resigned.
All this is very different from imposing your values on a private citizen.
I’m already over being called a bigot, a racist, intolerant, etc. It means nothing to me. In fact, it’s beginning to become something to be proud of, considering the sources of the accusations....
In a free country, it is called Freedom of Association.
Bigoted against perversion is normal.
If he is a Justice of the Peace, he’s a public servant. He can try to palm it off on a co-worker, but he can’t, he’s obligated.
If a church has an issue, though, they should be in the clear.
And if the baker tells you get lost, that his (lost) business.
The older I get, the more I am for leaving people alone and the more I support a right to “bigotry” and “racism.”
Problem solved!
BWAHAHAHA!
You’d probably still get sued for being “Homophotic” :-)
The United Negro College Fund refusing to give money to non-negro students is bigotry. The Congressional Black Caucus refusing to admit non-black members is bigotry. I could go on and on....
I would refuse to take gay “wedding” photos. If forced by some tyrannical judge with delusions of grandeur, I would collect a much larger than average non-refundable payment and then take terrible photos. “Oh dear, did I accidentally turn off the auto-focus and use a low-resolution setting, with a dozen other technical errors in my emotional upheaval over the trampling of my God-given rights. Sorry guys, does that mean you are not buying any individual pictures?” No, I will not bow to evil, nor will I wear the Number of the Obama.
Here is what needs to happen:
A straight couple needs to find a gay photographer and a gay baker to do their wedding. When one or both vendors reject the job the couple needs to go viral with rants about having the govt force the vendors perform their respective services for the wedding..
See how they handle that dose of their own medicine
Procon: You are much too kind in your description of Alex Wagner.
She is not just your “typical non-intellectual liberal moron”. She is way beyond that, somewhere out there in the “Always stuck on stupid and beyond salvation” universe of leftist crap that is her mind.
They have it backwards. It’s bigotry when gays demand service ....
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.