Posted on 06/07/2018 5:06:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
I suppose they have to hold up the C of E side since the Queen and her No. 1 Son head the Church.
i like yours better...
It's never been a problem in terms of feeling threatened, and during my 20s, I had no issue whatever talking to them in a general give-and-take. But, the one belief I've always held from the very beginning is that gays are certainly screwed up in the head. The most amusing aspect is the burning desire to present them as 'normal', which is the furthest possible thing from the truth. As someone posted upstream, the whole gay rights movement isn't about gays being accepted - they couldn't possibly give a sh!t that normal think they're weird. In fact, they celebrate being extreme. Rather, it's yet another tool used by cultural marxists in which to divide the people.
---
All right, on to the essay. I posted this on another thread, but it may still be applicable. Kurt focuses on taking umbrage, which is his game in the publishing business. But the real nuts & bolts come down to who has the activism power. Kennedy's decision evened the playing regulatory field, so now I assume the advantage swings to Xians. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I am a devout atheist.)
---
Every now and then I pause to consider that maybe, just maybe, the proglibs are right and conservatives really are stupid. Why must everything be presented in brute force fashion, when a subtle, yet distinct turn of phrase/decision accomplishes the same effect? It's like Micky D loaded with HFCs, salt, sawdust and Dog knows what else vs a nicely prepared meal with quality ingredients. They are both "food" but one is sophisticated & subtle, while the other is obvious yet garbage.
For those that don't get it, this is the crucial point: Kennedy mentioned the commission disallowed claims against 3 other bakers who refused to create products with pro-Christian messages. Using that simple formula, we can logically conclude that there are, on average, probably around 3x as many strident proglib businesses vs devout religious operations.
Since the ruling hinged on violations of equal treatment, and specifically addressed the state's attempt towards determining 'offensive speech' (religion = bad, LGBT = good), that leaves only two options: enforce equally or eliminate religious test.
What happens if state commissions like CO (and presumably others of similar nature in CA, NY, IL, etc) decide to apply equal treatment? Wanna take a look at that 3x factor above again? Consider the unifying force of church groups and other activist organizations that begin filing orders with various businesses with religious themes and messages. Gay interior decorators forced to prepare banners saying homosexuality is a sin, deli owners compelled to provide services to a church group whose theme is "all non-believers go to hell?"
Does anyone get where this will end up? It will result in the very people who enjoyed wielding state power against weaker, out-group opponents to now be hoist by their own petard. Soon enough, you'll see these commissions each get out of the religious test business, thereby opening up any business to refuse to serve anyone to whom they are morally opposed.
Same exact effect of supporting the 1A, yet done is subtle fashion that is only fully realized once people noodle through what it really means. The LGBT certainly know, which is why they are depressed from experiencing a huge, major defeat.
Of course not
Liberalism only goes one way
Therefore it’s not true liberals
It’s progressives or socialists
I recall when this issue first came up, there were a lot of videos of requests being made to Muslim bakers, all of whom refused to take the order. Nothing was ever done to persecute them. Wonder why? /s
I find the whole issue preposterous and miscast.
This is not about a business discriminating against a particular group but about a particular group demanding that a business produce a specific product that it doesn’t have or wants to produce.
Any homosexual can walk into a cake shop and buy a cake that the shop makes, but he should not be allowed to force the store to make a cake that it doesn’t want to make.
Why something so obvious and common sense needs a supreme court decision is beyond me.
On the larger playing field, with many competing interests, it's imperative to achieve a just decision without necessarily inflaming a significant portion of the country.
Kennedy's opinion achieves the result you summarized, but in a much more sophisticated manner. Take it for the major win that it is.
“Evidently, you missed the point of my Big Mac analogy. For you, it must be HFCs and sawdust meat to constitute food.”
No I didn’t miss it, just found it inane. My preference is for simple food whose ingredient are readily apparent, not some “sophisticated” French cuisine whose main ingredient is shrouded in some unknown sauce, and it turns out to be a slug.
By defining the issue clearly, (as I did), it would have removed all the confusion as to what the debate is about. and it would have only inflamed the most rabid gay mafia activists. Most sane homosexual think that these activists are not doing them any favors.
I’m obviously happy with the decision, but it still left things in a fog in most people’s mind in that it’s seen as a “narrow” decision. A step in the right direction.
As well you should, you idiot! There's nothing "conservative" about supporting faggotry.
Punch back twice as hard! Winning!
JoMa
bump
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.