Posted on 02/27/2014 9:08:55 PM PST by IChing
The philosopher Voltaire famously (and accurately) said, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
To those holding most of the power in our country now, “gay is the new black”–and as with the de facto black-supremacy which has taken hold over the decades due to a pervasive litigious and public-relations minefield, gay-supremacy is likewise rapidly catching up, and catching on.
Arizona’s already controversial governor, Jan Brewer, has just vetoed a bill passed by her state’s legislature which would have protected business owners who turn away customers out of conscientious objection to participating in what the business might deem to be a violation of their religious beliefs.
Clearly, the Arizona legislation was being sought as a proactive conservative remedy in response to court cases in Oregon and Colorado which punished Christian owners of bakeries who didn’t want to make and sell wedding cakes for gay couples.
Opponents of the bill, of course, screamed about how it amounts to unfair discrimination against a minority. Proponents, on the other hand, say laws like it are necessary to help ensure the First Amendment rights of business owners against violation of their religious freedoms. Governor Brewer has five days to sign the bill into law, veto it, or simply do nothing and it would become law.
I really wish that conservatives would go even more on the offense, and argue for the moral justification–based on freedom of association–for the right of private parties to discriminate, on any basis, or even none at all. In terms of modern jurisprudence, so-called progressives have succeeded, for all practical purposes, in nullifying that right by claiming that private businesses are nonetheless obliged to engage in public accommodation–and therefore must, essentially, be conscripted to do the will of whoever walks through the door of their establishment demanding service.
America today is completely unrecognizable from the way it was not too long ago. Things have been (in the openly declared agenda of Barack Obama, although in the recent Super Bowl interview with Bill O’Reilly he denied having said it) “fundamentally transformed” 180 degrees: I remember when homosexual deviants were expressly forbidden to join the military. Later, the law was changed so that they could serve in uniform, as long as they kept their homosexuality closeted; that was the “don’t ask, don’t tell” era. Now, anyone who merely objects to sodomites being openly affirmed in the ranks are the ones who are treated by the Pentagon like criminals.
Along the same lines, our courts, elected offices, and everyday workplaces have been hijacked by compliance agents of the gaystapo, and are issuing decrees subverting everything which has represented traditional marriage and family relations over the generations.
High government officials from the president on down through the U.S. and state attorneys general, all of them having sworn solemn oaths to uphold duly passed laws protecting the real definition of marriage, are suddenly, belligerently violating that very same sacred public trust, in open defiance of their oaths. A lone gay judge in California decides to just all by himself void the state’s exhaustively-vetted Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage, while other courts and even corporate boards pounce on hapless heteros who might wish to abstain from helping to openly celebrate sodomy.
The private prerogative to discriminate (as contrasted with official government discrimination, of course) is a natural human right, but you’d never know it based on what has happened in America since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. You might not like that the management of some restaurant or whatever might rather not do business with members of some racial group or religion or sex cult, etc., but your displeasure about discrimination engaged in by another party does not give you the right to dictate that they go against their own discretion in running their business, or associating only with whom they choose.
Senator Rand Paul got in a lot of trouble for past remarks similar to what I’ve said here, and as a result has been faced with the onslaught of black power groups and other political race-terrorists. He has since back-pedaled as fast as he can away from those old statements, and into a much more politically-correct policy position which panders to race-grievance groups.
I say let the market sort this stuff out. Privately-owned businesses which cater to a sufficient clientele to support them will do well, and those who do not will struggle and/or cease to exist. Freedom works.
Sodomites can order big, towering cakes with fudge icing, boxed-up and packaged in pink ribbons and bows if they like, from whoever is willing to cater to their whims. But no one should be forced to recognize nor participate in their celebration of perversion.
SMH...
Best. Headline. Ever.
Until certain people and all their unknown czars leave our White House, we are not a free country in the manner of before November 2008.
LOL thank you! You’re not the first to say that. :)
LOL
Find a gay-owned bakery and demand they produce 200 cupcakes for this weekend’s Westboro Baptist Church Funeral Protest.
Follow the money...I was given news by a little bird that Delta airlines and others would have pulled out of Arizona.
I believe it. The way corporate America hops on board with every single anti-traditional aspect of the progressive agenda is utterly infuriating...including McDonalds with their “365Black” b.s.
Time for a gay cake recipe. If you bought a wedding cake and it tasted terrible, what could you do about it?
Fact. The States own constitution (rightly) discriminates against homosexuals by refusing to recognize gay marriage, which is what the baker refused to do. The judge thus indicted the States constitution as violating the law, because a subsequent law added sexual orientation (south) to the an nondiscrimination law.
Fact: The baker offered to sell them other things but not a custom work of art specifically celebrating a moral abomination.
Fact: If a black baker, sign-maker or artist refused to make a custom sign celebrating a KKK convention,
or a Muslim for the birth of Israel, or refused to make hot dog rolls,
or a liberal music artist refused to license music a Ted Cruz convention? (Romney was threatened with legal action even for using music he had a license for, not that i support such music)
or a homosexual sign maker refused to make and sell a custom made sign for a AFA event?
or just maybe an Orthodox Jewish baker refused to make a custom cake to celebrate a holocaust deniers convention?
then it is very unlikely the bakers/sign makers/artists would be found guilty.
Fact: The homosexual lobby has duped the willing into believing the same rights as belong to non moral aspects race and skin color are given also belongs to a behavior have.
Honestly if you don’t want to deal with people there is always a way. If somebody wants a gay wedding cake you just charge 3 times what they can get it for down the street. Works like a charm every time.
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.