selective rage...nothing new
Would that we could have a SCOTUS that determined, under 1st Amendment that Freedom of Association singularly applied to the 1st Amendment freedom of religion.
Suddenly, association with political parties would be subject to the scrutiny of the courts.
HEY HEY
WHAT DO YOU SAY
I WAS BORN THIS WAY..[repeat repeat repeat...]
Homosexuallity is not a race, sex or religion,period.
Its a life style and no amount of BS from the left can change that.
Makes you wonder if the Abolitionist movement could have been stymied if the Confederacy had made a “religious right to own slaves” argument.
What they are doing is protecting the free exercise of Islam, by refusing to interfere with the subjugating or killing of Infidels. After all, it's in their "holy" book! < /sarc >
The use of those two clauses, frankly, demonstrates the unfortunate conditioning that even nominal Conservatives, at a once truly Conservative journal, have sustained by the one sided way that the Academic/Media complex--those whom I have described as "Marxist influenced pseudo-intellectual poseurs," have colored the educational & journalistic analysis of philosophic issues.
The right to discriminate is the very essence of liberty: the right of the free citizen to decide for himself, what radio station to listen to; what brand of cereal to purchase; which newspaper to read--or whether to read any at all;--what church to attend, or not attend; what girl to court, love or marry; what beverage to buy, and with whom, if anyone, to drink, etc.. The so-called "civil rights" laws have been treated by the "Mipips" (described above) as extensions of freedom; but in fact they are clearly denials of freedom. Proclaiming someone's right not to be not preferred in employment or doing business, by Governmental edict is a logical contradiction of what Americans, prior to the 1940s understood as liberty.
There was a time when the National Review that strenuously supported Barry Goldwater, who rejected the "Civil Rights" edicts, would have understood the point.
One must ask, while providing goods and services for the proponents of deviance, what is the manner and extent of affirming their behavior. If, for example, by providing a wedding cake for a gay marriage, one is really saying, “I agree to participate in your celebration.” For many people, and for good reason, such a provision gives the appearance of evil, and that is enough to resist/fight/cease from such provision. I will probably never be in a position to sell a cake to someone who insists upon it - my baking is not very good - but if that were ever the case, a firm rebuke at the time of delivery would probably not make them want to do business with me any more. The time may be coming, however, where merely a firm rebuke will invoke the powers of godless deviants who think it is their right never to be offended.