Posted on 04/07/2015 7:09:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
No, it is not.
Academics and their use of language.
We won’t force you to provide that service. We’ll just mash you with a lawsuit and fines if you refuse.
Actually, the threat of, and/or imposition of a fine is force. Dipwit.
According to Wikipedia:
Sally Kohn met her partner, Sarah Hansen, at the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 2003. Hansen works as an activist and consultant. Hansen was the Executive Director of the Environmental Grantmakers Association from 1998 to 2005. They have a daughter (aged 5 in 2014), Willa Hansen-Kohn and live in Brooklyn, New York.
And Jews had to follow anti Jewish laws in nazi Germany. If they didn’t, it was their choice to die in the street.......
I wanted to share my thoughts on Indiana, RFPA, and 'Freedom of Conscience,' and specifically the incident regarding the Pizza Establishment:
'Freedom of Conscience' is the foundation to all freedoms we deem essential in this country. You cannot have 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of assembly' without 'freedom of conscience.'
In the example of the "Memories Pizza' establishment in Indiana, the owner said they would NOT discriminate against ANYONE who wanted to come in and purchase pizza; that is, if someone came in and wanted an immediate item to consume, they would provide it regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Then, a 'theoretical question' was asked, "Would you cater a Gay Wedding?'
At this point the owner is being asked, at some future date, to participate in a 'Rite' or 'Ceremony' they may disagree with, and as such, they have a right, under their freedom of conscience to not participate.
I was asked once by a friend to be a 'Godparent' - I told the friend I did not share their beliefs and said they would be better served by someone who did share their beliefs. This is the same answer I would give if I owned a 'business establishment' and was asked to involve myself in a 'ceremony' I did not believe in.
Freedom of speech means people are going to say things you don't agree with; Freedom of conscience means people are going to BELIEVE and DO THINGs you don't agree with; But you can't have one without the other. If a person can't act on their beliefs, because you disagree with them, then WE have no freedom and no liberty.
In each case above, as long as they don't harm others in what they believe or do, we need to accommodate the speech and beliefs of those we disagree.
In the case of a Business Establishment refusing to participate in a 'Rite' or 'Ceremony,' NO HARM is done to anyone - there are plenty of pizza shops, florists, cake bakers, etc. to accommodate you if they personally don't want to be involved in your ceremony.
In fact I would argue as artisans, 'cake makers', 'florists', and 'others' need greater freedom (than say the guy that does your laundry) with respect to whether they want to participate in a 'ceremony' - I've always wanted those I've contracted out for weddings to 'feel the vibe' and 'spiritually connect' when they are asked to perform a service. Why even approach someone to involve themselves in a ceremony if they don't want to participate?
If however, you believe (as many seem to be suggesting) the State should have the power to compel someone to act against their conscience, and force them to participate in a 'ceremony' they deem 'religious' and don't believe in, then you're setting the cause of Liberty and Freedom back 500 years; when mobs and lawyers were more than willing to haul citizens before magistrates if they dared to defy laws and teachings over 'freedom of conscience'.
When President Palin and Attorney General Cruz execute the laws enacted by the Tom Cotton and Marsha Blackburn led Congress forcing the Men Seeking Men media to only print stories favorable to Conservatism or "suffer the consequences", I'm sure we won't hear a peep out of Sally Kohn.
The last paragraph about “government support” is a hoot.
So, in countries where people are killed for being gay, or for not being sufficiently Islamic enough ... it’s OK because “it’s following the law”.
Got it.
In other words: If you choose to make a living, you have to follow the laws. If you don't, then die.
+1...
It all comes down to the summary that Chai Feldblum stated -
“gays win, Christians lose”.
(especially the latter)
“If you want to know, Sally Kohn is also a distinguished Vaid Fellow at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.”
And also, it would seem, a moron.
“Obey the law (no matter how reprehensible the law is) or suffer the consequences.”
Invites direct action from those who love liberty.
Say, Sally Kohn, wasn't slavery "The Law" at one time?
It is my choice to ignore what this bull-dyke says.
So in other words, according to very liberal “logic,” the government isn’t forcing you to do anything.. But if you don’t do it, you should expect the government to punish you.
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.
