Reminds me of an observation Kurt Vonnegut made about totalitarian thinking. It grinds along like the gears of a perfectly reasonable machine — until one tooth on a gear breaks, and it jumps into something horrible and incoherent.
Mm, K.
Well, Plessey-Ferguson was a law at one time. Was it right to follow that law as a citizen or enforce it as a gubmint employee?
Anti-miscegenation laws were very much enforced until the 70’s.
American Indians were very much restricted under the law as to how much of their religious heritage could be retained and practiced until the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, also in the 70’s.
Under all the previous of laws restricting religious concience would that just be an inconvenience for a business they would have to factor into their business?
The whole issue is the result of a number of people’s stupidity.
There is no moral obligation NOT to make a “gay wedding” cake. Making such a cake is not giving formal approval of sodomy.
If Christians are going to insist that a baker may refuse to make a gay wedding cake, then they must admit that a Muslim checker may refuse to check out pork or liquor, or that a Muslim cab driver may refuse to transport liquor, pork, or a dog.
The Christian businesspeople who have been ruined because of their refusal to bake a cake, or provide flowers, or take photographs, have only their own malformed consciences to blame.
In a different context, liberals would be horrified that anyone would force them to do anything. Since they have no principles, they can justify anything as long as it advances The Agenda of their hive-mind.
But free exchange is exactly that or it is coerced. Sadly, as with all things liberal, they took a situation that needed to be changed (where black people were refused service to support basic human needs like where to eat lunch or where to get a drink of water), and turned it into a horse to ride to advance the liberal agenda.
And thus we turned a need for black people to have a place to sleep or even to relieve themselves into the legal theory that every business was being operated as a “public convenience” and thus did not have the right to refuse to serve some customers. Now the law started out defining those customers as ones by race, that is to say that a business could not refuse to serve a person solely based on race, but now that government has redefined “marriage” to include something that is blatantly hostile to Christianity, when Christians decline to enable such a “marriage”, government can be called upon to force them to.
One of the solutions is to separate marriage and state. That is to say that marriage is a private matter and it should now be clear that it was a gross error to allow government to define and regulate marriage. Never mind it was done in part to advance eugenics.
When marriage returns to the sphere of private life, people can form whatever relationships they please without government being able to stop them. They do anyway! When is the last time anyone heard of government closing down a “hippie commune” no matter how many feral children it produced?
When marriage is a once again a private matter, government could not be called upon to force a third party to acknowledge it. Thus flower shops and wedding cake makers could go about their business, serving any customer they pleased and declining anyone they didn’t want to serve.
But this whole mess is not about allowing everyone to live in peace with each other. It is a way for liberals to wage lawfare against conservatives and especially conservatives who are Christian.
No. Sally Kohn is a thug and a supporter of pure evil.
When the government says "actively support gay 'marriage' through expressive work as a photographer, as a baker, or through other artistic expression", government has crossed over from protecting access to a public accommodation to violating freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. These are not people saying, "I'd like a dozen plain pizzas and a dozen pepperoni", they are demanding expressive customization, that their slaves obey their orders to create custom art or cater a gay "wedding" (with pizza? which is as obvious a set up as it gets). Government acting in that manner has become a thuggish force that must be obeyed only out of fear, with no moral duty to obey.
This problem, and many others, started because of the stupidity of making “sexual orientation” a status in the same protected areas as race, gender, religion, etc.
There is NOTHING wrong with being a certain race, colour, gender, religion, etc., and as such they should be protected.
However, there IS something wrong with the act of homosexuality, according to The Bible. This immediately causes a huge problem, which is now playing out.
So far so good.
RE :”But let’s say the printer is asked to make a communion sign or a gay wedding sign. In this case—especially in states that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation as well as religion—refusing to print such a sign would indeed be illegal. The government isn’t forcing that business to do anything other than follow the law. Which is what we expect of all businesses, equally. “
This is where her argument breaks down and she contradicts herself.
How about later, when they just chucked them into nut-houses? Was that law good too Sally?
And no one is saying an LGBT can’t order a simple cake, cupcakes or cookies.
Their personal rights, however, end at the infrimgement of my rights, which are constitutionally spelled out and protected.
Gays are also covered in the Freedom of Religion clause.
Now, what if 7 people came in under the auspice of marrying each other in a polygamous union?
Hey, what if a NAMBLA member came in and simply desired a cake with the words “I like young boys”?
What of the brother and sister entering into a union and insisting they have the right to enter into a union, as well the expectation that a baker should be compelled to put on their cake expressions such as “Thanks mom and dad. We’re keeping it in the family”.
It quickly gets worse from there.
The only real solution, if it is truly a religious issue, is for Religious people, going forward, to just not enter into a grant of license from the state.
You would lose a good many protections under the law but, if you truly desire to be with each other for the rest of your lives then getting married in a church blessed ceremony shouldn’t be a bar.
Besides, there are contracts such as pre-nups that spell out all kinds of things such as marital expectations and even what happens if this union fails.
Personally, I think everyone should have to enter into a pre-nup so they understand what they are getting into and discuss items of importance.
If the state insists on being in the business of marriage and defining whst a union may be and if, that sort of thing bothers you, don’t participate in the scam instigated by the minority.
It isn’t. If you chose to run a business, you have to follow the laws. If you don’t, that’s a choice—and you choose to suffer the consequences.
That's called force. This issue of government force is a funny one. You could also argue that the government is forcing you to drive below the speed limit or wear a seatbelt in your car. But it’s not. There isn’t a police officer holding a gun to your head literally forcing you to buckle up. In fact, you are 100 percent free to speed and not wear your seatbelt—and simply deal with the consequences if you’re pulled over. Is the threat of the fine for breaking the law amount to “forcing” you to follow the law? No.
Yes it is. What happens if you don't pay your fine? A bench warrant is issued for your arrest. If you get pulled over again, a cop puts cuffs on you and sends you to jail. If you don't pull over, guns get drawn on you and you go to jail. How the HELL did you pass the bar exam?
And more to the point, the government certainly isn’t forcing you to drive. If you don’t like the speed limit and seatbelt rules, and don’t want to be subject to the consequences of breaking them, then you can not drive. Whether to drive or not is your choice.
Or you can not get caught.
This all seems simple when we talk about driving, but somehow a fringe set of rightwing conservatives want us all to believe that hapless business owners are somehow being forced, against their will, to serve pizza to gay people.
It's about serving pizzas at a gay wedding, you f'ing idiot. If you ordered pizza or a cake and didn't specify what it was for, they wouldn't even know what team you'd bat for. deal with the consequences of breaking the law. That, pizza shop owner, is your choice. And if you don’t want to deal with those consequences, well, no one is forcing you to be in the pizza business. You’re free to do something else.....Don’t like following the laws that apply to businesses—including serving all customers equally? Then don’t start a business. That’s your choice.
You fascists want us slaves to government and the elite. Those before me fought those people for 1000 years. When it is necessary, I will continue the fight by any means necessary by my way on my terms. The way and terms are dependent on what your allies do against me.
By the same logic Laws against homosexual acts are quite OK with the Author. Just don’t engage in them or suffer the consequences.
People like Sally Kohn have no idea what it takes to start a business, nor does she care. It would require too much work, dedication, etc., so why would she bother? Let the peons do all the heavy work in a business. She can sit on the sidelines and criticize them for their work ethic, morals etc. See, it’s so easy for her.
That's all.
Tell it to Ernst Röhm
You know, this kind of “forceless” actions has the tendency to cause “forceless” responses.
If people are hindered from being able to choose whom they associate with, they may find alternate ways to discourage forced association. Like telling the customers that they will donate a percentage of their purchase to the Westboro Baptist Church. Maybe with the wedding’s address and date as well.
I’m glad people haven’t done that yet, at least not what I have seen thus far. They are taking the high road. But if things keep happening this way, it will get uglier.
At the very base of all forced compliance with “tolerance” laws is the desire to cover up the consequences of adhering to a certain belief or lifestyle and assigning the blame for bad outcomes to someone or anyone else except the wrong choices of said group.
The Christian lifestyle, even a “conservative” one, most often leads to a peaceful and more contented state of being than some others. At least, it does until it comes under fire for being more peaceful, prosperous and better equipped in general than some others. The drawbacks and consequences of being a member of some segments of society are a little too evident for the Liberal Left who needs those groups for its existence. So, the Left must make excuses and “blame” someone for the plight of their constituents. Better wake up. The ability to make and manage money was what initially earned the Jews the hatred they received at the hands of the Nazis. Anyone who is able to make a decent living or manage to be self-sufficient is suspect in this country today. Those who earn and create wealth are labeled somehow selfish to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. American companies today are under increasing pressure to give to the “have nots.” and so is the American taxpayer. It won’t end until no one has one more grain of anything than anyone else regardless of how hard they work or what they bring to the table.
This article is idiotic to the very core. I am less informed for having read it.
“The government isn’t forcing that business to do anything other than follow the law. Which is what we expect of all businesses, equally.”
This explains the above. “If you want to know, Sally Kohn is also a distinguished Vaid Fellow at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.”
“The government isn’t forcing that business to do anything other than follow the law. Which is what we expect of all businesses, equally.”
This explains the above. “If you want to know, Sally Kohn is also a distinguished Vaid Fellow at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.”
Do us a favor and add a “Barf Alert” to this title. Since the author is a raving, leftist dog, a “Bark Alert” would work as well.