Posted on 07/05/2015 11:29:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
The branches of gov’t have lost any legitimacy. We’re surrounded. Things just got easier.
It’s not just Christians who will show up for the festivities when gov’t agents are sent to churches, it’s the Constitutional militia, including law enforcement, including ex-military, same as Bundy Ranch.
We will not consent, we will not comply. Civil disobedience to such tyranny will be more than the domestic enemies can handle. Their edicts must be enforced and send armed men to put their will upon us. Bring it. They are that stupid to attempt to meddle and undermine culture, tradition, and fundamental religious beliefs. What is this, amateur hour? How many times in history has this caused wars and backfired? Especially in America with the stubbornest folk who love freedom? 1st Amendment is the bedrock.
Churches attacked and innocents killed means just war clause has just passed and it’s open season. Or, hunting season rather. The tyrants themselves will face personal consequences. Thus starts the reset.
I enjoy Mike Vanderboegh’s post on the matter:
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-reset-button.html
“I was having this conversation with a reader the other day in reference to the firearm laws we are breaking in the various states and he asked me what we were going to do about previous infringements, going back to GCA 68 and the NFA of 1934. I told him, when they start the shooting we don’t quit until we have pushed the reset button on the last 100 plus years of infringements. They lose it all — the Federal Reserve, fiat currency, the income tax, all the gun laws, all the nanny state fascism, the murder of innocents on demand, the tortured rendering of the Interstate Commerce clause, the bloated federal bureaucracy, everything. EVERYTHING.”
“If that’s the case, why bother voting, advocating for our culture, religion, or values, or do anything? Just stay at home all day and pray.”
Which was an extremely successful strategy in the dark ages. The cloisteted religious communities weathered the storm well.
Be that as it may, a directly confrontational approach is sometimes necessary. I think most of the time it is not.
I like your optimism in the matter, but I am pessimistic myself. A civil disobedience movement must be organized. Who is going to organize it, the working stiffs like all of us here? What people forget, or don’t even know about is that the so-called Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was organized and paid for by the Soviets, to the tune, I’ve read of $30 mill per annum. What is suppressed is the information that the handful of ‘community organizers’ and now martyrs shot and killed in the South at the time were CPUSA members from New York. What were they doing interfering in the Southern states policies?
Even this year’s various riots were organized by agitators. Where are our side’s agitators, ahem, community organizers?
I didn't use the words "gay issues". It was a business that serviced weddings and they didn't want to service a gay wedding. That isn't a legal issue about gay marriage, it's a legal issue about the right not to serve gay customers. It could have been an auto mechanic not want to replace the muffler for a gay customer. Same thing.
I'm not criticizing them or defending what happened to them, I'm just pointing out the legal distinction. It is not semantics, it is a completely different legal issue.
Naturally you couldn't be in a position to decline to serve a gay wedding in a jurisdiction that didn't have them. But that doesn't make any legal complication that arises a consequence of the recent Supreme Court decision.
I didn't say she should be compelled. I defend her right to decline. But it's not a legal issue that arises from the Supreme Court decision. It's an issue that arises from anti-discrimination laws that have nothing to do with marital status.
Not sure what distinction you think that is but the legal problem the baker got into stems from anti-discrimination laws. If anything compels one to make gay wedding cakes, it's those. Not the Supreme Court decision. That's what I'm explaining.
The court decision doesn't compel anyone to do anything, if you aren't an official involved in marriage licenses. So it would be hard to engage in civil disobedience against a law that didn't require you to do anything. You want to engage in civil disobedience against anti-discrimination laws? That's a bit more practical because there's actually something you can do there.
That what this thread is about after all. "Civil Disobedience", right there in the title. Got to have something to disobey.
This is a good read!
But the decision does do something to those who do not issue marriage licenses: it purports to require us all to consider homosexual couples who have been issued a state marriage license to be married, and to consider the issuance of such a license or any rite held pursuant to it to be a wedding.
Most directly this affects anyone who provides catering or other services used at weddings — conscientious objection to the subversion of the concept of marriage can be reframed as violating anti-discrimination laws, even if the business owner would be happy to provide other services to homosexuals. Again, there is a difference between conscientious objection to the subversion of marriage and the refusal to sell products or provide services to homosexuals, whether you or a Democrat Party gauleiter in Oregon see the difference or not.
I guess I still don’t get it. What would have happened if two gay people decided to have a cake made for a ceremony with no legal recognition in a state that didn’t yet accept ‘gay marriage,’ and the cake makers refused?
Freegards
[[Going to prison for violating caesar’s edicts is not cowardly. Just stupid.]]
The Apostles were all stupid then? Hint: Persecution and martyrdom strengthened the early church like nothing else could- What man means for evil (ie: Ceasar and ilk) God meant for good- there was nothing stupid about standing up for, and being punished for, God’s word
I agree; however, corporations or for that matter the converse, a mob, are only a problem when they can wield power over individuals via a corrupt central government that is not limited in power. The Founders knew quite well that to limit the coercive power of government over individuals that the question was not one of choosing a benevolent 'good' king' to rule but rather to physically constrain and limit the central authority to specific enumerated powers, establish checks and balances and a Republican form of governance that respected and recognized God given rights and or limited enumerated powers as evident or self-evident -encompassing fully the spheres of Individuals, States and the Federal.
America's problems today are not about who, the rich elite or the useful idiot mob, occupies the throne in Washington D.C. -but rather, that there is a throne that Leftists have built brick by brick over time...
The throne created in Washington D.C. , the metaphoric "Tower of Babel" must be dismantled, tore down, destroyed --therein lies the answer.
It would have been the same result. The issue wasn't that they didn't service a gay wedding. It was that they didn't service gay customers. The business happened to be one that serviced weddings and the cake was for a wedding, but it wasn't that it was a wedding that got them into trouble.
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.