Posted on 08/18/2016 5:01:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
Author’s Note: The following story is sad but true. However, the names have been changed to protect the guilty. In other words, they are just too emotionally volatile to handle reasoned criticism.
Dear Jason:
I am sure this email comes as a surprise as it has been a few years since we’ve spoken. Nonetheless, I felt an urgent need to contact you concerning your recent “engagement” to your boyfriend Chad. Initially, I had not planned to contact you to express my disagreement over your decision to get “married.” I thought it would be a waste of time. However, your “engagement” has already put the lie to the bland assertion that same-sex “marriage” doesn’t hurt anyone. In point of fact, it has damaged a mutual friend of ours in a significant way. This is despite the fact that the “wedding” has not yet taken place.
When you decided to hire a photographer to take your “engagement” photos you had literally hundreds of options before you. But you chose our mutual friend Chrissie because you know she has religious objections to same-sex “marriage.” You also knew that if she refused to shoot your “engagement” photos you could completely destroy her business and confiscate her life savings. Unfortunately, the law in your home state of New Mexico is on your side. I am sure you know the current state of the law but I will restate it since I will be sharing this correspondence with some of our mutual friends.
In the case of Elane Photography v. Willock, a Christian photographer was forced to shoot a gay “wedding” despite her religious objections. The controversy began in 2006 when Elane Photography and its owners, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin received an email from a woman about photographing what she called a “commitment ceremony” between her and her same-sex partner. Specifically, the email asked if Elaine would be open to helping them celebrate their “wedding.” Elaine politely declined to use her artistic ability to denigrate God. She simply did not want to communicate a message that ran contrary to her religious beliefs. The conversation should have ended there.
Once refused, the woman who approached Elaine, Vanessa Willock, could have easily found another photographer for her ceremony. Nevertheless, Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. After a one-day administrative trial in 2008, the commission ruled against the Huguenins and ordered them to pay attorneys’ fees to Willock. The case then made its way through the New Mexico state court system, and the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the ruling.
My friend and former attorney Jordan Lorence was one of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys working the case. After losing before the New Mexico Supreme Court, the ADF appealed to the U.S Supreme Court. Surprisingly, the Court declined to hear the case.
Our mutual friend Chrissie has friends who work at the ADF. Therefore, she is aware of the case. She is also aware of how extreme and militant you have become in your activism. Naturally, she feared that if she declined your offer to hire her for the “engagement” photos you would take her to court. She was so emotionally conflicted over the situation that she got on the phone and asked for advice and counsel on how to handle the situation – often shedding tears as she sought guidance from trusted friends.
In the end, she capitulated and took your “engagement” photos despite her strong moral objections to same-sex “marriage.” And now you want her to shoot your “wedding” ceremony. It reminds me of the time in high school when a female friend of mine accompanied a mutual friend of ours on a date. They were parked alone and in a secluded place. They had known each other for a long time. He made an advance on her for the first time and she pushed him away. He continued to press forward and she became frightened because he was behaving in such an erratic manner that evening. She honestly feared that if she didn’t consent to physical intimacy he would harm her. Finally, she gave in and they had intercourse.
After their date, my female friend asked whether I thought our mutual friend had raped her. But now I will pass the question on to you, Jason. Was the sexual act that occurred on that date more like love or rape? Be careful before you answer because it has implications for your own “marriage” to Chad.
Put simply, you have become so extreme in your LGBT activism that many of your old friends are actually afraid to express their true feelings in front of you. Your Facebook profile picture has been shaded in rainbow colors for nearly fourteen months. Ninety percent of your social media posts are about homosexuality. And, of course, everyone who disagrees with your positions on LGBT issues is either a “bigot” or a “homophobe.” Many people simply nod in agreement with you in the hopes that somehow, someday you will simply grow up and find another purpose for living – one that does not involve seeking constant affirmation of homosexuality.
Of course, that is the LGBT movement in a nutshell. You are no longer using persuasion. You are using coercion. Specifically, you are using activist judges to force people to nod in agreement with the basic tenets of the religion of secular humanism – and its main denomination of militant homosexuality. You are trying to force people to love you. But love simply cannot be coerced.
I know you still call yourself a Christian. But Christ never forced anyone into the sanctuary in the name of “love.” He never told anyone they would lose their possessions if they refused follow to the culture. In fact, everything about the life of Jesus runs contrary to your conduct towards our mutual friend.
You should not be proud of your actions. You should be ashamed of yourself for committing spiritual rape in the name of tolerance and inclusion.
You just need to do a really bad job.
This issue is relevant to us because we are seriously considering building a wedding venue on our property. However, We’ll have lots of bible verses about marriage on the walls and it shall not be covered. It will involve the “man and woman” meme.
I’m thinking of letting anyone who wants to actually use our facility. However, it might be a trying experience. And you can’t sue someone for doing a lousy job.
Very true.
if you have a facility with man/woman memes, you may have some homos insist you move them for their wedding, or else.
So far, anyway.
The case of the Little Sisters of the Poor is proving that not to be true.
Gold medal in the Refugee Olympics!
But as previously stated, I have worked with them and we got along. I did not and did not socialize with them, nor did I socialize with the hetrosexuals. When asked, I politely informed them that I had a wife waiting at home and wanted to be with her when not on the job. And last but not least, I would have told the hetrosexuals the same thing I told the homosexuals.
I don’t know of that case, but I’m just discussing how the constitution protects freedom of speech. I can put anything on the wall I want, and if a customer doesn’t like it, they can go somewhere else.
Also, I simply choose to not comply with Obamacare, whatever the cost. The government crossed a line by requiring me to purchase an item simply because I am a citizen living in the U.S. This is why I have not had health care insurance since Jan. 1, 2014, and will not until Obamacare is repealed. Actually, I probably never will. It feels downright faithless to have health care insurance.
And I pay no penalty.
All it takes for evil to increase is for good men to do nothing.
Great Article.
Mike Adams is like Pat Buchanen to me. Sometimes he hits it out of the park, sometimes he’s neutral, and sometimes I want to sit him down for an overdue lecture.
This is a home run. Thanks for posting.
Herr feldmarshal,
re: “Rape is an apt description of what militant Sodomites are doing to those that refuse to accept their disturbed and evil agenda.”
Isn’t it retarded to realize that a ‘population’ of less than ONE PERCENT of OVER 300 MILLION FOLKS, are really raping the lot of us, mentally and financially, and we are allowing it?!?!
Whatever happened to the America where these, ahem, ‘fools’ USED TO BE run out of town or tarred and feathered??
These people are eating up tax dollars just for bathrooms to make them feel good, and your Townfathers are giving into them.
If you want to know who your masters are, ask yourself who are you not allowed to criticize.
I don’t get it. Satan is having a field day with us in the present time. Good is bad, right is wrong, up is down. Sodomy is sacrosanct, Christianity is scorned. Sick, sick, sick. We need a revolution to set things back.
I can remember when they only wanted tolerance. And as long as they left children out of it, that didn’t seem unreasonable - consenting adults and all that.
But now they want admiration and respect - ain’t happening. I do know a few - and I stress that word few - who take their religious conviction more seriously than acting our their homosexuality. I do admire them - it can’t be easy. I watch very closely and never see a hint of what we would consider inappropriate.
If I had to use an adjective to describe their apparent interest in same sex relationships, it would be indifference. But I’m sure that has taken years to get to that point.
“And you can’t sue someone for doing a lousy job.”
It doesn’t matter. If you used salt instead of sugar it won’t matter, they aren’t going to eat it, they just want you to compromise your values and bake it.
They will utilize your venue. It doesn’t matter if you do a lousy job. They still forced you to comply, and they will do things in your bathroom you’d rather not know about,
just because you are Christian.
The first time any of this happened, the townspeople should have rallied around the business owners, and if required, run the offending judge out of town on a rail!
I heard a radio ad for a Christian oriented medical program- I think they called it MediShare. That might be an option.
I am a Christian and opposed to homosexual behavior and gay marriage.
But that being said, I do not really think that baking a cake or taking a picture really expresses approval of their actions. I would do it, but I would witness my own beliefs at them the whole time. Or not.
And that being said, I believe a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The only exception would be travel accommodations.
A lot of things went wrong in the ‘60s, and one of them was severe restrictions on the freedom of religion.
I might have had fun with this if I was the photographer. I would take the worst pictures possible and demand that he pay me for them. I’d threaten to sue him if he didn’t pay me for my work.
My wife had a friend that she grew up with who was gay. Once at an office party we were talking. I forget how the subject came up, but he said, "I'm going to Hell, anyway, I know." That is just one of the saddest statements that I ever heard.
“Sorry, I’m busy that day”.
Or take the job and then
“Sorry, I have diarrhea, I hope you can find a replacement with this one hour’s notice. Uh oh gotta go, bye. Oh and congrats”!
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.