As I have said before I have no real problem with Gay Marriage. No, I do not think we will ever see a constitutional amendment defining marriage, and that is, to me for the best. The definition of marriage ought to be left to the states, and there ought to be a federal statute preventing suits that seek to force states to recognize same sex marriages. To me, it is highly probable that most same sex couples, like most Heterosexual couples really do not wish to force their weddings, or marriages on to anyone else. they wish to be happy, and I hope they are. Are you shocked by this? Does it surprise you that a Conservative would utter such beliefs? If so it should not. After all, I am just not a very good “Social” Conservative where public policy and laws are concerned. Outside of abortion, which is a barbaric procedure that destroys an innocent human life, I really want the government, on all levels, OUT of issues many “Social” Conservatives wish it to be in. Face it folks, once government is in, well, they stay in. That is nothing anyone who loves liberty should hope for.
To me, the real threat from Gay marriage is from a small minority of Gay activists who will never be sated unless they force, yes force, through governmental powers, everyone to kneel before them and praise them. The stories of bakeries, wedding planners, florists, wedding photographers, etc. who refuse to do business with same sex weddings are a warning sign to all of us who love liberty. Surely you have heard and read these stories, and surely you have heard those business owners who are being persecuted by activists and their willing partners in Statism in government claim that their inherent right to freedom of religion is under assault. And, yes, they are correct, their freedom of religion IS being attacked. But, we never seem to hear anyone say that the equally basic right of freedom of association is being attacked do we? This bothers me.
Take this story for instance. A florist is being sued because, well, she dared to take a stand for her beliefs
A Washington florist who was sued after refusing to provide services for a gay wedding rejected Friday the state attorney general’s offer to settle the case against her, saying the deal requires her to give up her religious freedom.
Barronelle Stutzman, the 70-year-old owner of Arlene’s Flowers, said she has turned down the settlement agreement offered by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, which requires her to pay $2,001 and agree to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies by creating floral arrangements and providing other services.
“Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about,” Ms. Stutzman said in a letter to Mr. Ferguson. “It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important.”
Mr. Ferguson’s offer came after a Benton County Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday against Ms. Stutzman, saying she had violated the state’s Consumer Protection Act by declining service for a same-sex wedding ceremony in 2013.
Hmmm, what type of law, in a free nation, based upon individual liberty, would seek to force a business owner to do business with someone they chose not to? Is that liberty? No, that is not. Yes, yes, I know, right now people are reading this and saying “but discrimination is bad”. To that I would say SOME discrimination is bad, some is not, it depends. It is like the time I broke off a relationship because the young lady I was dating vandalized the car of female co-worker of mine. She got jealous because she saw us talking in the store parking lot. Did I not discriminate in my decision? Certainly, I chose to stop associating with a nut case who was extremely jealous. So, I discriminated, maybe she should have been able to sue me, to force me to continue sleeping with her? That would be ludicrous you say?
Well, what if I owned a business and refused to sell my products, or perform a service for her based on her actions? Would that be illegal? Should I be forced to allow her in my store, or to conduct a business transaction with her? Most would answer of course not in such a case. But, choosing not to do business with someone based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation is different. How exactly? If I open a business, should I not, as a business owner have the same right to freedom of association? Should a Homosexual florist have a right to do business with ONLY same-sex couples? Should such a florist be allowed to offer services to ONLY Lesbian couples? Yes, absolutely they should. Should they be allowed to refuse service to Christians? Yes, they should. It is THEIR business.
I know, I know, we have been conditioned to think discrimination is bad, and in many cases it is. But, the government should not hold such power as to dictate against freedom of association. That is the rub here folks. Personally, If I was that florist in the story I referenced, I would do business with pretty much anyone with money to pay for services. But,what if someone wanted flowers for a Satanic Church function? I would tell them to pound sand. Could I be forced to sell them flowers? Would I be forced to lose my business, maybe go to jail, pay huge fines or sell a Satanist flowers?
Yes, I know, I know, many will argue that I am comparing apples and oranges, but I am not. I am arguing a principle here. Principles are bigger than issues. Far bigger frankly. Is discrimination against people based on who they sleep with wrong? As long as we are talking about people of age then yes, I believe it is. But, what if I own a business and I am also dating a 17-year-old girl? She is of age, but it would disgust most people that a guy in his forties would date a teenage girl. Should they NOT have a right to say “I would never buy anything from that scumbag!” Absolutely! Freedom of association. Now, what if those same people owned a business and decided that I should not be welcome in their store? Should they NOT hold a right to tell me to piss off and not come back? Does freedom of association not work both ways? Should a business be forced to do transactions with a forty something guy, or woman, who is banging a 17-year-old? No, because freedom of association.
Now, I know some will say that I am conflating issues and giving extreme examples to prove a point. No, again, this is about principle! Either we have a right to associate with whom we choose or we do not! That is no different from saying either we have a right to speak unless someone is offended! The fact is our right to speak is the same no matter how many we offend. The same is true of the right to freedom of association is it not? Think about that question folks.
When the government can FORCE businesses to provide goods or services AGAINST the wishes of the business owners…………
The city of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, is taking a step many opponents of same-sex marriage feared would come – forcing those with religious objections to perform same-sex marriages or risk facing prosecution for violating non-discrimination laws.
Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who oppose gay marriage, own the Hitching Post wedding chapel in Coeur d’Alene. Early in 2014, a federal judge in Idaho ruled that the same-sex marriage ban was unconstitutional, but the ruling was put on hold while the case was appealed. When the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the ruling stood and went into effect.
The city of Coeur d’Alene has an ordinance that prohibits discrimination, including on the basis of sexual orientation, in public accommodations. It does have a religious exemption, but the Hitching Post is a for-profit company, not technically a religious organization, in spite of the Knapp’s deeply held personal beliefs.
Clearly this is also a case of the freedom of association being trampled as well as the common sense American principle that businesses reserve a right to refuse service, but, that is not what Totalitarian leftists say
“On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.” Note that jail time and the fine is per day, not per offense, The Daily Signal reports.
So, there you are folks, the death of personal liberty, religious freedom, and yes, the freedom to associate with whom we please is dead if this stands! This is where the road that “banning discrimination” leads to. This is what it ends in, giving a government the power to ban “discrimination” means giving government the power to trample essential liberties.
The Left likes to claim free speech as their issue, until someone dares disagree with them, or dares say something they disapprove of. Matt at Conservative Hideout has the latest outrageous outrage the Rainbow Shirts AKA Gay Mafia is flipping their lids over
The forces of tolerance are once again on the offensive. Focus on the family has a movie coming out with the topic of traditional marriage. The gay mafia doesn’t like it, so they have decided that no one is allowed to see it. You know, tolerance!
The Christian organization Focus on the Family is releasing a movie in theaters May 6 called “Irreplaceable” about the value of traditional families, the importance of fathers being engaged in their children’s lives and the healing power of forgiveness.
But apparently to some advocates for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, community, that’s a cardinal sin.
LGBT advocates have launched an effort to disparage themovie online, petition against it and work to make sure“Irreplaceable” isn’t seen in your local theater.
Focus President Jim Daly reports in a blog post that some of the more than 700 theaters nationwide scheduled to showthe film in a one-night-only event are starting to back out, intimidated by homosexual activists.
“Some of those who disagree with us are calling ‘Irreplaceable’ ‘anti-gay propaganda,’” Daly writes, “and demanding that theaters refuse to show the film.”
Efforts to shut down the movie are being coordinated through Facebook, Twitter and a Change.org petition begun by Shalom Rosenberg, a homosexual middle school teacher from Belmont, Calif.
Rainbow Shirts? Hmmm, I guess someone has to coin a name for the Gay Gestapo
According to Oregon Live, a farmer who is opening a store in Sellwood, had the unmitigated gall to twice post her personal opposition to gay marriage on her private, personal FaceBook page. That means the Gay and Tolerance Gestapo have to spring into action to make sure the store owner knows she is being watched, and she might not find this tolerant community so welcoming. No kidding. Here’s a quote from the story from a Disingenuous White Progressive:
“They’re choosing to open a business in a very open-minded neighborhood,” said Tom Brown, owner of Brown Properties and president of the Sellwood Moreland Business Alliance. “I think their personal views are going to hurt.”
Open-minded? Sure, and tolerant too. Well, as long as you toe the line and express only thoughts that are pre-approved by the “open-minded”. Donald Douglas has more
Now get this, the neighborhood homosexual Torquemada Sean O’Riordan made a seven-minute YouTube clip attacking Ms. Childs for her opinions, in what essentially worked as a shakedown racket. He removed the video once Ms. Chauncy made her contribution to the homosexual foundation. At KGW Portland, “Man takes down video that sparked gay rights controversy.”
O’Riordan’s statement is here.
And here’s Ms. Childs’ confession and apology for her thought crimes, “A MESSAGE FROM THE OWNERS OF THE MORELAND FARMERS PANTRY“:
You may be aware that the media has been asking questions about the personal opinions of the owners regarding gay marriage and freedom of expression. We understand that this is a sensitive topic for many. We would like to reiterate our position that we will not discriminate against anyone in any form. We support diversity and anti-discrimination in all business practices. As a gesture of goodwill we donated $1,000 to the LGBTQ Youth program of the Equity Foundation in Portland. This program supports safe communities for LGBTQ individuals where sexual orientation and gender identity should not be the basis for social alienation or legal discrimination. We encourage others to make additional donations to this worthy cause at: Equity Foundation…
I hope this lady is smart enough to realize she can not buy respect for her right to have a view different from the Rainbow Shirts. So, what exactly did this lady say on Facebook? Here you go
From the Oregonian‘s story yesterday:
Childs said she is religious and has a libertarian view that government should not be allowed to dictate whom a business does or doesn’t serve.
“We’re not going to refuse to serve anybody,” she said. “But we believe a private business should have the right to live their conscience.”
Predictably, this set off calls to boycott the soon-to-be-opened market. It’s also inspired an interesting discussion about how much a business owner’s personal beliefs should affect how we patronize them.
Perhaps the most-vociferous voice in the “business owners are allowed to think how they want” camp: Local restaurateur Nick Zukin, owner of Mi Mero Mole and
co-ownerco-founder of Kenny and Zuke’s.
The thought police are alive and well in Portland. “Believe as we do or suffer.” No effort to persuade, only to punish. Tolerance is dead.
— Nick Zukin (@extramsg) April 4, 2014
And now: Maybe the ol’ Portland Boycott Train is swinging in Zukin’s direction? Conversation has been lively on Facebook today, after local culture maven Byron Beck took issue with the restaurateur’s response. That led to Zukin defending himself in a still-going comment thread, asking individual people why they’ll now be boycotting his eateries, and accusing the lot of Portlanders of being no better than Childs if we’d seek to ruin her for not having the same views.
Yep, it is all about enforcing conformity now isn’t it?. The Rainbow Shirts are proving that with the Left, all “rights” are totally self-centered. Again, conform or be targeted by the Rainbow Shirts. But, in the end, the “Gay Rights” folks are dooming their own cause. People who might support Gay marriage are seeing exactly how militant these self-proclaimed champions of equality are. Matt Walsh predicts a big fat L for these miscreants
Dear gay rights militants, dear progressive tyrants, dear liberal fascists, dear haters of free speech, dear crusaders for ideological conformity, dear left wing bullies:
You will lose.
I know you’ve got legions of sycophants kowtowing to you these days, and the rest you’ve set out to destroy — but you will lose.
So, you’ve tracked another dissident and skinned him alive. You’ve made an example ofBrendan Eich, and now you dance joyously around his disemboweled carcass. You have his head on a spike, and you consider this a conquest in your eternal crusade to eradicate diversity and punish differing opinions. You launched your millionth campaign of intimidation, and now another good man has been dragged through the mud, to the sounds of taunting and jeering and death threats.
You found out that the CEO of Mozilla gave a few dollars to support a pro-traditional marriage ballot measure several years ago, and you proceeded to publicly tar and feather him until he was forced to ‘resign’ in disgrace.
You again chose to forgo debate, in favor of coercion and bullying.
You again attempted to end the ‘gay rights’ argument by defrocking your opponent.
Hey, good for you.
Enjoy the spoils of your cowardice.
It won’t last.
Go read it all