About Indiana’s religious freedom law…
…and the firestorm around it—
The topic makes me weary, weary, weary, to see that everything that we predicted is coming to pass. What began as a simple “gay people ought to be able to get married” morphed seamlessly into “anyone who doesn’t agree is a bigot and must be destroyed” (see Eich, Brendan) and then into “if you offer a service and we want you to facilitate the wedding ceremony you have no right to refuse on religious grounds, even though there are plenty of other people eager and willing to participate instead” and then on to “a state that passes a law protecting those religious rights must be boycotted.”
Well, quelle surprise. I wrote a post about this issue around a year ago, when it surfaced in Kansas (although Kansas hadn’t actually passed a similar law, but merely voted on it). At the end of that post, I referred back to another post I’d written a year before that, and quoted it:
I’ve written before that I personally have no problem with gay people marrying. But I have a huge problem with compelling Christians to be part of such celebrations or face lawsuits or the loss of their businesses. And I have a huge problem with propaganda that misrepresents what those who oppose gay marriage are suggesting and why. But such propaganda doesn’t surprise me in the least, nor should it surprise anyone else.
About a year ago I wrote, in a lengthy piece about gay marriage:
I’m not personally a follower of a religion or religious subdivision that still subscribes to such beliefs in the literal sense. But I respect religious people and think I understand the reasons for their objections to same sex marriage. I believe that”¦SSM [same-sex marriage] is merely one step in a long “progressive” march towards the eradication of religion and/or its demonization (a word that has an ironic twist in this context, does it not?).
I see absolutely no reason to change my mind.
There’s even less reason to change my mind now. There is absolutely no interest in liberty on the part of progressives if it’s the liberty to oppose something they want, and they will make sure to stifle that liberty if they possibly can. They’re well on their way.
[NOTE: If you want to read a legal analysis of the Indiana law, there’s this from Jonathan H. Adler at Volokh.
I’ll also add that I wonder if the forces driving the anti-Indiana campaign would be interested in making an exemption for devout Muslims who run businesses and don’t want to be forced to be part of gay marriage ceremonies. Somehow I think they might.]
Our moral betters are now lecturing us rubes that we have to set aside considerations of conscience when deciding whom we can serve — in the present kerfuffle du jour, for whom we are compelled to bake a (“gay”) wedding cake, regardless of conscience.
Y’know, evidently Hitler cakes enjoy a certain popularity out there. How ’bout it, o exalted moral tutors?
http://weknowmemes.com/2014/11/hitler-cakes-are-more-popular-than-you-would-think/
I think you are in the bullseye on the ‘progressives’ being more than willing to give the religion of war an exemption. They never speak up when muslims publically murder homosexuals.
“if you offer a service and we want you to facilitate the wedding ceremony you have no right to refuse on religious grounds, even though there are plenty of other people eager and willing to participate instead”
The key word is participate.
A bakery offers baked goods for sale, refusing to sell a gay couple an ordinary cake that is offered for sale to everyone is clearly unconstitutional discrimination.
However the unavoidable requirement of a special cake for a gay marriage ceremony is that it must be to created specifically for that event. Ergo, even if only tangentially, that requires that the baker participate in that ceremony. Therein lies the difference.
It’s even more egregious when a photographer is forced to participate because their full participation is inherent to the service they offer.
The requirement of participation, in order to provide the product or service is the issue.
You cannot constitutionally force someone to participate (a form of approval) in order to pursue their livelihood.
“I believe that…SSM [same-sex marriage] is merely one step in a long “progressive” march towards the eradication of religion and/or its demonization”
I believe there are two motivations at play.
Marxist/’progressives’ are absolutely using this issue (among many others, it’s an attack on every societal level and area) to dissolve and degrade America’s societal cohesion.
As evidential proof, I ask the reader to compare and contrast this quote to what today’s ‘progressives’ are doing; “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism. The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses. We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union
On the other hand, activist homosexuals are using this not to gain tolerance but to force societal approval. They seek to dominate America’s zeitgeist, i.e. “the intellectual fashion or dominant school of thought that typifies and influences the culture of a particular period in time”.
The Left’s timidity vis a vis Muslims is I suspect, a case of ‘alpha dog’ dynamics. The more fanatical, the less constrained by morality and ethics, the ‘more fight in the dog’. And while there are some on the Left who can match the immoral fanaticism of any ‘radical’ Muslim, they compose a much lower percentage among the American progressive Left than the percentage of such fanatics among Muslims.
Where are the constitutional lawyers? I am surprised no one has invoked the 13th amendment, the anti slavery amendment. The Federal courts have long ruled that the 13th amendment prohibits all forced labor. You can’t force someone to work for you or penalize them if they refuse. So, how can a homosexual force a Christian to bake a cake for them?
Ray:
Some people have argued that it would be involuntary servitude (see this, for example). But I haven’t found any lawyer arguing that in the legal sense, perhaps because the term “involuntary servitude” usually means something more long-term and ongoing? Also, the law already makes an exception for discrimination on race grounds by businesses, and does not allow it.
By the way, this argument about the rights of businesses to do what they wish, being private enterprises and not government, was behind Goldwater’s opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
Where is this going? 1. Force churches to marry gay couples. 2. Force church related schools to recognize gay marriage. Could be done via the Feds or through the accreditation process. An attack could also be made via the hostile environment regs regarding any church or school asserting the immorality of homosexuality.
What is not prohibited must be made compulsory.
Neo,
I seem to recall a case many years ago where a contractor and homeowner had a dispute and the contractor walked off the job. One of those take this job and shove it incidents. The homeowner sued to force the contractor to return and complete the job, but the court said that the contractor couldn’t be forced to work for the homeowner,
Its a fake firestorm… an idiot ignorant storm…
its similar to laws in 19 other states, and the federal law clinton signed.
but here is the interesting part..
in another place last century, the state and its followers zealously tried to impact religious believers where they earned money in shops, and when they could attend services and so on and so forth.
anyone remember?
after all, the way this is going the religious will have to cater to the non religious in a way that the non religious statists dont have to cater to them.
remember yet?
the people jumping in (gliecshaltung) are basically taking up the job of the National socialist party.
after all, a jew had to cater to a nazi then, but a nazi did not have to do business with a jew… or a christian (contrary to popular believe, hitler didnt like religion, but he knew that there were way more christians than jews and instead reformed church doctrine to suit him, changing lyrics to hyms and other things that they are still discovering and recovering from)
its a modern form of krystalnact without the broken glass the noise etc… but what you have are a group of intolerant people who are calling themselves the tolerant who are now ostracixing religious groups a la the austrian dude and his henchmen, and a lot of them are even anti semite jew haters.
they think that the wackos wiht tatoos and blind race hate are the nazis, but in truth, those are mostly not to bright extremist hatful people latching onto an excuse that they like… they are very very very far removed from the kind of race hate the nazis practiced!!! (evne funnier, hitler thought north african blacks were good fighters and there is a famous book written by an african as to how wonderful it was to be part of the nazi machine… as islam also signed on. hitler did not load them into ovens or kill them)
the nazis hated jews becaue of those marxist papers and things that equate judaism and christianity its offspring as the creators and disseminators of capitalism, and that without disposing of them you cant get rid of capitalism… and WWII taught them that wihout disposing of white make crhstians you cant get rid of the jews they would defend. (after all they defended the blacks from being slaves so now the blacks want to exterminate them or would be happy if they were gone… the left wants them gone for saving jews, etc)
Ray,
But that’s a very different situation. He wasn’t quitting the job because of the homeowner’s race, for example. Nor because he was gay, or because the home was part of a gay wedding. These are considered special circumstances that are specially protected. Some people (like Goldwater) thought they should not be specially protected, and that the right of people to associate freely as they wish trumped them. But that’s not the way the law has been going for the last half-century or more.
this Law seems really close to the Hobby Lobby case
Yep, it will be interesting to see the pretzel logic arguments regarding carve outs for Muslims.
A bakery offers baked goods for sale, refusing to sell a gay couple an ordinary cake that is offered for sale to everyone is clearly unconstitutional discrimination.
Really? how so? the constitution does not tell a person what they can or cant do with their property in terms of such… that was a thing that was manufactured by the progressives in the south as dems who made up such laws and so, it came under the rubric of the court… ie. constitutionl limits government and so would affect laws.
but in the past, it was considered freedom to choose who to do business with or not. if the deli on the corner would have a choice, they would not let blacks in… why? every day a percentage of blacks that come in steal something and run out… too dangerous to chase, and illegal to forbid service to.
the whole point of the protected class laws was to prevent, under the auspices of equality, such discrimination based on groups…
the idea of going into a business to test it, take it to court and destroy it started at a small counter in the south when a few black men sat down and wanted to be served…
of course, if you know the details of that time and incident including the back stories of things like the highlander school, it was basically the hammer and anvil… the law was the hammer, the socialist actions as taught by communists in how to break these thgns with innocent busineses in the middle
interesting thing is that the ultimate side effect of such was the destruction of black businesses… after all, if the law said they could not sit at the counter of X store, then a black business grew out what would serve them. but the minute that law was changed, now they not only did not need that exctra store, but they decideded to open stores up in black areas and that put the black busineses out of work!
the influx of immigrants put them out of the work that now the mexicans do, like the italians before them (construction, pizza, food service, etc)
the constitution is a document as to government action, not peoples action… it was to limit government not limit people. equality before the court was and is different than personal freedom and judgment even if not liked by others.
in the private sphere the constituition says very little.
Ray Says: ….the anti slavery amendment. The Federal courts have long ruled that the 13th amendment prohibits all forced labor. You can’t force someone to work for you or penalize them if they refuse. So, how can a homosexual force a Christian to bake a cake for them?
you can thank the Feminists, who not only made it ok to be forced to work for someone else (to pay for their kid and cant disown them any more), but to do so even if the kid is not yours… ie. tag the guy with the most cash, not the man who actually is the father. remove the power to disown and leave the kid, except for mom who can put the kid up for adoption by abandoning it in a preordained safe place.
they brought back debtors prison
they brought back compulory work or you go to prison
thank the feminists…
like the drug seizure thing, it was never intended for what it was sold as, any more than ACA and other such things.. (net neutrality)
its worked out way in advance that once X is allowed then the outcome at the end of it cant be prevented!!!
the idea that a woman can disown her kid, but a man cant is slavery… with ACA forcing payment of the insurance till 28, the father is in it for that long, if not the father and mother…
they get around it by saying its a contempt order.
so they are not actually being put in jail for failure to pay, failure to make a cake, take a picture, etc.
they are in jail or compelled by a judge to do that and when they dont, its a contempt charge…
some states go so far as to use electronic stocks to put up pictures of deadbeats to shame them the way people were locked into town stocks to shame them!
The Child Support Enforcement Act of 1984 grants districts attorneys and state attorneys generals the authority to collect back child support on behalf of custodial parents
In accordance with the Act, state attorneys may take any of the following enforcement measures against a delinquent non-custodial parent:
Garnishment of wages
Liens against property or real estate
Reporting the debtor to credit bureaus
Freezing bank accounts
Suspension of professional or driver’s license (in some states)
Contempt order
Jail time
and not only that, but if the kid is not yours, you still have to pay and the actual father doesnt…
then there is the idea that your wages are not used for the judgment, but they use impugned wages. so if you make minimum wage and the judge thinks you can make 100k a year, he rules that your making minimum wage to avoid payments, impugns a salary then sets the support at that level.
a woman can collect such things by sleeping with several men and getting pregnant purposefully… like rape they claim women never do that… but you can find websites that discuss techniqes for it.
really fair when they have 23 forms of birth control and men have 3-4 at best…
same with this stuff… its following the model set forth by feminists… who would take businesses to court to prove discimination… when that didnt work, they coped the nazis and retitlted the idea, disparat impact and started to use math to prove discimination by numbers tha are completely invalid, but convenient to the movement, their supporters, the press, and courts who want to punish but really dont have a claim
From Tweeterville, or is it the Twitterverse:
Governor Dan Malloy @GovMalloyOffice · 5h 5 hours ago
Because of Indiana’s new law, later today I will sign an Executive Order regarding state-funded travel. -DM
To Indiana I take it?
Is it too much to hope for another the war between the states? But, how does one, in clear conscience, fire on an army clad in pink chiffon and Bucks Point lace?
Ray Says: The homeowner sued to force the contractor to return and complete the job, but the court said that the contractor couldn’t be forced to work for the homeowner,
thats different… as the contractor has a choice of either finishing the work in the contract, or returning the money and some extra for breaking a contract…
ie. they had a contract with terms… both entered into voluntarily, and so, have to accept the terms and complete it or be in violation of that, and open to being suied for compensation..
but this is different:
Man may be jailed for not paying child support for son who isn’t his
http://6abc.com/news/man-may-be-jailed-for-not-paying-child-support-for-son-who-isnt-his/490355/
Man ordered to pay $30K in child support for kid who is not his
http://fox2now.com/2015/02/18/judge-orders-man-to-pay-30k-in-child-support-for-kid-who-is-not-his/
Man ordered to pay child support for child that isn’t his
http://theweek.com/speedreads/443285/man-ordered-pay-child-support-child-that-isnt
can you imagine a woman having to pay child support for 18 years for a child that is not hers?
and while the above articles are about one man, there are thousands like him… it does not matter she cheated and had a baby and didnt tell you, you still have to pay for 18 years… 28 for ACA… and if you dont, you lose pretty much everything…
human cuckoos… supported by the court…
have women shopping who to be daddy..
to gain the wallet.
heck, they have now gone so far as to sue to get support from men who donated sperm to a bank!!
“Really? how so? the constitution does not tell a person what they can or cant do with their property in terms of such” Artfldgr
If you walk into a nearby bakery to buy an ordinary cake in the display case and I as the proprietor, know you and do not like you, I have a perfect right not to sell you a cake.
But if I question every customer who enters my premises as to whether or not they are Jewish and refuse to sell, what is freely available to be bought by all non-Jews and has already been baked and placed in the display case, then my refusal is unconstitutional.
So, I retain the right to refuse service to individuals and I retain the right not to be forced to create a product that is specifically formulated for an event, in which my product would involve direct participation in that event. But I do not have the right to refuse to sell a product, which anyone might buy, say a loaf of bread set out for sale, based exclusively on my classification of that person.
Gays regard the marriage event as a party — with friends and benefits.
Monogamy… Gay monogamy?
Surely you jest.
&&&&&&&&
I’m against gay divorce…
Which is destined to simply explode across the family court calendar…
All of the in-fighting — without the kids — it’s an attorney’s dream.
MollyNH and Artfldgr are correct.
It will be wise to review the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 before trotting out opinions.
In that context, the question arises whether homophiliacs are a minority deserving State protection and equal access to services of private vendors. Theirs is a posture of behavior, not based in belief.
Artfldgr,
That is a particularly egregious case of either judicial stupidity and/or deeply flawed law.
If the former, the judge has demonstrated her incompetence and unfitness for her office.
If the latter, it can be easily corrected by any State legislature.
There is no substitute for common sense, reason and fair-mindedness.
A broken ‘system’ is a symptom of a broken electorate. Intentionally engineered by the Left but then, we all know that this country is in deep trouble.
blert,
But there are and will be children involved and lots of them.
Don Carlos,
Presumably by ‘behavior’ you are implying ‘by choice’.
Just out of curiosity, when did you decide to be heterosexual? Personally, I can’t recall when I did.
Does a clothes designer have the right to turn down fat women who want a special dress?
I am sick of all this victim BS. Gays and lesbians never have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy. They don’t have to worry that their partner’s fling in a bath house will produce a child whose support will eat into their income. Gays right now are living in a fantasy world where they see all the benefits of marriage but none of the responsibilities. To me, that should disqualify them from being in a position where they help set the social norms for marriage and the family. If they want a civil union for tax purposes, fine. But that wasn’t good enough for them. Nothing will ever be good enough for them.
The trans normalization movement is inherently exclusory, rather than tolerant. The infringement of religious or moral rights is superseded by the movement’s creation of moral hazards through pro-choice or selective principles.
Now that the campus rape “issue” is fizzling, they need to queue up and lean in on the NEXT “issue”. This is it.
Ironically, the government has triggered this hoopla over homosexual marriage by providing tax benefits to married couples. Presumably this was done to encourage stable family situations for rearing children. Oh dear. Unintended consequence finally raised its head as it inevitably does when the government gets involved.
If there were no legal or financial benefits bestowed on marriage by the government, I believer that much of the justification used by homosexuals would disappear.
(I will not twist a word that has a completely different meaning to fit this context just because).
This Indiana thing was all planned and I suspect Lamda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign orchestrated the whole thing. They knew this law was going to pass and was not substantially different from the federal law and the law in 19 other states.
But now they had the big Mo from their successful “love is love” and “marriage equality” legal and media campaign.
Pence signs the law and then the LGBT lobby drops the bomb. Eli Lilly, Cummins and the NCAA (all major IN employers) are already lined up. Now their lawyers KNOW that this law is nothing new or different, but the CEO’s threaten a blackmail and opine that this RFRA law is like Jim Crow or apartheid.
The Apple CEO pens his legal opinion piece in record time.
Twitter nuts call for this year’s Final Four to be moved!
CNBC renames RFRA to be the Religious Objections Act.
Neo and others are correct when they conclude that the Left hates religion and this is a big part of this disaster.
We know now that the LGBT is right there with Wall Street, the race and Green lobbies as a major power. And, of course, the media is the megaphone. Neo’s earlier post about how complicated issues are difficult to handle today is applicable.
The next step will be to make LGBT a protected class under all federal laws. In fact, Hillary will make it a MAJOR position in her campaign. But praise be to Allah that the Jews hacked her emails on her insecure private server. We will learn about the REAL Hillary in 2016.
LGBT lobby also got a gift with the incompetent Mike Pence answering George S. The same George S that created the whole War on Women canard against Mitt.
There are no coincidences.
I’ve kicked this issue around with my daughter, on our morning walks with the doggles, since I own and run a Tiny Publishing Bidness. I could conceivably have a client wanting to publish some particularly outré piece of gay porn. This would involve me doing a substantive and line edit, formatting for publication, putting my company’s name on the resulting publication … and frankly, I would not want to do that — or indeed any sort of porn. (That’s not our business – we do memoirs, poetry, local and company history, the occasional novel, inspirational and self-help.) There is a statement on our website, to the effect that if we don’t think we can do your book justice, we will not offer a contract, which does leave us an out … but the question does worry me from a (mercifully at this point) philosophical point of view – could I be forced by threat of legal action to publish a book that I wouldn’t want to touch with a ten-foot pole? I am a business, offering a service for pay to the general public with the wherewithal to pay for it. Under the current laws, do I have any more rights to refuse than a Christian baker or photog when it comes to performing a very special service to order?
Sgt. Mom.
You are safe. Your “out” in your mission statement is good and you are not providing an essential public accommodation. You are in the luxury business. No person needs to buy a book.
The other point that gets ignored is that RFRA only deals with government action. You are not the state.
G.B. @5:10pm:
When I used the word, “behavior” I meant it in a stand-alone context. Its origin as a feature of gayness , whether born or learned, is irrelevant to me. Perhaps not for you. Behavior can be modified.
Thanks, Cornhead – I pretty much thought so, since the original owner had much of what is on the website reviewed by her personal lawyer.
Yes, we are pretty much a luxury service. 🙂
But the argument can be made that specialty wedding cakes, one-off specialty photog services and venues are also luxury services…
So, what then, Oh wolves? (gratuitous Kipling reference) Is providing an expensive, personalized and luxury-class service an out when it comes to this particular issue? I rather hope that it does. There is a difference between providing walk-in retail, and to-order.
On a personal basis I reserve my right to associate with others as I so choose and not associate with others as I so choose. BG was right (no pun intended) to oppose the guns of government forcing anyone to do business with anyone else they may choose to disassociate with. No shirt, no shoes, no whatever. We need a month of Atlas Shrugs to show the running dog lackeys to hurry out of the kitchen before the screen door hits them in the ass.
My Facebook is getting BOMBARDED with crap about this. I’m still too closeted as a conservative to speak up, but I’m beginning to get almost angry enough to come out of the conservative closet. There are idiots wailing and gnashing teeth over how HORRIBLE this is. I wouldn’t put it past Cummins or Lilly or the NCAA to use this as a way to get out of Indiana. The hypocrisy of Salesforce and Apple frosts me — China is peachy, Indiana is TERRIBLE.
On a not unrelated note:
I read over at the Federalist about the topic of Immanetizing the Eschaton. The wrote was discussing it in terms of Christians and Leftists, but it lot a lightbulb for me: why the leftists are FINE with Moslems but hate Christians, and it had to do with how they may or may not help in the socialist/leftist/progressive immanetism of their version of the Eschaton. Is all about the ends justifying the means. Moslems, specifically the ISIS/al Qaeda/Salafist sort, are hell bent on immanentism THEIR Eschaton and while the S/L/P’s may not be all that thrilled with what it will be like, the fact that out will help bring about the S/L/P version. So they’re willing to suck it up — and, the icing on the cake, hell get rid of those annoying Christians, conservatives, and other people standing in the way.
Lee:
There is no way Liily, Cummins or the NCAA would ever leave Indiana. The switching costs would be huge and they would have to get millions in tax benefits to move to another state (say Nebraska) to begin to justify it to shareholders.
This is a pure bluff and if Pence had any guts and brains he’d call them out.
Pence is an idiot. Former Governor Daniels never would have gotten sucker punched like this. (Georgetown alum.)
Megyn Kelly just made many of my points on The Factor.
“If there were no legal or financial benefits bestowed on marriage by the government, I believer that much of the justification used by homosexuals would disappear.” Oldflyer
If the same-sex marriage lobby were motivated by the advantages marriage currently confers that might well be true. Unfortunately, same-sex marriage is not remotely about the right to marry.
Presumably, the legal and financial benefits marriage confers have value to the homosexual couples wishing to marry but are at best, a minor consideration for the LGBT crowd.
Same-sex marriage is a tactic being employed by its activists to force societal acceptance and approval and by its leftist supporters, as a means to attack American societal consensus.
“do I have any more rights to refuse than a Christian baker or photog when it comes to performing a very special service to order?” Sgt. Mom
Not if the Left has anything to say about it. Your silly superstitions need to be eliminated, for the good of humanity, don’t you know?
Currently, if faced with that scenario, your best bet would be to state that you decline their request as you haven’t the resources to do their book justice.
Doing so would not be an act of abandonment of principle. But rather a case of ‘picking your battles’.
Don Carlos,
Behavior can be modified. Since the behavior is motivated by sexual attraction, it too must be modifiable or you ask what cannot be accomplished. How do you propose that we modify sexual attraction?
Oldflyer.
Correct. The legal arguments were the means to get to full social acceptance.
As much as I hate to admit it, the LGBT lobby ran a brilliant campaign.
Sgt. Mom; not that my opinion as a non-lawyer counts; but, I don’t see your business the same as a wedding cake baker.
Despite all the hoopla surrounding a wedding cake as something special or unique that it requires “creative” and “participating” bakers; I just don’t see it as much more than baking. So, who cares it if has two plastic men or two plastic women on top? (Maybe, I’m just not the romantic type?)
Quite frankly, I think the bakers targeted were out of their minds to refuse the business. I really don’t see them as being forced to participate. A wedding photographer, yea, maybe. A wedding planner. Yep, definitely. A minister or priest? Most certainly. But, a baker? Nope, I don’t see it that way.
Editing, proofreading, etc. are VERY different. As an editor you will sort of be re-writing the author’s work and that is very participatory.
Publishing houses have always been able to turn down genres that they just don’t deal with. I don’t see that changing – at least not yet!
On another note; I do wonder where all these “but you must do business with all others” were when a supermarket bakery in NJ a few years back refused to do a birthday cake because the child’s name was Adolf?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/12/17/little-adolf-hitler-denied-birthday-cake-at-new-jersey-grocery-store/
Also, not only did the local supermarket bakery refuse to put the child’s name on it – they called state Child Services on the parents! For those not familiar with NJ – DYFS, Division of Youth and Family Services as it was formerly known, is the very Jersey Devil themselves!
Also, not only did the local supermarket bakery refuse to put the child’s name on it — they called state Child Services on the parents! For those not familiar with NJ — DYFS, Division of Youth and Family Services as it was formerly known, is the very Jersey Devil themselves!
Nice!
Elsewhere:
If a Repubic’s kid cries, that’s RACIST:
During a debate on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — which surprisingly she opposes — Vanessa Summers turned on Republican Jud McMillin’s baby boy. She said, “I love his little son, but he’s scared of me because of my color – and that’s horrible.”
Really?
Maybe he’s scared of her because she is a big woman with a loud mouth.
Nope, it turns out he is shy around strangers.
Jud McMillin had to defend his son against her implication that the lad is a member of the Ku Klux Klan. The father said: “If he reacted the same way he reacts with anybody brand new, he buries his head in his dad’s shoulder. Whoever it is, it’s what he does. He’s an 18-month-old kid; he’s in a new environment up here in the place like the Statehouse but doesn’t know anybody. I honestly don’t remember anything out of the ordinary.”..
Here.
Should we really stay rational?
Very dark clouds are gathering for White Gay Men:
… the National Union of Students (NUS) has officially banned gay white men from “appropriating black female culture.” Yes, this is a real thing that has happened.
The motion passed by the union (which is comprised of more than 600 student groups around the UK) titled “Dear White Gay Men: Stop Approprirating [sic] Black Women” states that the behavior of white gay men is “unacceptable” and “must be addressed.”
“This may be manifested in the emulation of the mannerisms, language (particularly AAVE- African American Vernacular English) and phrases that can be attributed to black women. White gay men may often assert that they are ‘strong black women’ or have an ‘inner black woman’,” the NUS motion reads.
“White gay men are the dominant demographic within the LGBT community, and they benefit from both white privilege and male privilege.”…
More here.
Some black women have style issues.
Should we really stay rational?
G.B. : attraction v. action. Action is behavior.
A free market is supposed to be about two parties freely consenting to do a transaction with each other. I occasionally see signs in restaurant windows that say, “No shoes, no shirt, no service.” There are still a few restaurants and clubs that have dress codes. They seem to still be free to discriminate. Why not other businesses, if there are alternatives available?
In the case of the vendors (bakers, photographers, wedding planners, pastors, etc.), I don’t see why they can’t refuse their service/product to someone based on their religious beliefs. This hullabaloo is just another step toward a regulated, centralized economy in which there are no consensual transactions. All will be as promulgated by the state. I don’t think I’ve seen anything in the last six years that has been as threatening to freedom as this is. It is overt bullying.
I’ll leave it to the lawyers to argue the legal niceties. Common sense tells me this is more about societal control than it is about preventing discrimination against LGBTs.
J.J., 11:00 pm — “Common sense tells me this is more about societal control than it is about preventing discrimination against LGBTs.”
BINGO.
It’s about whatever furthers the flash-point-of-agitation du jour. The pro and con arguments are mere theater.
I remember when homosexuals were openly scornful of all the “breeders” (as they charmingly call us, among other things) and our marriage BS. An old pal of mine was an exception: he really dreamed of being Donna Reed, he said — that he would LOVE being a housewife.
Sigh.
I had a very interesting conversation with a very likable, highly intelligent lesbian last night, at some length. I had told the Martha’s Vineyard libbies I was staying with that I’m a libertarian (mainly because Leftists go “Able Sugar” if they think they can pin you with homophobia), which was scary to do. But it worked out better than I’d feared.
But this gal, L., and I had a long talk about the direction of the country. She pegged all the problems on Corporations. I pointed out, agreeing, that the Silicon Valley boyz were bringing in an awful lot of H1B visa scabs to replace our STEM grads. She threw down the Koch Brothers (about whom she knows nothing other than the NPR’s Two Minutes Hate). I saw her Koch Brothers, and amiably raised her a Warren Buffet and George Soros.
Then we agreed on something: the big shots are turning the whole world into a global plantation. (I felt the whole time like a wrestler looking for a hold, and occasionally getting one. L. is better-informed on most things than most liberal birdbrains, and is in her 60s, which helps.)
We couldn’t agree, however, on how to get power BACK to the people.
She was flat wrong about the following: Demonizing the Koch Bros. (basically libertarian); violently opposed to any opposition to homosexual marriage (that is the thing that trumps everything else combined, in her mind); thinking Obama is an innocent who is “controlled” by Larger Forces; eagerly looking forward to Obama’s unbridled last year and a half.
I pointed out that government grows like Topsy, and she grudgingly agreed. I asked her where the ratchet effect stops (ever more regulations). She agreed that regulation is out of control, and told some NJ horror stories about all the things They won’t permit you to do any more. But it never occurs to her to stop voting for the Left.
They all hate [what they imagine Republicans to be]. And I mean HATE. With an unhinged hatred. And I really do expect someone, somewhere, to make a propaganda film called “The Eternal Republican.” That is the level of their venom.
She brought up Elizabeth Warren, and lit up. I asked her, innocently (I’m an Undercover Op) what it was about Warren that appealed to her so. She said eagerly, “She really took on Wall Street! she wants to keep them from getting those bonuses and obscene salaries. And hell, she beat Scott Brown, who is, he’s just this d**k who walked in and thought he was the hottest thing around….”
So there’s a clew. They are the Barney Fwank voters, the Fauxcohontas voters. (I actually forgot to mention that, that I think it’s Dreadful that That Woman took a faculty seat away from a Native American!]
Mostly I took mental notes of all the leftwing nutty ideas over the weekend. Like S’s idea that “most of the Palestinians are Christian”: that they “don’t want to destroy Israel”: that the ARABS are “exercising Great Forbearance[!!!!!!]”; that there’s nothing we can do about jihad, because foreign/overseas; that “oh, I suppose you think the Jews are Perfect,” she said acidly. “What about their invasion and occupation of Palestinian territory? There won’t be any peace until the ISRAELIS learn to live with the Arabs.”
Can you IMAGINE? She didn’t even know that Clinton had offered Arafat a Pali state, and he’d walked away; or that Israel has repeatedly tried to buy peace with land giveaways; or that the Jews are outnumbered 100 to 1.
When I asked her what she would suggest we do with the Iranian Nuke program, she said airily that she had no idea — but “what about the English invasion of Ireland?!?” (I’m a WASP, she’s an Irish-Canadian; lived in America since she was 2, and makes it a point of pride NEVER to get American citizenship, because we’re all excrement.)
Oh, I need a shower!!!!!
I am also for gay marriage although I would prefer the libertarian solution of let the government do civil unions for all and let religion (as they choose) do marriages. Marriage is a more complicated and meaning laden word that has more tradition behind it and often – religious significance. However, here we have it – gay marriage. I do think that forcing businesses to bake cakes or take photos is not the best way to go. Why get a cake from someone who dislikes what you are doing? When there are many bakers who will bake your cake any way? I think it is the wrong tactic and it does result in this sort of legislation. And, more vitriol and angst all around.
I think even conservative religions are changing their tune regarding gay marriage though not all will in my lifetime. I saw a tape from a conference from the Mormon Transhumanist Association and many were pro gay marriage. I am not a Mormon though I have ex-Mormon friends and a Mormon friend or two and my own Mother went to BYU. Any way… I was pretty shocked to say the least. But it shows that things are changing and that religions that now reject gay marriage may not in the future. I think religion will change instead of actually disappear though not all religions will be as accepting… even so – for the record, here’s a link to that group. I was pretty shocked but they are highly interesting. http://transfigurism.org/
Any way, this is a tough one. I understand my friends who are hurt and frightened by this. But I also see that this law happened because certain folks are also scared and felt cornered. It will work itself out in time, I will be watching with interest.
I just heard that Angie’s list is vociferously involved in the boycott of Indiana. I joined Angie’s list in the past but will no longer do business with Angie’s list.
Neo said:
“I’ll also add that I wonder if the forces driving the anti-Indiana campaign would be interested in making an exemption for devout Muslims who run businesses and don’t want to be forced to be part of gay marriage ceremonies.”
Absolutely. The left loves Islam because Islam is totalitarian just like them. They intend to destroy Christianity and to replace it with Islam.
Arkansas has the right answer for the left. Let the left play whack a mole like the left does to the right. While the left is fighting Indiana Arkansas can operate under the radar.
Meanwhile, yesterday some Guys in drags crashed the doors of the NSA …
We all stay rational.
We all stay rational.
How would the “special” Laws be implemented when:
Men wearing wigs and dressed as women are accused of stealing thousands of dollars of filmy fabrics, sequins, feather boas and other accessories from Central Florida stores.
“It’s a whole gang of drag queens,” said Amanda Marshall, manager of Jo-Ann Fabrics on East Colonial Drive in Orlando, where police arrested three suspects Sunday afternoon. “They were real upset when the police made them take their wigs off.”
Satyricon liber coming to life …
Beverly:
“I remember when homosexuals were openly scornful of all the “breeders” (as they charmingly call us, among other things) and our marriage BS.”
I am too young to have much memory of times before the agitation to open the institution of marriage to homosexual couples, but I have always found this interesting and deeply contradictory. Homosexuals, to my knowledge, used to take pride in theirs being a counterculture, *separate* from the ways (and the values) of the mainstream. The LAST thing one would have expected would be a development of their cause in the direction of *assimilation* with the ways and the institutions of the majority.
A counterculture gone bourgeois – requiring access to the institution of marriage, medical and legal “solutions” to the problem of progeny (their union being constitutionally, i.e. biologically, incapable of it) and so forth.
An interesting phenomenon indeed.
Personally, I have no objection to homosexuals contracting a sort of union/partnership to regulate matters of property, inheritance, insurance, medical decisions etc. I do object to involving children in such a way as to intentionally deprive them of the opposite-sex parent – and I do object to forcing businesses to take active part in the weddings.
So why would a gay couple skip a gay florist shop to find a devout evangelical? The gay florist shop could probably use the business. I wonder what they think about being passed over so somebody could make a statement.
Liberty Wolf:
The French do it that way, as if one married twice – first before the civil authorities (“devant le maire”) and only after that does one proceed to the religious marriage. Without the first step the State will not recoginize a marriage performed with the religious authorities; worse, the latter are expressly FORBIDDEN from performing marriages without the civil marriage beforehand (Code pénal – Art. 433-21). The almighty State FORBIDS a sacrament “analogous” to its institution, unless its own institution is consumed first.
On a side note, what I find most painful is that I will not be able to take my future husband’s last name. It is FORBIDDEN for a woman to properly assimilate into her husband’s family, her official legal name MUST remain her own, while she can use her husband’s name as a so-called “nom d’usage”, a sort of a tolerated alias.
I was scandalized when I learned that. I do not like it at all. Incidentally, it is also the Islamic way of doing things (the women must retain their previous legal identity).
@Richard Aubrey *to get paid off in a discrimination suit*
Geoffrey Britain
“Just out of curiosity, when did you decide to be heterosexual? Personally, I can’t recall when I did.”
Look up Neo’s article on John Maynard Keynes.
This only ends with civil disobedience.
Never forget the viciousness of the backlash against Prop 8 in KKKahlifornia.
Never forget. Never forget the elderly female restaurant manager whose life was tortured by the gay fascists.
These are the same folk.
Matt_SE Says:
March 31st, 2015 at 11:50 am
This only ends with civil disobedience…
… also called Irish Democracy.
As Parker says, you associate with whom you want. [Period]
I had a shaking-my-head moment related to this reading a FB post a few weeks ago. An acquaintance who I’m pretty sure would be a fierce supporter of forcing people to bake cakes for gay marriages (she evidences all of the other signs of a somebody who unthinkingly supports the progressive cause-du-jour) approvingly reposted an article about a cake baker who refuses to decorate cakes with what she considers ‘bigoted’ designs. I couldn’t bring myself to be rude enough to ask if the right to refuse work based on your personal beliefs applied to every baker, or only the ones with four legs.
neo-neocon Says:
April 1st, 2015 at 8:41 pm
I am glad that you agree that the GOP should not be abandoned, and I’m certainly not saying the GOP is great (I have many quarrels with it), but I don’t expect people to work miracles that are beyond the powers given them…
Here, a miracle:
“First Georgia Republicans cut a deal with Democrats. They would kill Georgia’s RFRA legislation in exchange for Democrats supporting roughly a billion dollar tax increase.”
g6loq:
I’ve been talking about Republicans in the US Congress. I certainly don’t follow state legislatures in every single state and what Republicans in the Georgia legislature might be doing, nor can I tell one bit—on following your link and reading the article there—what’s actually happening in Georgia right now. The writer makes a bunch of statements about a deal and some legislation without links to his sources (except for a link to the bill), and when I tried to look it up myself all I found was that the freedom of religion act had been stalled in committee because people there were afraid it would hurt business in Georgia, now that the threats have been lodged against Indiana. That seems like what’s going on to me; I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people have cold feet right now about bills like this and are waiting to see which way the wind blows. That’s not a profile in courage, of course, but it’s understandable since there’s no big rush on it.
As for the other bill he cites, sb127, he characterizes it in a certain way but I can find no one else writing about it that way. It’s a very long bill about election reform (I looked it up, but am certainly not about to read the whole thing). Most of the talk about the bill is about the fact that it restricts early voting somewhat, and Democrats are against it for that reason (see this).
There are plenty of people on the right whose bread-and-butter is to stir up hatred against the nefarious betraying Republicans. I am wary of them, too. It’s not that I think Republicans are so great, or so principled. But I don’t trust all the characterizations of evildoing on their part that I read.
Neo
You’re right. I hadn’t considered the difference between local and national politics in that story.
I read Republicans doing deals for higher taxes and went on from there without looking at the details of of one more of those cocomamy laws they’re all putting forward these days.
Tricky. Too much horseplay, local or national and the base stays home. Elections are won at the margin. Romney found out:
The case of the 4 million missing voters.
Some dispute this figure …
If Jeb Bush is the nominee, I’ll stay home.