Wednesday, February 25, 2015

The Evil Gay War on Freedom (because we hate America)


Have you heard the news? Religious freedom is under attack and it’s all because of gay marriage! Observe!

In Washington, a florist (who was totally not a gay) was forced to leave Christianity and join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. A shotgun marriage, as dictated by “The Great Meatball,” to a leather dom named “Master Dave” stripped him of his last residual humility. To his shame, he learned to love "The Big Ragu.”

In Oregon, a baker was coerced  into leaving her husband of nine years and marrying into a gang of polygamist biker lesbians where she was converted to Hinduism and compelled to learn the fine art of scissoring while ridding sidesaddle.


And in Detroit, a lesbian couple demanded that a doctor to wear a Burka while treating their Satan-spawn child.


Actually, none of that happened. I just made it up. If anything like that had happened, then it would be an attack on religious liberty. That's what an attack on religious liberty would look like.

The way it went is this: gay couples showed up, with money, and asked and expected to get the same types of products and services that are offered to everyone else only to be told 'no' because of their sexual orientation.

Some think the idea that business should be able to discriminate based on religious beliefs is just a matter of 'live and let live.' Look at local attorney AJ Delgado, doing her best to make South Florida look like South Alabama.
I am a conservative who supports gay marriage. Conservatism, after all, stems from a belief in liberty and a belief that man should be able to live as freely as possible. That said, precisely because of my fondness for a live-and-let-live philosophy, many of us on the right who support gay marriage now feel somewhat betrayed.
Throughout the gay-marriage debate, proponents assured us that all they sought was the equal ability to marry and that it would not affect the lives of others, noting private entities would not be forced to service gay marriage.
Betrayed? I never 'assured' anyone of anything. The whole fight for gay rights is to be totally equal – not some Jim Crow, back of the bus bullshit.

My marriage isn't about anyone but my spouse and I. No one is forcing anyone to officiate or participate in a same-sex union. You're just the caterer, the planner, the florist, or the baker. You're not the bride or groom. You provide a service – the same service you provide to all your other paying customers. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain but it's not you getting married.

Depending on where your business operates, your claim of religious freedom may or may not break the law. But no matter where you are located, you will look like a backwards and bigoted idiot.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation -- only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation.

This is true both for customers and employees of private businesses, although forces in Congress have been attempting to pass laws which protect gay and lesbian employees for decades.

So if there are no state or local laws to the contrary, private business owners may legally choose to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation -- and some have publicly done so.

However in some states like California and New York, discrimination based on sexual orientation by private businesses is prohibited by state law. In many of these states, bona fide religious organizations and religious non-profits have been exempted from these laws when they conflict with their religious beliefs; private businesses are not exempt.

Even in states which do not prohibit refusing service to gays -- like Texas or Arizona -- local laws or ordinances in specific cities may prevent LGBT discrimination.

Ms. Delgado, your kind of support we don't need. Your brand of live and let live is a paranoid lie. There was a time not so long ago when a Cuban American might have faced the exact same type of discrimination for the exact same reasons you're now justifying. That makes you a clueless tool.

Live and let live? No, live and let die! Not to you personally, (I'm no Bill O'Reilly) but to your unapologetic bigotry and your crusty conservative ignorance.

10 comments:

  1. The first laws enabling same-sex marriage in modern times were enacted during the first decade of the 21st century.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with the idea that the government should leave people alone. But your concerns about these bigoted backwater businesses have a simple solution. A Hobby Lobby where I once lived refused to sell any decorations for Jewish holidays. As a business they have that right. They believe that they have the only religion that is acceptable and they, as a private business, can decide what products to sell and what not to sell. In doing so also they also make the implied statement about who they want to sell to. The message I got was Jews are not welcome at that Hobby Lobby store. The solution. I and many other customers went elsewhere. A private business is in the long run only hurting themselves by this kind of behavior and the best thing that we can do as consumers and citizens is avoid these businesses and go elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So some bigot can press a bunch of gay dudes into providing the catering, photography, etc., for a "gays suck in a bad way" party? Or, their "gays can't make it in the nfl party?"

    Beyond the civil rights act, which is and was right on, why should people be forced to do anything other than to leave other people alone and let then live their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @7:35

    That's the libertarian solution and as a former libertarian I'm well familiar with it. The type of discrimination you're describing with Hobby Lobby is far softer than what I I'm talking about here. Indeed, businesses are hurting themselves when they turn away customers for any reason.

    But as anyone who lived through or studied the civil rights movement can attest to, there are far bigger issues in play here. People literally died to bring us out of the age of whites only lunch counters and I have nothing but disdain and contempt for those who want to bring us back.


    @7:45

    Here's an answer to the first part of your question. As to the second part, right! Why should any good, white Christian be forced to serve Negros. That is what you're saying, right?

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, I am saying anything about race - as I wrote - the civil rights act was and is right on.

    Where is the line to be drawn? Seriously, only at sexual preferance? If that is it, maybe I can live with it. But you don't want to end it there, you want to take it and expand the requirement that civil rights laws apply to everything

    Me: you want to smoke the weeds, don't do it here

    GW: You are discriminating against pot heads - you are a biggot and I am going to sue you.

    This is the beginning of a never ending process.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @12:40

    Where you see 'slippery slopes' I see only well-lubricated buttocks.

    Where will it end? Give me a break. LGBT citizens certainly meet every qualification for a protective class used to define the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Do you know how many hate crimes were committed against us this week?

    Where will it end? When everyone is equal.

    PS: your pot smoking analogy is absurd. I can stop smoking pot. I can't stop being gay. Duh.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Godhwhacker, what's the deal with the word "queer"? I always thought it was offensive, and I'm sure it still is in some contexts. But the gay community seems to have reclaimed it. But as a straight man, should I still stay away from the word? I don't want to offend, but the rules on this one are not clear to me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @4:39

    Good question! You could probably get 10 different answers from 10 different people on that.

    I'm not the most politically correct person. I'd even say that political correctness has run amok.

    More than a specific word I generally base my interpretation of language on intent. For example, if my husband and I walk into a party of close friends and someone joyfully blurted out "finally the queers are here," I'm not going to get offended.

    It has been reclaimed to a degree, like you said, and you can now find academic disciplines like 'queer theory' or 'queer culture.' How could I take offense?

    But if I saw it on a sign like the little graphic featured here or uttered by a person who was obviously using it as a pejorative, then the intent would be malicious and I probably would take offense.

    I'm quite the armature rapper. But there are a lot of songs with a word in them that I just not supposed to use, so I understand your dilemma!

    ReplyDelete
  9. You seem to take queer positions on quite a number of topics.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @6:15

    If what you mean is that in a world of hate, division, privation, war, discrimination, and ignorance a person like myself who advocates love and equality is unusual then thank you very much!

    ReplyDelete