Well, you could be right, Gentle Reader. To my old eyes, it looks like a pogrom against freedom itself.
The Masterpiece Cakeshop decision has the whole homosexual “community” up in arms about homosexuals’ “rights” — specifically, their right to impose themselves on people who want nothing to do with them. The decision and its inadequacies to one side, the case pulls into focus the utter lunacy of any sort of “assertive right:” i.e., a right to impose oneself on others without their consent.
This is what you get from “nondiscrimination” laws. This is what you get when an assertive group with an agenda that requires the destruction of some other group gets such a law at its disposal. And please, keep any BS about “civil rights” behind your teeth. If there’s a “civil right” to compel another person to work for you at a task of your choosing, what does that do to the Thirteenth Amendment?
No doubt a lot of the folks decrying the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision are totally against conscription. So what’s the difference?
Paula Bolyard has some other news and thoughts. Please read it all – it’s staggeringly important – but for those whose eyes glaze over before the climax, I’ll excerpt it here:
Eventually, probably sooner rather than later, Christians (and Jews and everyone else who holds to the biblical view of sexuality and marriage) will be asked to cheer for the cultural revolution—with gusto. And for many, their enthusiasm (or lack of it) will determine whether they'll be able to keep their job. How will you choose? Will you obey God rather than men? If you choose to be obedient to God, there will be a price to pay for your faithfulness. This is nothing new for Christians, of course. We're called to take up our cross and follow Jesus, no matter the cost. Joshua's charge [to] the Israelites should be a sobering reminder to people of faith:Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:14-15)Choose today which side you're on in the cultural revolution.
Choose and act on your choice before it’s taken from you. Only a mobilized, energized mass of millions of Americans can halt this obscenity in its tracks – and by “obscenity” I don’t mean homosexuality itself. Another person’s sexual behavior is a personal election in which no Christian should presume to meddle. But neither should anyone be compelled by law to labor at another person’s behest, regardless of the specifics of the case.
For too many Christians, religion is just that thing we do on Sunday, that makes us feel all moral and above the rest (in a kindly way, of course).
ReplyDeleteThe idea that they could be despised for their belonging to the faith never seemed to occur to them. The lesson they learned from the Scopes trial - among other anti-Christian initiatives - was: follow a religious message that is Leftism-Lite, and we not only will leave you alone, but point to you as a 'good' person.
No longer. This has been coming for some time:
- Birth Control/Abortion
- Acceptance of pre- and non-marital sex
- Coarse vocabulary, casually used by the young - and not-so young. Rather than an extreme response to provocation, it's become a punctuation point to everyday life.
- Porn-ification of the culture. Playboy and X-rated movies may have started it, but, at least, they restricted their sale to presumed adults. What is available in mass media and online today is far more coarse and easy for children and teens to access.
- The dedicated reach of Big State into family decisions - birth control, abortion, sex mis-education. Removal of most parental controls - that'll bring in Child Protective Services - along with institutionalized control, facilitated by 'unintended' use of the peer group to whip the nonconformists into line.
- Squeezing the churches with threats, loss of money from church-related outreach activities, and loss of school/college income for those institutions that will not fall in line with the Leftist Agenda.
- Use of Biblical quotes is considered Hate Speech.
Everything is designed to either curb the Christian message, or to ostracize its adherents.
Push HAS come to shove. We are seeing the moment of the song,
"Where Were YOU When They Crucified the Lord?"
Will you stand against the Empire?
I'm exhausted of "positive" rights. For my own purposes, I DJ a lot of weird and crazy events - some of them with plenty of gays that attend. But that being said, this is my choice, and if another DJ said "no, I don't want to DJ for those folks" then I support that decision and the right of that person to make such a choice. It's his right to choose for whom he wants to work. Anything else is outright slavery cloaked behind false assumed moral superiority.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't just anti-religion... this concept it completely antithetical to centuries of legal precedence.
ReplyDeleteThe process of agreeing to future services (such as baking a cake or photographing a wedding) constitutes a legal contract between two parties. The long-standing basis of a contract has 5 characteristics:
1) Legal purpose: Obviously, a contract to murder a person is not legal.
2) Consideration: Parties exchange something of value, typically payment for services.
3) Competent parties: All parties must be of sound mind and legal.
4) Mutual Agreement: All parties must have to agree on the extent of the offer and services returned.
But most importantly:
5) Genuine Asset: All parties must engage in the agreement freely. For example, you sign a contract in which you agree to sell your house to your next-door neighbor for $1. When you signed the contract, your neighbor was pointing a gun at your head. Clearly, you made the agreement under duress, so the contract is not valid.
Almost certainly, some vendors are being forced into contracts with a financial gun to their heads. And in the eyes of the law, BOTH parties in a contract (or negotiating for a contract) are supposed to be considered equal. Clearly that is not the case.
The bottom line is that one party CANNOT be forced into a contract with another. To do so is a violation of centuries of contract law -- at least as far back as the late 1500's.