The Erosion of Liberty

Please review the rules here.

This post could go on and on with examples of the erosion of liberty in America these days when it comes to the issue of same-sex “marriage”. But I will only mention a few.

To begin, it wasn’t long ago, before the very recent and rapid procession of federal judges overturning duly enacted marriage laws in several states, that proponents of same-sex “marriage” posed the question to its opponents: how will my gay marriage affect you? I can’t help but to believe that this seemingly innocent question swayed many fence-sitters to support the campaign to legalize same-sex “marriage”. The intention was that we would answer “it won’t”. What you do in your bedroom, what you say before your family won’t affect me.

But today we know better. The false pretenses under which that question was uttered so many times in the past are now clear. Just start acting with a little bit of integrity all you activists. Be honest about what it is that you want and let society judge for itself. If your gains can only come by dishonest finesse of the ill-educated, your cause must not have a real leg to stand on.

Some examples of the erosion of liberty:

  • Sweet Cakes Bakery in Oregon fined for not making a cake for a same-sex “wedding”
  • A judge tells Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver it is no longer allowed to refuse to make cakes for same-sex “weddings”
  • Florist Barronelle Stutzman was sued by long-time customers for refusing to provide flowers for their same-sex “wedding”
  • Elane Huguenin, a Christian photographer loses her case before the New Mexico Supreme Court, eliminating conscience protections for artists in that state
  • The Catholic Diocese of Rockford, Illinois, closed its adoption services when state law would require, without religious exemption, the placement of children into the homes of same-sex couples

Many believe that businesses should be forced to provide wedding services to same-sex couples regardless of the consciences of those providing the service. They believe that to refuse service is discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Its not hard to see why they believe such things, however, they are wrong. In their own failure to understand the nature marriage, they cannot separate the act of a same-sex “wedding” from the orientation of the persons themselves. In their eyes a refusal to participate in the “wedding” is a direct assault on their orientation. Perhaps, though, what is more terrifying to think about is that judges have ruled in the same way. Judges. Judges are blind to the difference between what a person feels and what a person does. Judges cannot differentiate between exercise of conscience and what is actually discrimination. And because they cannot differentiate you cannot have liberty. Ultimately it comes to a point where the right to be tolerated and accepted always trumps your right to act according to your beliefs. Society values homosexual behavior more than the freedom to practice your religion. Liberty is only for the sexually immoral, but not for the Christian. This is a reality in America that cannot be denied. Liberty is under assault.

rainbow flag

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “The Erosion of Liberty

  1. Oh no! Choosing your customers at a bakery is at stake! Why in the world shouldn’t Protestant bakers be able to kick Catholic clients out of their shops? Just silly, isn’t it?

    • As I’ve said to another commentor on a different post, this is a misrepresentation of the issue. Its NOT about choosing customers. Its about not being involved in EVENTS that violate one’s conscience. If I have an artistic talent, such as arranging flowers, decorating cakes, or being a great photographer, I should not be legally forced to promote and depict something I find immoral.

      Its not about kicking people out, that is just silly. Its about associating my name with an event I don’t agree with. Its called freedom of association, and its my right not to promote it, just as it would be the right of an atheist to not promote a creationist event which poisons the minds of children with fables of a a 6,000 year old earth where man and dinosaur roamed together. There are atheists who find such events disgusting and a plague and they would rightly have the right to not associate.

      Nobody should have to choose between their conscience and putting food on the table for their family, but the real in your face gay activists are forcing people to choose. You either serve a gay wedding or you pay excessive fines. That’s not liberty.

  2. So Catholic bakers should be allowed to refuse to sell cakes to non Catholics? How about Muslims refusing to sell to women who don’t wear head-scarves?
    Conscience is something people are allowed to apply to their own lives. An orthodox jew has the freedom to not eat bacon. If he takes a job as a cashier at a supermarket he can’t tell his boss he’s not serving people who buy bacon because it violates his conscience that other people don’t follow the tenets of his religion.

    • You didn’t read any of my comment did you?

      Its NOT about not selling to gay people. Its about NOT being legally forced to participate in an event you find morally objectionable.

      And who says that conscience is something that only applies to “their own lives” which I assume you mean to their private lives? You’re right, an orthodox Jew has the freedom to not eat bacon. An orthodox Jew also has the freedom to not sell bacon at a store that he opens.

      We also aren’t talking about subordinate employees refusing the directives of their bosses, we are talking about the bosses, the business owners, choosing what services they provide. By refusing to serve a gay wedding, a baker or florist or photographer is not imposing his or her beliefs or religion or conscience any one. It does not prevent one from getting a cake from somewhere or finding a photographer or florist, or prevent their special day from happening, but is simply a choice to decline from participating. That should not be a crime.

      You mentioned in your first comment how silly it was for bakers to worry about what kinds of cakes they make. Its equally silly to worry so DAMN much about someone not approving of your relationship you feel the need to sue them over of FREAKING cake. Just move on and get your cake from somewhere else and stop worrying so much about Christians who aren’t making cakes for you.

  3. A baker sells cakes in a shop. He doesn’t have to participate in a gay wedding, genius. He doesn’t have to see it, he doesn’t have to be one of the guests, he doesn’t have to send them a card. The private lives of the clients are really none of his business.
    A photographer would be a different case, but in regards to anything that’s sold in a shop, there cannot be discrimination based on the identity of the customer.

    • False. Genius. Artwork is artwork whether you are present where it is displayed or not. People ask where you got your cake at a wedding, it always happens. The point is that in a free society based on personal liberty people should have the right to say no without the government destroying their livelihood or forced coercion into the popular view of morality. No one is entitled to a wedding cake made against the baker’s will.

      Can’t you let others live in peace like you want them to do to you?

      • Which part of THE BAKER DOESN’T HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EVENT IN ANY WAY do you find difficult to understand? He’s selling a cake in a shop.

        • Participate doesn’t mean being present. What part of that don’t you get? When Joe and Mike order a wedding cake that says “congratulations Joe and Mike” with a topper of two grooms in tuxes and bring it to their wedding, the baker has participated in the wedding. It’s not that complicated. You may not like that someone declines to make a cake for such an event, but leftists need to grow a pair, get over it, and move on, instead of suing people because someone didn’t make them a stupid cake. Just move on and celebrate with people who want to celebrate your day with you. Wouldn’t you be happier to live and let live?

          • And please spare the world of this ridiculous, imbecilic exaggeration. America has a population of +316,000,000 and maybe 5, yes, just five lawsuits of this variety. Woe is me- the sky is falling. What a monumental erosion of liberties!
            Do you know how to calculate percentages. Let me give you a hint, the result will be 0.0 (and then more zeros before you get to an actual number.

          • And could you even pretend to be polite and not so condescending?

            Of course I know how to calculate percentages. But do you know how lawsuits actually work?

            I suppose that the Dred Scott case only affected like 1 slave right? I suppose that Brown vs. the Board of Education only affected 1 little school district. And Roe v. Wade only created one abortion.

            There are 4 lawsuits here in 4 different states, that affect more than just the 4 people involved in the lawsuit, particularly the case in New Mexico which was settled by the New Mexico Supreme Court which stripped the rights of all photographers and artists to disassociate from events like same-sex weddings. So spare me your little 0.0

            You have proven once and for all that you aren’t interested in facts, reason, or the cause of liberty for all: whether they are gay, bisexual, straight, atheist, Christian, or Muslim. And you clearly can’t read or comply with a comment policy, so you are being banned. My prayers are with you.

  4. HA- you’ve just undermined your entire argument by expanding your definition of ‘participate’.
    The baker doesn’t need to have any REAL participation in the event whatsoever. When someone buys a cake they walk into a shop, choose a picture from a catalogue, pay and then pick the item up on the day. That means that refusing the sale is ON THE BASIS OF THE IDENTITY OF THE CLIENT.
    On that basis Protestant owned candle shops can refuse to sell to Catholics who will use their candles for Catholic rituals. And Muslims can refuse service to women who don’t wear headscarves. You can’t have it both ways.
    Either participate means ‘in person, at the event’, or if not, it’s discrimination pure and simple.

    You should spend more time reading and less time writing.

    • I’m surprised at your inability to see how making the cake is participation whether you are physically at the wedding. By your logic, the man who takes a hit out on his wife did not participate in her murder because he was not present at the murder. I’M NOT COMPARING GAY “MARRIAGE” TO MURDER before anyone tries to accuse me of such things. The idea that physical presence is a necessary component to participation flies in the very face of the definition of the word.

      At the very end of your comment you create your own definition of the participation and declare that if we don’t define it the same we are discriminating pure and simple. No amount of reasonable dialog can take place if you choose to define words differently from what they actually mean. And no amount of reasonable dialog can take place as long as you believe that Christians must keep their morals and values inside the privacy of their homes, but that active homosexuals do not have that same obligation. It is clear that you do not understand what liberty and freedom truly are because if you did you would move on with your life rather than supporting shoving Christians around.

      It is also clear that you are not hear to rationally discuss the issue, nor consider that there might be an alternative view, which, if you could read, was a pre-requisite for commenting. If you’re simply looking to be a troll and ruffle feathers, I hear that tumblr is a great haven for such activity, as well as reddit and some youtube videos about Michael Jackson. You’ll probably fit in better there.

  5. My god you’r dim-witted. I’m not “creating my own definition”. THE LAW HAS TO HAVE A DEFINITION. People have to have clearly stated guidelines on what is or what is not acceptable.
    If anyone wants them in this case, to protect the rights of individuals not to participate in certain events, then they have to be clear and along the lines of what I’ve stated.
    Obviously even that simple concept escapes you.
    By the way, Mr. 173 followers, check my six-figure stats at the bottom of my homepage and then get back to me on which of us should be here.

    • Yep, you’re right, the number of followers definitely determines who is right and who should be able to speak. Spoken like a typical liberal.

    • And yes, the definition that you use for participating is not the actual definition, but a more narrow definition that suits your immediate political purpose, so, yes, you did create your own definition.

  6. As stated in the post, there needs to be a differentiation between the person and the action. I will not be the wheelman for a bank robbery, even though I am not technically robbing the bank, but I will drive the guy around if he is not robbing a bank or committing some other crime. In the same way, I should not be forced to provide my skills to a couple that is performing an act in which I believe my participation may cause me to sin.

    When I married my wife, we chose a bakery to bake us a cake. I considered that a participation in our wedding just as much as the people who helped us decorate the reception hall and the hotel who served our meal and provided the hall. I considered this participation because the person who baked and decorated that cake took the time to get to know us and what we wanted our cake to look like.

    I would not have wanted that woman making my cake if she didn’t want to take the time to participate in the process of making it how we wanted it for our wedding. At the same time, I would have been angry if she had said she wouldn’t bake a cake because we were performing our marriage in front of God. I definitely would not have sued her for that.

    That woman was not forced to take part in our wedding; she freely chose to accept our payment and take the time and energy to provide a cake for us. She was not required to do that.

    DN: blocking people from your discussion board is not a great way to deal with the situation, even if they are being unreasonable.

    PA: at least try to see the situation from a different perspective. We understand that it is demeaning to be denied a service, but in honest cases, it isn’t a slight on the people requesting the service; it is truly an attempt to avoid participating in what Catholics believe is a sinful act that doesn’t follow God’s plan for sexuality. You don’t have to believe that, but Catholics do. If you are being honest, you know that you wouldn’t want to be forced to do something that you believe is wrong. Just remember: there is a difference between the person and an action.

    • I don’t like blocking people, but there comes a point where it is clear they aren’t interested in genuine discussion. There are many people who in the past who make comments I disagree with, but are civil and they remain welcome to comment. PA was simply rude and uninterested in dialog and I see no benefit in allowing him to post on this forum.

Comments are closed.