Tag Archives: Gay Rights

• 1 Comment

•

Government sanctioned same-sex relationship edition (since I can't bring myself to call it "marriage") - we can shorten it to GSSR

BRUCE:Why the veto of Arizona’s religious freedom bill is alarming:

To make faith in the public square illegal and dangerous, you need legal cases and publicity. Voila, lawsuits against small business resting on the notion that acting on genuinely held faith is bigotry per se.

Under these rules, freedom of conscience is squashed under the jackboot of liberals, all in the Orwellian name of “equality and fairness.” Here we are dealing with not just forcing someone to do something for you, but forcing them in the process to violate a sacrament of their faith as well.

Refusing to Photograph a Gay Wedding Isn't Hateful:

Some opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in bigotry and some isn't. Assuming otherwise is itself prejudice rooted in ignorance.

Thwarting the Wedding Cake Fascists Passive Aggressively

Maybe the response for florists, bakers and photographers is to tell gay couples if they hire their services for their weddings that they will be donating 100% of the profits to a sanctity of marriage group.

Drops the bomb right into the laps of those who for whatever reason want to force religious bakers to bake cakes and photographers to take pictures.

Religious Freedom Reframed So Gay Rights Trump Them:

“Freedom loses when fear overwhelms facts and a good bill is vetoed,” he said in a statement. “Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona.”

Business and Conscience:

Yet Christ's call to servanthood is for us to yield our desire to live for ourselves and instead submit to him, in doing so we live for others. But this is not a call for others to demand of us what they desire.

What will be the terms of our surrender?

Douthat is right. What unfolded last week reveals that this latter scenario is the most likely outcome. Gay activists and gay marriage supporters seem to have very little interest in a live-and-let-live diversity of opinion on the issue of marriage. They are making sure that the government imposes coercive sanctions on anyone who fails to affirm the moral goodness of gay unions. As last week revealed, the press has been happily passing along the propaganda of gay marriage supporters without any thoughtful consideration of the other side of the argument. They are backing us into a corner.

•

Two paragraphs that struck me, given some of the conversations I have in various places.

In the past several years this word has begun to be overused, to our detriment. “Hate” is something deep and serious. It is instantly recognizable and intends to wound. But recently people have begun to fling this word around every time someone disagrees with them. “Hate” is now intended to mean anything seen as “intolerant” or “judgmental,” since nowadays the only sin most people believe in is believing in sin. So basically, if you disagree with it, you can call it “hate,” and your opponent, fearing that they might be seen as hateful, will probably stop arguing.

I have conversations with people who support "gay rights" and people who support "abortion rights" - "hate" is one of the first weapons to come out of their arsenal.

It is incredibly important that we argue honestly and with courage. Make no mistake: calling you intolerant, judgmental, or hateful is intended to shut you up. The PC police have been so effective that many people are now afraid they will be discounted, marginalized or shut down if they don’t play by these new tyrannical speech rules.

My reply to this tactic is that the conversation needs to happen, and that conversation will not take place, if one side of it is silenced.

The link to What To Do With “Hate”