Gay Patriot

Having Your Cake and Forcing Others to Eat It Too (+ Prager)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally posted December of 2013)

Diaper Cake

My wife loves to make these for baby-showers she is invited to.

Breitbart has some info on the case for the unfamiliar:

A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.

The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple “because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.”

The order says the cake-maker must “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.

…read more…

A Christian baker was found guilty of refusing service to a same-sex wedding and could face a year in jail… it is now becoming legislatively against the law to hold to Judeo-Christian ethics and conscious in America. It will cause some to move to more traditional states (“Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead” ~ G.K. Chesterton), and the solidification of very liberal states. So we will have — truly — a divided America, alla the legislative PC left.

I enjoy, and I truly do, the company (once in a while when GayPatriot does a dinner and I can make it) and the intellectual discussions that happen on his blog. These are men and women who do not put politics above tradition.

And if they challenge tradition… they pause… think… discuss… ask how this might hurt them down the road and hurt the larger society. I may not agree 100% with all their positions, but AT LEAST they realize going headlong into such a big societal change has RADICAL implications (like jail time for not agreeing with a political position versus allowing the free-market to deal with and absorb the choice made).

They also realize that the radical position is not the traditional one, but the radical position is the one who wants to change such a long, natural, religious, historical understanding of the ideal relationship to raise a family in. They take it seriously, and respect the differing views involved. Very unlike the left.

Here is a Christian, conservative, apologist — Frank Turek —  making a point:

“….Imagine a homosexual videographer being forced to video a speech that a conservative makes against homosexual behavior and same sex marriage. Should that homosexual videographer be forced to do so? Of course not! Then why Elane Photography?….”

Now, here is the libertarian, conservative, guy[s] I know who blogs — GayPatriot:

“…it’s a bad law, a law that violates natural human rights to freedom of association and to freely-chosen work. It is not good for gays; picture a gay photographer being required by law to serve the wedding of some social conservative whom he or she despises.”

Which leads me to the latest commentary on the cake issue from Gay Patriot followed by some of the comments:

Another gay couple got miffed that a baker declined to make them a wedding cake. So, instead of seeking out another baker, they whined to the Government because their precious little feelings got hurt. And the Government — recognizing that in a free Constitutional Republic, the delicate feelings of hypersensitive gays are much more important than freedom, free speech, religious liberty, property rights, and free enterprise — has found the baker guilty of hurting gay people’s feelings and is now threatening to jail him.

No one is saying it’s okay to discriminate against gay people, but in this case the cure… heavy-handed jack-booted Fascism … is far worse than the problem.

And to those people are okay with forcing businesses to serve people they don’t care to serve, would it be equally okay for Government to force consumers to use businesses they don’t want to use? The precedent is set with Obamacare. If social justice is more important than freedom, then does it not follow that Government could legitimately force people to spend, say, 50% of their consumer dollars with businesses owned by the Government’s favored minority and victim groups?

…read more…

Here is some of the comments from the above post:

Comment #9:

As a Lesbian activist said recently, and I quote loosely, “it never was about equal rights to marry, it was pushing an agenda”.

Comment #10:

So nice to see everybody figure this out. The tyrants in the GLBT community will not rest until every voice is lifted in praise of their lifestyle- at the end of a gun, if necessary.

Is their any indication that these people have psychological problems. I’ve noticed that gay people, like myself, who are not politically and culturally aggressive seem to be more put-together. It’s the activist types who seem to have the neuroses and disorders. A pathological need for validation and acceptance, which always boils down to a pat on the head to placate the persistent voice in their head calling them on their crap. And it doesn’t matter how they get the “good boy,” or how sincere it is, they’re just happy that they’re getting it. If the baker gives in, this couple will pretend he had a genuine change of heart, and wasn’t coerced into it.

Sometimes I really hate my own kind.

Comment #16:

This makes my blood absolutely boil! Look at all the special accommodations made for Muslims: Muslim Target cashiers don’t have to handle pork products, Muslim female cashier at Wegman’s had a sign at her cash register telling customers if they had alcohol, cigarettes or pork products to go to another line, Muslims getting special breaks so they can pray at work, The airport in Minneapolis getting foot washing stations in the men’s room. The list goes on and on how companies have bent over backwards to accommodate Sharia Law for a minority religion here in the U.S. Yet it’s perfectly legal and necessary to force Christian bakers, photographers and owners of B&B’s to do things that violate their faith. It would be interesting if gay couples who wished to wed, started “asking” Muslim bakers, photographers, B&B owners and mosques to “help” with their pending nuptials. Or how about suing the store because you had to wait in a longer line because the Muslim cashier refused (and with the store’s backing) to check your bacon, smokes and box o’ wine? How about the Muslim man who refused to let you go through his line unless you got rid of the box of tampons and bag of maxi pads? Unbelievable hypocrisy of the left. They ignore “the religion of peace” that actually maims and kills women and gays violently attacks Christians who are just minding their own.

Comment #17:

It would be interesting if gay couples who wished to wed, started “asking” Muslim bakers, photographers, B&B owners and mosques to “help” with their pending nuptials.

Bingo! We have a winner! Hold all calls.

The Muslim Organization for Personal Validation of Kafirs, Dhimmis and مادر جنده could not be reached for comment.

Comment #18:

It would be interesting if gay couples who wished to wed, started “asking” Muslim bakers, photographers, B&B owners and mosques to “help” with their pending nuptials.

Boy, would this ever stir up a hornet’s nest.
The blowback would be gigantic.
Heads would roll.
Literally.

Comment #22:

Less than 48 hours ago, I was refused by three (THREE) Muslim cab drivers in downtown Los Angeles because I was carrying a 12-pack of Sam Adams beer.

No, I wasn’t intoxicated. In point of fact, I haven’t had a drink in over five years.

The three men each told me their religion forbade them from transporting alcohol.

Was I miffed? Hell yes.

Did I sue? Hell no. Rather, I racially profiled and found an infidel willing to accept my fare to Studio City.

The Battle Flag of the Confederate Army Benefits Republicans

Published by Papa Giorgio

See my “Racial History of the U.S. – Page”

  • In dealing with the left, one must remember that they are a selfish and irrational people. Political Correctness is the outward expression of their piety in their progressive socialist religion. They demonstrate their moral purity to one another through one-upmanship, no demand is so crazy that it cannot be topped be an even crazier demand. It’s a game no one can ever win. Put another way, if you give a monster a cookie, he’s only going to demand more cookies. (Gay Patriot)

I posted the below on a friends FaceBook… thought I would share it here:

The issue I see is almost a “pop” outrage. Democrats feel good in taking down something they put up in the 60’s as a middle-finger to the government telling them to desegregate. (Sort of like them getting rid of trans-fats after they replaced coconut oil and lard with it… they fix the problems they cause… decades later.)

I learned something during this whole thing. This is not the confederate flag. It is specifically Gen. Lee’s Battle Flag and was put up by a Dixiecrat. This Dixiecrat (Ernest Frederick “Fritz” Hollings served as a Democratic United States Senator from South Carolina from 1966 to 2005) stayed a Democrat till his dying day ~ like almost every Dixiecrat!

…. QUOTE BREAK:

➤ “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” ~ Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;

…I am personally glad for this “outbreak” of faux-concern because it allows for discussion of Democratic racist history and hands me opportunity to note campaigners of Hillary Clinton on stage with shirts sporting Che Guevara, a racist homophobe who killed blacks, homosexuals, banned rock music, engineers, priests etc… as well as Obama campaign offices with Che Guevara hanging on the wall behind them.

…. QUOTE BREAK:

➤ “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” ~ Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

While Amazon and Wal-Mart took down the Stars and Bars, campaign pins for Clinton-Gore with the Battle Flag behing them -or- Hillary Clinton with the Battle Flag are for sale on eBay as well (below-left). I love it… it is a giant cesspool of leftist hypocrisy, and when I engage in conversation with people [beyond their bumper sticker beliefs that keep them warm-and-cozy in their political mirage… I get entire Starbucks soo quite you could hear a pin drop.

One girl was shuffling soo much as I pulled out a book that I purchased off of the Akiba bookstore of Trinity United Church of Christ (Obama’s church of twenty years) and read these two quotes [after clearly explaining where I bought the book to my two compatriots… this was the time no one in Starbucks was talking]:

➤ “White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality” ~ James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation, p.64

And then I read this one from Mein Kampf:

➤ “The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew” ~ Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

The only noise I could hear is a young college student shuffling to my left. It was as if I was exorcising a demon from her as she was moving soo much after having her protected world inhabited by reality.Hillary

And this is the point a very left-leaning professor makes. To have people in the camp he is in merely label people as ~ sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ makes my job easier. Because one someone is labeled, the person doing the labeling stops learning, refuting, checking facts and history.

And I slice them up one side and down the other like the 1972 movie Shogun Assassin.

Keep this faux outrage coming, I love it. I wake up every morning and look in the mirror and say… proudly, “my party is the party of Lincoln… we set people free. The new plantation keeps them subservient.”

[Well, I don’t say that every morning… I just try to gauge if I am gonna take a dump before or after my cup of coffee.]

Crisis Averted! Microaggression Wins Over Hypothetical Chick-fil-A

Published by Papa Giorgio

This was a great article that I missed about John Hopkin’s University by HotAir:

There were no plans in the works to put a Chick-fil-A on campus. It was the mere possibility, inspired by a survey last month showing that many students want one at JHU, that frightened our special snowflakes into recommending a ban preemptively “in the best interest of a cohesive campus environment in which all students feel accepted.”

The perfection of society cannot tolerate Chicken Deluxes, citizens.

“The SGA does not support the proposal of a Chick-fil-A, in a current or future sense, particularly on any location that is central to student life,” states the resolution passed by the student government, which noted “visiting prospective and current students, staff, faculty, and other visitors who are members of the LGBTQ+ community or are allies would be subjected to the microaggression of supporting current or future Chick-fil-A development plans.”…

[J]unior Andrew Guernsey, president of Johns Hopkins University Voice for Life, wrote about the recent decision on National Review, stating: “The JHU student government’s vote this week to ban any hypothetical future Chick-fil-A outlet from campus because of the company owner’s support for traditional marriage … sends a clear message that students who disagree with liberal orthodoxy are not welcome on the Hopkins campus.”…

In remarks delivered to the Student Government Association before its vote, Guernsey said: “In banning Chick-fil-A from campus for its CEO’s views, the JHU student government would also set a dangerous precedent that could be used to give the boot to socially conservative religious groups on campus… The entire notion of keeping the university a ‘safe space,’ free from one side of a debate on hot-button issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, is absolutely antithetical to Johns Hopkins’ stated commitment to the free and robust exchange of ideas.”

Give credit where it’s due: The “microaggression” bit is a brilliant political flourish, exactly the sort of thing that an Orwellian impulse towards purging one’s environment of thoughtcrimes deserves….

….read it all…

Gay Patriot astutely notes the following:

Of course, this isn’t really about “microaggressions” (i.e. “things that don’t bother normal people but send neurotic liberals to the fainting couches”), this is about the gay left telling businesses “If you don’t support and celebrate our agenda, we will crush you.”

Because that’s what fascists do.

A Non-Fascist would say, “I don’t like the policies of your company, so I’m not going to eat there.” (Which is why I don’t eat at Buffalo Wild Wings or Sonic, for example.) But a fascist is a different animal entirely. It’s not enough for the fascist to decide not to patronize a business whose policies are disagreeable to him. The fascist has to deny others the choice of using that business as well, and, ideally, punish the business owner for daring to disagree with him.

[Editors Note: Gay Patriot refuses to exchange their wage earned actions with the people at Buffalo Wild Wings, Sonic, Chili’s, Panera, Chipotle, and TGIF because they are against the 2nd-Amendment. In case you were wondering.]

A Call for Apple [Tim Cook] To Be Truly Courageous

Published by Papa Giorgio

Gay Patriot notes of the following letter:

It takes N0 courage to “stand up to” bakers and florists who just don’t want to take part in gay weddings (although it gets you a lot of “trained seal applause” from other sanctimonious poseurs). Standing up to legitimately brutal regimes … that would be actual courage.

(See more here on the topic of Tim Cook and Saudi Arabia) Here is John Hawkin’s post about the letter which those at Gay Patriot signed on to — take note I am not important enough to be asked to sign the letter — feeling sad:

Last week, I got together with Bruce Carroll from Gay Patriot to write a letter calling on Apple to live up to its publicly stated principles by pulling out of countries that murder their citizens for being gay. After the letter was written, we asked some other conservatives to sign on with us. A full list of signatories follows.

Recently, Apple CEO Tim Cook said,

“Our message, to people around the country and around the world, is this: Apple is open. Open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship or who they love. Regardless of what the law might allow in Indiana or Arkansas, we will never tolerate discrimination.

…This is about how we treat each other as human beings…  Opposing discrimination takes courage. With the lives and dignity of so many people at stake, it’s time for all of us to be courageous.”

Tim Cook’s message seems rather ironic in light of the fact that Apple willingly does business with some of the most virulently anti-gay nations on the planet.

According to their Islamic-based governments, homosexuality is punishable by death in Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran.  So not only is it willing to “tolerate discrimination” in those countries, Apple is also happy to sell an iPod to the people who are murdering gays so they can listen to some cheery music when they’re done….

[….]

Tim Cook says that, “Opposing discrimination takes courage,” and we agree.  We call on Mr. Cook to live up to our shared principles by pulling Apple out of Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran until they stop their official government policies of jailing and murdering gays and lesbians.

…read more…

Cultural Marxism Key in Wedding Cake Fascism of the Left

Published by Papa Giorgio

I recently updated my defining of fascism here, reading that in total will help in understanding why gay men and women call these actions of laws against Christian bakers and photographers as fascism. To wit I wish to put in part here two posts by Gay Patriot and encourage you to click through to finsish the reading.

The first one is entitled, “The Gay Left Becomes a Hate Group,” it reads in part:

A pizza shop owner made the mistake of saying publicly that they didn’t care to be forced into catering a gay wedding. The left-wing MFM ginned up a fake story about a pizza shop that refused to cater gay weddings. Within a day, death threats… including a threat of arson from a public school teachers … forced the pizza shop to close.

And the gay left celebrated how effective they have become in their bullying.

[….]

Once it gets decided that certain people can have rights taken away from them by those who have power, violence follows inevitably.

Just imagine, for a second, if a gay-owned business had been forced to close because Christians threatened to burn it down and murder its employees.

The gay left has become the KKK, in 600 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets.

Here is the second article by GP that I recommend… IT is entitled, “Nobody Ever Died From Not Having a Wedding Cake“:

One aspect of the debate over whether Christians and others who don’t support gay marriage should be forced by the State (and threatened with violence) for declining to participate in gay weddings is … what’s the big deal with a wedding cake anyway? To the activist left, declining to bake a cake is no different than a lynching in the Jim Crow south. But does it really cause anyone any real quantifiable harm to send them to a different bakery? Or a different photographer? Or a different florist? Or a different wedding chapel?

If you really believe in liberty, then you have just accept that liberty means that people are going to make choices and do things that you may not agree with. And so long as they are not harming anyone else, they should be allowed to do so.

[….]

Bruised feelings do not rise to the level of actual harm.

Destroying someone’s livelihood through threats of violence —that is actual harm….

And this from the Canadian Free Press:

Bakers, photographers and florists are being forced to shut down their businesses unless they accede to demands that they join in the celebration of gay “marraiges,” but so far no one has faced jail time for putting commitment to the Word of God ahead of the demands of homosexuals and their cultural champions.

Until now. A couple in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho who own a wedding chapel there declined the request of a gay couple that they perform their “wedding.” They couple did what gay couples seem to do a lot in these situations. They didn’t just go find someone else. They complained to authorities, who are now threatening to throw the pastors in jail. That’s how out of control this has gotten:

The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.

The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.

On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

Note how the secular left is trying to create a fascimile of the civil rights movement in turning these pastors into criminals, and doing so very disingenuously….

[….]

The Christian who believes homosexual sex is an abomination in the eyes of God cannot perform a gay wedding ceremony, or take photos of Bob and Gary, or write “Congratulations Anna and Shirley” on a cake without compromising his or her devotion to God. That is not the same thing as making them sandwiches.

The left wants the state to use the notion of “public accommodations” to force business owners to do things that directly violate their faith. The state is complying….

Gay Patriot Tackles A Killer in the Gay Community ~ Moral Equivalency

Published by Papa Giorgio

Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals [e.g., liberalism]) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined. ~ Gay Patriot

Gay Patriot bravely steps out on this subject and accepts the challenge… as any rational thinking conservatarian would:

The New York Times has noticed that bareback sex is a thing gay people are doing, which is breaking news from about the mid-1990′s when (according to Wikipedia) gay publications like The Advocate first took note of the phenomenon of gay men having unprotected sex and, in some cases, deliberately seeking HIV infection.

Anyway, the Times, perhaps after failing to find a celebrity to comment on the issue, goes to the next best source for information on epidemiology and behavioral psychology… an English professor from SUNY-Buffalo. Who provides this analysis:

What I learned in my research is that gay men are pursuing bareback sex not just for the thrill of it, but also as a way to experience intimacy, vulnerability and connection. Emotional connection may be symbolized in the idea that something tangible is being exchanged. A desire for connection outweighs adherence to the rules of disease prevention.

And some guys are apparently getting intimate, tangible, emotional connections 10-20 times a night in bathhouses.

It also seems that the readers of the NY Times, based on the comments, are in complete denial that this phenomenon exists, and think the author is just making it up to attack the gay community. Liberals choose to blame the recent dramatic increases in HIV infection rates on “the stigma attached to HIV.” Um, excuse me, but don’t stigmas usually make people avoid those things to which stigmas are attached?

In the real world, stigmatizing a behavior results in less of it: Which is why people don’t use the N-word in public any more and smoking has declined as a social activity. When the social stigma is removed … as with HIV infection and teenage pregnancy … you get more of those things.

…read more…

Bravo. I just wish to mention that this area of the body is not made for sex. And many will read the following and think that this is an attack on the humanity of the gay lifestyle/choice. It is not, it is a cry for gay men to become monogamous and cease having relations with the people they purport to love in that area. It is out of compassion, not hatred the following is pointed out:

Homosexuals also continue to contract and spread other diseases at rates significantly higher that the community at large. These include syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis A and B, a variety of intestinal parasites including amebiases and giardiasis, and even typhoid fever (David G. Ostrow, Terry Alan Sandholzer, and Yehudi M. Felman, eds., Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Homosexual Men; see also, Sevgi O. Aral and King K. Holmes, “Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the AIDS Era,” Scientific American). This is because rectal intercourse or sodomy, typically practiced by homosexuals, is one of the most efficient methods of transmitting disease. Why? Because nature designed the human rectum for a single purpose: expelling waste from the body. It is built of a thin layer of columnar cells, different in structure than the plate cells that line the female reproductive tract. Because the wall of the rectum is so thin, it is easily ruptured during intercourse, allowing semen, blood, feces, and saliva to directly enter the bloodstream. The chances for infection increases further when multiple partners are involved, as is frequently the case: Surveys indicate that American male homosexuals average between 10 and 110 sex partners per year (L. Corey and K. K. Holmes, “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men,” New England Journal of Medicine; and, Paul Cameron et al., “Sexual Orientation and Sexually Transmitted Disease,” Nebraska Medical Journal).

Not surprisingly, these diseases shorten life expectancy. Social psychologist Paul Cameron compared over 6,200 obituaries from homosexual magazines and tabloids to a comparable number of obituaries from major American Newspapers. He found that while the median age of death of married American males was 75, for sexually active homosexual American males it is 42. For homosexual males infected with the AIDS virus, it was 39. While 80 percent of married American men lived to 65 or older, less than two percent of the homosexual men covered in the survey lived as long

…read more…

…these problems don’t remain personal and private. The drive, especially since this issue is associated with the word “gay rights,” is to make sure your worldview reflects theirs. To counter this effort, we must demand that the medical and psychiatric community take off their PC blinders and treat these people responsibly.  If we don’t, the next thing you know, your child will be taking a “tolerance” class explaining how “transexuality” is just another “lifestyle choice”…. After all, it is the only way malignant narcissists will ever feel normal, healthy, and acceptable: by remaking society – children – in their image

Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 92, 206.

In the black community, for example, one of the major factors in the degradation of that sub-culture is fatherlessness. In order to stop the devolving of young men into criminals, the black community would have to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for their own actions and change behavior… not blaming outside forces. Similarly, the gay community will have to battle their demons as well to help their subculture. See my Cumulative Case for some ideas of what these demons are.

Many years ago, Tammy Bruce reemphasized this dangerous, self-destructive notion and action:

….What a difference treatment makes! As researchers succeeded in developing ever more effective drugs, AIDS became—like gonorrhea, syphilis, and hepatitis B before it—what many if consider to be a simple “chronic disease.” And many of the gay men who had heeded the initial warning went right back to having promiscuous unprotected sex here is now even a movement—the “bareback” movement—that encourages sex  without condoms. The infamous bathhouses are opening up again; drug use, sex parties, and hundreds of sex partners a year are all once again a feature of the “gay lifestyle.” In fact, “sexual liberation” has simply become a code phrase for the abandonment of personal responsibility, respect, and integrity.

In his column for Salon.com, David Horowitz discussed gay radicals like the writer Edmund White. During the 1960s and beyond, White addressed audiences in the New York gay community on the subject of sexual liberation. He told one such audience that “gay men should wear their sexually transmitted diseases like red badges of courage in a war against a  sex-negative society.” And did they ever. Then, getting gonorrhea was the so-called courageous act. Today, the stakes are much higher. That red badge is now one of AIDS suffering and death, and not just for gay men themselves. In their effort to transform society, the perpetrators are taking women and children and straight men with them.

Even Camille Paglia, a woman whom I do not often praise, astutely commented some years ago, “Everyone who preached  free love in the Sixties is responsible for AIDS. This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from  heaven—absurd. We must face what we did.”

The moral vacuum did rear its ugly head during the 1960s with the blurring of the lines of right and wrong (remember “situational ethics”?),  the sexual revolution, and the consequent emergence of the feminist and gay civil-rights movements. It’s not the original ideas of these movements, mind you, that caused and have perpetuated the problems we’re discussing. It was and remains the few in power who project their destructive sense of themselves onto the innocent landscape, all  the while influencing and conditioning others. Today, not only is the blight not being faced, but in our Looking-Glass world, AIDS is romanticized and sought after….

Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 96-97.

And take note I talk about the nihilistic culture in the gay community [infected by liberalism] in a more philosophical and religious sense than most places, from my chapter in my book:

…Foucault looked at truth as an object to be constructed by those whom wielded the power to define facts.  “Madness, abnormal sex, and criminality were not objective categories but rather social constructs.”[73] He embraced what mainstream society had rejected, which was sadomasochism and drug use. In 1984 Foucault died from contracting AIDS.  One should take note that Foucault so enjoyed his hope of dying “of an overdose of pleasure” that he frequented gay bathhouses and sex clubs even after knowing of his communicable disease.  Many people were infected because of Foucault and Foucault’s post-modern views.[74]  On a lighter note, Dinesh D’Souza tells of a contest about the time Foucault was dying.  The story is fitting for those who view hell as a real option:

People were debating whether AIDS victims should be quarantined as syphilis victims had been in the past.  [William F.] Buckley said no. The solution was to have a small tattoo on their rear ends to warn potential partners.  Buckley’s suggestion caused a bit of a public stir, but the folks at National Review were animated by a different question: What should the tattoo say?  A contest was held, and when the entries were reviewed, the winner by unanimous consent was Hart.[75]  He [Hart] suggested the lines emblazoned on the gates to Dante’s Inferno: “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”[76]

You see, in order to have one’s alternative lifestyle accepted, one must attack “what truth is” in its absolute (Judeo-Christian) sense.  Truth is whatever the powerful decided it was, or so Foucault proposed.  This is the attack.  “We are subjected to the production of truth through power and we cannot exercise power except through the production of truth.”[77]  Foucault, sadly, never repented from violating God’s natural order and truth.  He was a living example in his death of what Paul said was naturally to follow in their rejection of God’s gracious revelation of Himself to humanity,[78] Romans 1:26-32 reads:

Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn’t know how to be human either—women didn’t know how to be women, men didn’t know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.… And it’s not as if they don’t know better. They know perfectly well they’re spitting in God’s face. And they don’t care—worse, they hand out prizes to those who do the worst things best! [79]

Foucault said that “sex was worth dying for,”[80] but is it?…

Notes:
[73] Ibid.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Jeffrey Hart, a professor many years ago at Dartmouth Univ.
[76] Dinesh D’ Souza, Letters to a Young Conservative: The Art of Mentoring (New York: Basic Books, 2002), 20.
[77] Flynn, 235-237.
[78] Walter A Elwell, Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), Romans 1:21
[79] Eugene H Peterson, The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002), Romans 1:26-27, 30-32.
[80] Ibid., 235.

 

Reason vs. Emotion ~ Special Rights and the Power of the State

Published by Papa Giorgio

“If homosexuality is really genetic, we may soon be able to tell if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality, in which case many parents might choose to abort it. Will gay rights activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?”

Dale A. Berryhill, The Liberal Contradiction: How Contemporary Liberalism Violates Its Own Principles and Endangers Its Own Goals (1994), 172.

Gays shouldn’t be the only one’s to worry! Continueright

Gay Patriot makes short points in regard to the above by showing some recent examples:

Emotion:

  • “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!”
  • “Stop Global Warming!”
  • “Smash the Patriarchy!”
  • “Behead those who insult Islam!”

In another post GP makes the point of the hypocrisy of those led not by reason and law but by emotion, and how the tables can turn easily on them. This is important, because when you have laws written for special interest groups rather than the equal application of all people… whomever is in charge can use or twist that law against their opponents.

A Christian group went to thirteen gay-owned bakeries and requested each of them to bake a cake promoting traditional marriage; and of course, recognizing that they were obligated to serve any customer regardless of ideological differences, they happily obliged.

Nope, just kidding. All thirteen not only refused, but some were very nasty about it.

[….]

And you know what… I completely defend their right to refuse to bake a cake in support of something they don’t believe in; because I don’t believe people forfeit their Constitutional rights when they open businesses. [BAM!]

It’s the gay fascist left who are the hypocrites.

…read more…

You see, the winds are for a more politically-correct [left-leaning] view of cultural issues. But if the State has the power to run Christians out of business… that means the State has the power to run gays out of business depending on the prevailing winds of the body-politic. Which is something our Constitution was written to stop, mind you.

Continueright (Word of the day: femicide) Here is part of a growing issue in America as we speak, a real war on women, via National Right to Life News:

…Lu reminds us that sex-selective abortions, while most commonly associated with China and (increasingly) India and Singapore, other nations, such as Great Britain, are admitting they have a similar dilemma. [Of late we’ve written about the situation in Great Britain many times, most recently here.]

There was evidence, even before the newest study which purported to prove there wasn’t sex-selective abortions in the U.S., that they are occurring. As NRLC discussed back in 2012

Dr. Sunita Puri and three other researchers at the University of California interviewed “65 immigrant Indian women in the United States who had pursued fetal sex selection.” They wrote: “We found that 40% of the women interviewed had terminated prior pregnancies with female fetuses and that 89% of women carrying female fetuses in their current pregnancy pursued an abortion.” This powerful study discusses in detail the multiple forms of pressure and outright coercion to which such women are often subjected: “Forty women (62%) described verbal abuse from their female in laws or husbands. . . . One-third of women described past physical abuse and neglect related specifically to their failing to produce a male child.” As a result, “women reported having multiple closely spaced pregnancies with terminations of female fetuses under pressure to have a male child.” (“‘There is such a thing as too many daughters, but not too many sons’,” Social Science & Medicine 72 (2011), 1169-1176)

Another study examined American-born offspring of foreign-born Chinese, Korean, and Indian parents. According to Lu

“the really significant finding concerned third births in families who already had two daughters. Among these children, there were 151 boys for every 100 girls. Almond and Edlund drew the obvious conclusion: when expecting for the third time, a significant number of Asian parents preferred an abortion to a third daughter.”

What about the new study–“Replacing Myths with Facts: Sex Selective Laws in the United States”? It’s been hailed as bigger and better and disproving (hence the “myths” language) that there are sex selective abortions here at home. That was the “takeaway” trumpeted by the usual suspects. Only it wasn’t true.

This was obscured because, as Lu writes, the authors “bur[ied] the single most important piece of information in a forest of far-less-relevant facts, graphs, and meanderings about methodology.”

She notes

“It’s got to be frustrating when you bring together a lot of important-sounding organizations to do a big, splashy study, and it ends up confirming the piece of data that most sticks in your craw. But now that we’ve descended to throwing around accusations of racism, I think the truth should be spoken. Asian-born American parents with two daughters are significantly more likely to have a son for their third child. Combined with Puri’s qualitative study, and ample data confirming the use of sex-selective abortion in some Asian cultures, that constitutes strong evidence that it also happens here in the United States.”

Lu adds (tongue in cheek?), “My compliments to the University of Chicago for confirming this with their new, comprehensive study.”

Of course, the last thing the authors of this study and others of a similar ilk will concede is what the evidence tells anyone willing to read it. But assuming they did, what do they do with it? The options are not promising.

“America is a big country and the relevant sub-cultures are fairly small. So pro-choicers could bite the bullet and suggest that even if sex-selective abortion happens and is sort of distasteful, maybe a few hundred or thousand aborted daughters either way just aren’t that big of a deal? Hey, I’m just laying out your options, if you happen to be a pro-choice feminist.”

But the one option, Lu write, which is not available for anyone interested in truth is to permit

“further deception about what the data is really saying. Even less should we permit disingenuous attempts to dismiss the struggle against femicide as racist or misogynistic.”

Two Lovely and Freedom Loving Lesbians Stand Up To Gay Bullies!

Published by Papa Giorgio

Gay Patriot shot me over to The Blaze’s article on this… good stuff, and I LOVE these two ladies.

Glenn Beck interviews from lesbians who disagree with the gay fascist left. [Edited for brevity and emphasis added to the really important bit that only a complete smeghead would disagree with.]

[Kathy Trautvetter and Diane DiGeloromo, a lesbian couple who own and operate BMP T-shirts, a New Jersey-based printing company, sat down with Glenn Beck Thursday night to explain why they are standing up for an embattled Christian printer who refused to make shirts for a gay pride festival.]

[….]

The lesbian couple are standing up for Christian t-shirt maker Blaine Adamson, who refused to print shirts for a gay pride festival because it compromised his values. Adamson has come under attack for his stance, but this couple supports him. The story is a microcosm for what should be happening in America as we navigate the way the world is changing.

“As a business owner, it struck a chord with me when I read the story, because I know how hard it is to build a business. You put your blood and your sweat and your tears into every bit of it. When I put myself in his place, I immediately felt like if that were to happen to us, I couldn’t create or print anti-gay T-shirts, you know, for a group. I couldn’t do it,” Kathy explained.

Diane added, “We feel this really isn’t a gay or straight issue. This is a human issue. No one really should be forced to do something against what they believe in. It’s as simple as that, and we feel likewise. If we were approached by an organization such as the Westboro Baptist Church, I highly doubt we would be doing business with them.”“Everybody votes with their dollars, you know?” Kathy said. “And why you would want to go with somebody who doesn’t agree with you, [when] there’s others who do agree with you, that’s who I want to do business with.”

Nice. If only all gay people were so tolerant and open-minded.

Utopia Doesn’t Happen, It Must Be Imposed

Published by Papa Giorgio

A great post by Gay Patriot (VtheK)

Ever since Barack Hussein Obama became president, there has been a notable acceleration in the use of State power to punish, harass, and wreak vengeance on those the left perceives as their enemies. Just a few examples:

Inevitably, when the left-wing comes to power, the first order of business is to punish their perceived enemies. That has been the case in every country in which any brand of Marxism has come into power. There was a naive assumption that the political system of the United States, with its body of laws and system of checks and balances, was immune to these types of abuses. Clearly, the last six years have shown that it is not.

Modern leftism is less a set of political beliefs than a militant pathology. If your political philosophy is based on the idea that those who disagree with you are evil, and/or greedy, and/or racist, and/or homophobic, and/or sexist, then, of course, they need to be punished, and of course, the reason your side was elected was to punish them. Obama himself admitted as much when he stated that the purpose of elections was “to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” And his administration and his party have done exactly that….

…read it all…

(It’s a Gay World) Government Boot Backfires Against Gay Left

Published by Papa Giorgio

Gay Patriot writes about a recent logical conclusion of the Gay Left and their wanting to force private businesses to participate in gay wedding celebrations. With all the BIG government laws their is surely an aspect of backfire involved… I mean, the BIGGER government gets, the smaller the individual is:

…But, you know, once you let that sort of idea… that the Government can force a business to labor for others against their will… you never know where that sort of thing is going to end up.

A Denver bar has been cited by the state’s Division of Civil Rights for discrimination because it refused to let a gay man dressed in drag enter. The bar is the Denver Wrangler, and despite what its name might suggest, it is not some Country Western joint. It is, in fact, a gay bar. So the state has determined that a gay bar has discriminated against a gay person

Wha-a-a-a-a-a….?

Gay Patriot proceeds to explain the bars target audience, what in the gay lifestyle apparently are called “bears”?

… [the bar] caters to a gay subculture known as “Bears,” which are bisexual or gay males which tend to place importance on presenting a hypermasculine image and often shun interaction with men who exhibit effeminacy. This is evident from the pictures and statements made by employees regarding the “Bear” culture of the club and several links on the Respondent’s webpage referencing “Bear” clubs … .”

That’s right… a taxpayer-paid Government employee investigated and found out about the Bear subculture and interviewed bar patrons to find out what that was.

So, Gay Fascist Left, you wanted the Government in the business of policing businesses and their clientele, and now a bear bar is being cited for twink-discrimination.

Well done.

Indeed, if wanting to strip one’s self of individual rights and freedoms… well done. But some gays “GET IT” and fight for freedom!

Bans Against Polygamy Unconstitutional (Updated w/Incest)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Greased Up Slide down Slope

…If Christianity and the Christian moral and societal framework is no longer viewed as normative in laws governing sexual practice, then the slippery slope to legalizing polygamy is here. We already know from the Lawrence ruling that the state may not regulate private consensual sexual conduct; if the principle that privileging Christian marital norms* is impermissible is accepted, by what standard do we prevent polygamy? I suppose you could say it harms society in some way, but this judge rejected that argument. Scalia’s Lawrence dissent was correct. We’re just seeing the logic of the majority opinion play out in the courts. That, and the collapse of Christianity as the basis for Western society. (The American Conservative)

* Actually, the argument for fidelity to one person of the opposite sex pre-dates Christianity as well [not just Judaism either]… see my “Point #3“

Incest!?

HotAir will catch us up on the “haps” in our court system, and then we will let GP comment on the situation as these guys [only] can:

Jonathan Turley set quite a few tongues to wagging yesterday when he published an article with the provocative title, “Federal Court Strikes Down Criminalization of Polygamy in Utah.” It involves the case of Brown v Buhman, where Turley himself is one of the lawyers involved. The introduction to his announcement certainly fanned the flames of those who follow this subject closely.

It is with a great pleasure this evening to announce that decision of United States District Court judge Clark Waddoups striking down key portions of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional. The Brown family and counsel have spent years in both the criminal phase of this case and then our challenge to the law itself in federal court. Despite the public statements of professors and experts that we could not prevail in this case, the court has shown that it is the rule of law that governs in this country.

If the name Brown when related to the subject of polygamy is ringing a bell for some of you, that’s because the family in question is one and the same as the stars of the TLC series Sister Wives. This differs significantly from HBO’s highly successful, but completely fictional series Big Love, in that Sister Wives is a reality TV show based on the lives of actual polygamists.

A I mentioned above, this announcement set some people off immediately, including Professor Bainbridge.

  • Next stop on the slippery slope express, I assume, will be consensual adult incest marriages.

He followed that up with a tweet saying, “Robert Bork was right. We are Slouching Towards Gomorrah.”

…read more…

Indeed! Part of Utah`s Admittance

One of the comments in the GP post that makes TOTAL sense in its conclusions:

Well we went from “Does the sex of the partner really matter?” to “Does the number of partners really matter?”, so my money is on “Do the ages of the partners really matter?”, followed by “Does the genetic proximity of the partners really matter?”, followed by “Does the species of the partners really matter?”, but I think we have a good 50 to 100 years on that last one.

How long do you think it will be before we’re hearing about a 30-something single dad and his teenaged identical twin sons having a three-way wedding?

Another commentator on FreeRepublic notes well that “…wasn’t outlawing polygamy a condition of Utah’s statehood?”

Here is Gay Patriot layin’ down the intelligent commentary on the progressive left in our country being at the center of this rot, not exclusively gays, but gay leftists and hetero leftists:

“Don’t be ridiculous,” they said. “No way does same sex marriage lead to legalized polygamy. The slippery slope argument is a complete fallacy, because enactment of one liberal social policy has never, ever led to the subsequent enactment of the logical extension of that liberal social policy. Ever!”

Well, they may have been wrong about the coefficient of friction on that particular incline. Commenter Richard Bell notes the following: Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional.

Interestingly, the judge’s 91-page opinion cites a series of legal precedents that have gradually redefined marriage, and limited the ability of the state to define it. Almost as though there had been some kind of negative gradient, and the law had been gravitationally drawn to the lower end of the gradient as a result of the lack of adhesion on that gradient.

Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined.

(emphasis added)

Ouch! So on the money! Liberalism in political philosophy, scientific paradigms, theology, and the like, all have the same outcome from the affect. Dilution to the point of relativised thinking, to wit Tammy Bruce cogently says — and for those that do not know, she is a lesbian:

★ Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic. (Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values, 35.) [read more]

The same arguments in the case SCOTUS decided (Brown v. Buhman) will be used in an incest case here in the states (See the NY Times, as well as Time Magazine). With the fertilization choices, the fact that it takes multiple generations for “webbed feet,” and the idea that a sister-and-sister, or brother-and-brother cannot have children, leave the incest case open, as the Brown case has already been used to argue against polygamy.Incest Star Wars SMALL

Here is the last paragraph of the Time Magazine article that notes the players in the “incest” battle:

The ACLU has filed suit in several states to challenge the few remaining statutes that prohibit unmarried couples from living together. This is the sort of case that may have a better chance of expanding Lawrence’s reach, said Katine.

Here is Scalia, as quoted via U.S. News and World Report:

In his dissent of that ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia angrily warned that if the court was willing to strike down sodomy laws, other state laws on moral choices could soon be lifted, among them gay marriage. He wrote:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity … every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.

He further argued:

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?’

INDEED!