And today over at Ace of Spades. I actually refused to blog about it on Sunday, because Sundays are one of my few days where I can lay my worries aside and say "Screw it, today I'm relaxing." So I held off on getting upset.
But oh look, it's Monday, and I'm pissed off.
Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to $1,000 in fines, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.
Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, two ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene.
“Right now they are at risk of being prosecuted,” attorney Jeremy Tedesco told me. “The threat of enforcement is more than just credible.”
The wedding chapel is registered as a “religious corporation” limited to performing “one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”
However, the chapel is also a for-profit business and city officials said that means the owners must comply with the local nondiscrimination ordinance.
This is the sort of thing that the anti-gay-marriage people have been warning about, but we were called a bunch of bigots so shut up they explained.
Here's a simple test of logic - would those two ministers own that wedding chapel if they were not Christians who followed their religious doctrine? Nope. Would they be marrying people if they were not ordained ministers? Nope.
This is my hometown. And I'm calling the mayor's office today, and letting them know in no uncertain terms that I am not out here doing my best to protect and defend the Constitution just so that they can use it as toilet paper.
I was anti-gay marriage before all this set in. I am rapidly becoming anti-gay, period, because in this country "Gay" is pretty much indistinguishable from "Progressive Marxist". If they cannot leave religious people like these two ministers alone, I see no reason why I should be forced to put up with their actions. Live and let live only works when both sides do it. As we can plainly see here, the Gay Lobby uses tactics from the Marxist Left (use government to enforce your beliefs on other people) rather than the Libertarian side (leave me alone, I leave you alone), and that makes them the enemy. And yes, I said it. The Gay Lobby. The same people who sue to force cake-makers to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings. The same people who sue to have religious owners of an event site host a gay wedding, AFTER paying over $10k in fines. The same people who use the power of the state to impose THEIR morality onto others, the very same crime they have shrieked about for decades, even while everything they claimed to be happening to them... wasn't. Like good little Marxists, they project their actions onto their opponents.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a phone call to make.
6 comments:
I realize I'm a minority here, but I'm a libertarian lesbian. We do exist, but we're outnumbered by the proggies.
And I, for one, sure as hell wouldn't want to partake of a service that that I had to FORCE someone to perform. Too many ways for that to go wrong.
It is a violation of the Constitution in several ways -- the government forcing someone to say certain words, and if those words are of a religious nature, then it also violates the "religious establishment" clause (as per Volokh), but EVEN IF, there are too many other options that are less intrusive, such as the nondenominational court clerk's office which is right across the street from this religious chapel.
This will not end well, either because the SCOTUS will land on the side of religious protection, beginning the pendulum swing back away from the Gay Mafia running things, or it will land on the side of that extreme minority beginning to close down churches, which will result in armed resistance, sooner rather than later.
So much for tolerance.
"I realize I'm a minority here"...
Dear, not to be offensive, but the totality of the LGBTLSMFTWTF crowd is less than 10% of the population, even under the most generous definitions and all 54 genders claimed. The most accurate survey to date (by NHS) shows actually less than 4%. (see note below)
You are a minority EVERYWHERE, even in San Francisco.
* - "Based on the 2013 NHIS data, 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as ‘‘something else,’’ stated ‘‘I don’t know the answer,’’ or refused to provide an answer." (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf)
Nah, that's not offensive, though I appreciate the courtesy. :D
My main point was "Even though I'm a minority of a minority, we're not all against straight folks. Some of us like you quite a lot and are mostly on your side politically, so please don't put all of us against the wall."
Erin - I don't want to put anyone up against the wall, until me and mine start getting threatened. And once that happens, my goal in life will be to obliterate the threat so completely that the threat's name will turn into a verb, and nobody will ever try to screw with me and mine again.
Unfortunately, you ARE in the minority - gay libertarians are as rare as conservative Democrats. The sad fact is that homosexuals in this country are much better represented by the San Francisco crowd than the Ron Paul crowd, which which means the political spectrum where anyone to the right of Chairman Mao is considered "Right Wing". If the gay rights lobby was content to leave us bible-thumping Reich-Wingers alone to hump our sisters, then I really wouldn't care less about what they did in their own homes. But that hasn't happened. What HAS happened is that the Left is now using the law as a club to bludgeon folks with Religious convictions, and it's being done in the name of "Women's Health", or "Feminism", or "Gay Rights".
Despite my frequent use of hyperbole, I very seldom start a fight. But if I'm engaged in a fight, then win or lose I'm sending someone to the hospital. Forcing Christians to have same-sex marriage is a fight. So someone's going to the hospital, win or lose.
The "local ordinance" is flatly unconstitutional. And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- insofar as it is purported to support the "public accommodation" notion is, too. But we'll never get our freedom of association back if we don't fight for it.
M
Post a Comment