Nope, it's *not* about cake (or much sweetness at all)
The Family Leader's David Barnett is absolutely right that the Colorado baker situation is not really about cake. Unfortunately, he's completely wrong about what it is about:
The right to free speech and freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment has been ruled by an activist judge to be subject to the feelings of a particular people group. Judge Spencer said in the ruling:
“It may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” he ruled. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”
Translation: “Because they might feel bad, this baker and other Christians like him, must forfeit their right to religious liberty.”
So, let me get this straight – in order to get a cake, these two guys sued a baker, and had his first amendment rights stripped away?
Somehow, I don’t think this is about cake…
FULL: Iowa: It’s Not About the Cake [The Family Leader via Focus on the Family's Citizenlink]
See what he did there in his translation (third line)? He made it all about Christians and their supposed victimization, as if we are talking about a law that only protects LGBT people and specifically targets people of faith. That is purposeful on his (and his larger movement's) part.
In reality, we are talking about nondiscrimination laws that also protect people on the basis of gender, race, religion, national origin, age, disability, etc. It's not just about sexual orientation protections (which, I should remind you, also protect people with a heterosexual orientation). We are talking about laws that root out all forms of unfair discrimination, which we base on real life knowledge of groups that tend to be targeted.
Religious people were included because religious people are, in fact, sometimes marked for unfair discrimination. And so are LGBT people. The big difference is that most every L, G, B, or T person I know fully supports protections as they apply to people of faith while the most vocal proponents of marrying faith and politics refuse to extend the same courtesy our way.
So no, it's not Christians who must "forfeit" this supposed "right" to pick and choose which customers a business that purports to do business with the public must serve—it's ALL OF US! We do not have the right to nakedly flout nondiscrimination laws. And no, it doesn't change a thing simply because the person who wants to discriminate couples his or her selective business practices with a couple of bible quotes.
We are 'for' marriage demands org that's never done one thing that truly supports marriage
The National Organization for Marriage talks and fights against same-sex marriage—daily and in full. In its six years of existence, this organization has never proposed one measure that limits divorce, ensures marital success, or in any way "strengthens" the institution. They have, however, taken away people's rights and continue to fight for a full agenda that, if left to its own unchecked devices, would see people like me legally divorced from our spouses.
But when Pope Francis talked about those Catholic conservatives who obsess about certain issues, he wasn't talking about NOM. Heavens no, claims NOM's president Brian Brown. That's because, according to Brian, NOM is actually a group working for rather than against people. Oh, and it's all out of love, natch:
"While we might seem to 'talk about those issues all the time,' it's only because our opponents' attacks on marriage never relent. We must never allow it to be in the way [Pope] Francis criticizes: we cannot speak only about them, out of context, only criticizing the bad and never praising the good.
In fact, we've striven at NOM for years to explain that it's not a matter of being "against" or "anti" anyone or anything. Rather, we are for marriage: for the essential service it provides for the good of humanity, for the role it plays in bringing men and women together and uniting them in love to one another and to their children.
Let us take heart, then, and learn the real lesson that Pope Francis's popularity teaches all of us: the overarching importance of always presenting the truth in love. There will always be those who disagree, but disagreement must never turn to hate or malice. We love every one of God's children and all His good gifts, like the wonderful gift of marriage between husband and wife. May that spirit of love be our banner always."
—NOM president Brian Brown
No, no—Not against anyone. Except, you know, for all those times NOM folks have advocated for so-called "ex-gay" therapy, vowed to divide minority groups, threatened to "sideswipe" our president mere months after he took office, vowed to ruin the careers of any legislator or judge who simply disagrees with NOM, headed to Russia to foment hostilities, boycotted companies for supporting marriage equality, or pushed yet another attempt to make life less free for the American taxpayer who happens to be gay. But you're supposed to just overlook all that. You're supposed to focus instead on the "love" that oozes out of the K Street offices.
Or you can just pay attention to what NOM employees actually do everyday (i.e. collect salaries by fostering discrimination).
Video: Pat Robertson warns of contagious lesbianism
Listen in as a 700 Club viewer and its host have an on-air conversation about how to properly quarantine viral lesbian so that it doesn't spread throughout the home:
Oh please. Just don't drink or use the toilet after she does and you probably won't catch it.
Sheesh, anti-gay evangelicals can be *such* hypochondriacs.
GLAAD: Bob Newhart, don't become the next Kirk Cameron!
The anti-LGBT movement's goal is our criminalization. Stop pretending otherwise.
If you don't believe that the American far-right would love to reinstate bans on homosexuality, you simply are not paying attention. Check out these new comments from the executive director of the legal organization that represents the other side in most every court case we face:
"When given the same choice the Supreme Court of the United States had in Lawrence vs. Texas, the Indian Court did the right thing," says [Benajmin Bull, executive director of Alliance Defending Freedom Global], which was choose to "protect society at large rather than give in to a vocal minority of homosexual advocates."
"America needs to take note that a country of 1.2 billion people has rejected the road towards same-sex marriage, and understood that these kinds of bad decisions in the long run will harm society," he adds."
FULL: Attorney: India got it right on homosexual 'rights' [ONN]
"The road to same-sex marriage"? Hogwash! Mr. Bull (fitting name) is using that as cover for his support of what we are really talking about here: the day-to-day existence of human beings who are marked as criminals for who they are and how they love.
The good news about heinous decisions like the one in India is that the anti-LGBT movement often drops its guard at times of "victory." When they applaud this decision, which the UN is already noting as a violation of international law, I suggest we pay attention. And call them out.
Sen Mike Lee (R) to waste more time, resources, potential for national unity on unnecessary anti-LGBT bill
Marriage equality activists will be the first to tell you that we are not asking, seeking, or forcing churches to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Our fight is about CIVIL marriage equality. Churches and individual faith leader are free to make these determinations for themselves, just as they always have with opposite-sex unions that some might find objectionable (e.g. interfaith, non-faith, prior divorce, child out of wedlock, etc.).
But leave it to House Republicans to waste more time on non-issues that they hope will damage both equality and the current U.S. President. Sen Mike Lee (Very Far R-Utah) is teaming up with cosponsors like Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL.), John Thune (R-SD), Tom Coburn (R-OK.), Pat Roberts (R-KS.) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to sponsor this ridiculous bill:
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) plans to introduce a bill Wednesday that would prevent the Obama administration from pressuring churches into recognizing gay marriage.
Full: MIKE LEE AUTHORS BILL TO PROTECT CHURCHES FROM BEING PRESSURED INTO RECOGNIZING GAY MARRIAGE [The Blaze]
What's really annoying about this is the fact—THE FACT!—that the very reason why the whole religious ceremony versus civil marriage conversation is so screwed up in this country is because social conservatives like these senators have spent the past decade insisting that this CIVIL rights conversation is all about them and their "religious freedom."
The fact is, pro-LGBT progressives are some of the most-willing-to-support-true-religious-freedom people that you will find anywhere. I'm not just saying this because it's convenient—I'm saying it because it's true. Virtually any credible pro-equality activist is 100% willing to grant churches all of the religious exemptions to which they are entitled. Individuals have the freedom to push the equal marriage conversation within their church denominations, and some surely will (good on them!). But the marriage equality movement is not and never has been seeking church marriage. Our fight is for the civil licensing, with the always-optional religious ceremony guided by the church's own decision-making.
The idea that they, the same folks who refuse to take us at our word because they know their spin will help them recruit duped voters, are now acting like we are the ones who have been acting in bad faith is laughable, at best. WIllfully-deceptive-in-a-disgusting-way-unbecoming-of-a-U.S.-Senator, at worst.
Read: Anti-gay coalition sends SPLC-bashing letter to Secretary Hagel
When it comes to a movement that hates nothing more than its own rhetoric presented back to it and its water-carriers, there are no bigger enemies than those of us who bring more light to their extreme views. Which is why these folks hate GLAAD's Commentator Accountability Project, bloggers who track their work, sites like RightWingWatch—and particularly the Southern Poverty Law Center.
In a new letter that some of the most anti-LGBT voices in the nation (Bauer! Staver! Boykin!) have sent to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, this increasingly desperate movement continues to fire rhetorical shots at the messenger rather than take responsibility for their own words and actions. Once again, they have the SPLC front and center:
They've been trying this stuff for so many years now. In all that time, I've yet to hear even one of these anti-LGBT figures actually acknowledge what they've said and done to earn scrutiny. Not one. It's all part of this weird far-right idea that it's somehow worse to call someone anti-gay (or anti–any number of things) than it is to actually be actively (and often militantly) opposed to the minority group in question.
And no, the fact that a madman used the SPLC's documented findings in order to find out that the FRC is actively anti-gay does not change the facts. That 2012 incident was sad, awful, frightening, and worthy of the strongest condemnation—and LGBT groups led the charge saying as much! But just because this crazed individual misused the work does not strip the work of its merits.
AFA's star spokesman: We need a Supreme Court that will criminalize gays
Bryan Fischer is a big fan of criminalizing gay people—that is not news. But with the Supreme Court of India's chilling decision to uphold an ancient ban on homosexuality, the American Family Association's biggest star feels emboldened to admit his true desires:
Of course what we actually have is a U.S. Supreme Court that, while decidedly conservative, still strikes down sodomy bans and invalidates federal laws limiting marriage equality. That's where we are; that's where we're headed. Because Bryan's vision of society is not just wrongheaded to people like me, but it is also unsupportable even by a court where GOP presidents appointed a majority of the justices. He's that out of touch.
Although if Bryan wants to convince his organization to move itself to the India that he apparently so cherishes, I will gladly get behind that plan. That's an outsourcing I can fully support!