Seriously, this is the most absurd fake outrage I’ve ever seen in my life. Don’t get me wrong, I support gay marriage. However, I also believe in free speech. Sure, free speech occasionally comes with consequences — you have the right to say what you want, but you’d better be willing to live with it, but many of the people who have gotten on a soap box about this don’t exactly have their hands clean. As Conor Friedersdorf notes, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel worked for President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama at times when they opposed gay marriage:
Many voices have beat me to clucking at Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel for suggesting that its appropriate to prevent Chick-fil-A from opening a Windy City store because its CEO opposes gay marriage. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh explained why the threatened action is a violation of the First Amendment. Glenn Greenwald insisted that all liberals should object to the awful precedent it would set. Wrote Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, “You don’t hand out business licenses based on whether you agree with the political views of the executives. Not in America, anyway.”
All that’s left to say is what Michael Brendan Dougherty alludes to: As mayor of a safely Democratic city, Emanuel avows that “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.” In his initial formulation, since walked back, opposition to gay marriage is cast as so awful a transgression as to render one unfit to sell Chicagoans fast food! Yet Emanuel had no problem helping Barack Obama to attain the most powerful office in America while Obama was against gay marriage, a position the president clung to until this year. Nor did he shy away from Bill Clinton, helping him to win the Democratic primary in 1992 and serving as an adviser even after Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
And that’s another point that should be made. If you’re expressing outrage at Chick-fil-A, why the hell were you not protesting President Obama before his “evolution” on the issue just a couple of months ago?
That goes to the heart of the matter and it's refreshing to see it come from someone who says he supports gay marriage.
I pray he'll see that this has little to do with gay marriage. It has everything to do with setting up that which will be used to quash religious liberty.
Chick-fil-A’s president spoke out against gay marriage last week, sparking a huge uproar in the gay community, and now the issue is spilling over to a Colorado bakery.
The owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood refused to bake a wedding cake for a local gay couple and now people are pushing a boycott against the owner.
Shop owner Jack Phillips probably didn’t think he was going to be wading into a civil rights debate a week ago when he told the gay couple that he would not make a cake for their wedding, but that’s exactly what has happened.
Dozens of protesters gathered outside the shop on Saturday and were very angry.
It wasn’t the first time the shop turned down gay couples who wanted a cake. Phillips has received more than 1,000 angry messages about his stance.
“If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever,” Phillips said. “It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.”
“We would close down that bakery before we closed our beliefs, so that may be what it comes to … we’ll see,” Phillips said.
I predict a backlash against gay fascism and this guy's business being unable to handle the onslaught of orders he'll likely be receiving.
America is waking to the fact that this has nothing to do with tolerance.
How would these people have reacted if Romney gave this speech:
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania the Palestinian Territories, and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest Middle East, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Rabin administration, and the Bush Netanyahu administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrantIsraeli sentiment or anti-tradeJewish sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
I suspect the reaction would have been what it now is, with absurd charges of racism and cultural insensitivity.
It's tough for me to know at this point whether my being enamored with this speech is impacted by my dislike of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or if it's simply that Romney is growing into this role he's embarking on capturing and capturing me as he grows.
Bottom line is that this speech is one of his best in my view. Watch it and see if you agree:
If someone can find something as eloquent, as passionate, as true, as supportive of Israel from Obama then please, oh please, share it here and enlighten us all.
I am fascinated by these stories and on the off chance that some of you need to read them, I'm more than willing to share them:
I still say to this very day that the greatest argument against Protestantism is Protestantism. Most Protestant churches are by far pro-choice and pro-homosexual. Protestantism was born in schism and she begets schisms. Schisms are all she knows and it will be all she ever knows. The principle of sola scriptura is not only self-defeating but the consequence of this doctrine has had a large impact in the creation of over thousands and thousands of denominations. I will stop here for now but perhaps I will blog later about why I believe the Protestant Reformation is also (significantly) responsible for the Enlightenment and secularism as we know it.
Now coming back to how my graduate studies in philosophy helped pave the way, it was by reading the medieval Catholic philosophers like Anselm, Aquinas, and Molina, as well as reading contemporary Catholic philosophers like Feser, van Inwagen, Stump, and Flint. Reading philosophers like these allowed me to see that Catholics were not the enemies. Rather, Catholics were my allies against the likes of naturalism. I began to appreciate them when I realized they were always showing up to the abortion clinics with me as well.
After becoming more open to Catholics in general, I began to have a more aesthetic attraction to the Church. I found the Church beautiful and its thinkers both godly and brilliant. However, I still would not become Catholic as I thought they believed that one entered a state of grace by their works and that they believed Jesus needed to be re-sacrificed on the cross over and over again.
These prejudicial conjectures would soon be pushed off as I found catholic.com and calledtocommunion.com. It was at these sites that I realized most of my beliefs about the Church were not true. I found myself agreeing with Archbishop John Sheen as he states, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.”
I would continue to investigate Rome’s claims. There were of course times when I would want to end my journey, however, God would not let me. There was even one night last Mother’s Day where I had a dream that a man was calling me to become a Catholic. What is even more strange is that the same night, my wife had a spiritual dream. The conclusion of her dream was that we were not to go to Israel but we were to help defend the faith here. Why were these dreams so strange? These dreams were strange for us because the few weeks beforehand, we were praying on the topics of going to Israel and if Rome’s doctrines were true. Needless to say, we attended Mass that day.
THE words “freedom of belief” do not appear in the First Amendment. Nor do the words “freedom of worship.” Instead, the Bill of Rights guarantees Americans something that its authors called “the free exercise” of religion.
It’s a significant choice of words, because it suggests a recognition that religious faith cannot be reduced to a purely private or individual affair. Most religious communities conceive of themselves as peoples or families, and the requirements of most faiths extend well beyond attendance at a sabbath service — encompassing charity and activism, education and missionary efforts, and other “exercises” that any guarantee of religious freedom must protect.
To the extent that the H.H.S. mandate, the Cologne ruling and the Chick-fil-A controversy reflect a common logic rather than a shared confusion, then, it’s a logic that regards Western monotheism’s ideas about human sexuality — all that chastity, monogamy, male-female business — as similarly incompatible with basic modern freedoms.
Like a belief that the gods want human sacrifice, these ideas are permissible if held in private. But they cannot be exercised in ways that might deny, say, employer-provided sterilizations to people who really don’t want kids. Nor can they be exercised to deny one’s offspring the kind of sexual gratification that anti-circumcision advocates claim the procedure makes impossible. They certainly cannot be exercised in ways that might make anyone uncomfortable with his or her own sexual choices or identity.
It may seem strange that anyone could look around the pornography-saturated, fertility-challenged, family-breakdown-plagued West and see a society menaced by a repressive puritanism. But it’s clear that this perspective is widely and sincerely held.
It would be refreshing, though, if it were expressed honestly, without the “of course we respect religious freedom” facade.
If you want to fine Catholic hospitals for following Catholic teaching, or prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons, or ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, then don’t tell religious people that you respect our freedoms. Say what you really think: that the exercise of our religion threatens all that’s good and decent, and that you’re going to use the levers of power to bend us to your will.
There, didn’t that feel better? Now we can get on with the fight.
That's about the clearest depiction of what "the fight" is really about I think I've seen.
And I trust that when the American people see "the fight" couched in terms that cuts through all the crap, all the deception, all the manipulation, all the obfuscation, they'll act in ways that make our founding fathers proud.
Given his stance on Chick-fil-A, would Mayor Tom Menino grant permits to a group that has counted among its leaders a man who has repeatedly called homosexuality a “crime that must be punished” by death?
Actually, he has done that . . . and more! Menino effectively gave away city land valued at $1.8 million to the organization, and he gave a speech at its ribbon-cutting ceremony.
It’s the Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque, and when it comes to anti-gay sentiment, one of its early supporters makes Chick-fil-A look like the Provincetown Men’s Chorus.
During the (understandable) controversy over the city selling land for a house of worship at a below-market rate a decade ago, reporters discovered that the Islamic Society of Boston counted imam Yusef al-Qaradawi as one of its spiritual guides. As the Weekly Standard reported at the time:
“The ISB does not dispute the fact that they have repeatedly used al-Qaradawi as a tool to raise funds for the Boston mosque, printing a brochure that highlighted al-Qaradawi’s enthusiastic support of the mosque and playing a videotaped message of support from him at a 2002 gathering.”
Also in attendance at the gathering, listening to al-Qaradawi’s message: Mayor Tom Menino.
I'm sure Menino, should he be confronted with what was just read, would atempt to wriggle out of it in some way by pointing out how may Muslims are moderate and how many would not take seriously the Quranic command to put the homosexual to death.
But that benefit of the doubt the idiot won't extend to Christians and so in the mental gymnastics tumbling forth from the excuse for a brain that sits in the man's head, he finds Christians more threatening in some way than Muslims.
Yea, I think we can call him anti-Christian.
And I think we can do the same for his buddy Obama. Bowing to Muslim leaders, extending the open hand of friendship while in the same breath attempting to shove the HHS mandate down the throat of Catholics who actually believe in the tenets of their faith.
Yea, I think we can call him anti-Christian as well.