Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Gay Republicans Make Less Sense Now Than Ever Before

Posted by on Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Two must-read posts by Andrew Sullivan today. He loudly calls bullshit on laws being floated in Kansas, Tennessee, and Idaho that would allow individuals, businesses, and government employees to discriminate against gay couples if gay marriage—or gay relationships or gay existences—violate "deeply held religious beliefs." Andrew asks: Why no laws allowing devout Catholics to discriminate against divorced and remarried couples?

For me, with devout Catholics, the acid test is divorce. The bar on divorce—which, unlike the gay issue, is upheld directly by Jesus in the Gospels—is just as integral to the Catholic meaning of marriage as the prohibition on gay couples. So why no laws including that potential violation of religious liberty? Both kinds of marriage are equally verboten in Catholicism. So where is the political movement to insist that devout Catholics do not have to cater the second weddings of previously divorced people?

For that matter, why no consideration of those whose religious beliefs demand that they not bless marriages outside their own faith-community? Do we enshrine the right of, say, an Orthodox Jewish hotel-owner to discriminate against unmarried couples who might be inter-married across faiths? Do we allow an evangelical to discriminate against Mormon couples, because their doctrine about marriage is so markedly different from mainstream Christianity’s?

It seems to me that the acid test for the new bills being prepared by the Christianist right with respect to religious freedom and marriage is whether they are discriminatory against gays and straights alike. Currently, they don’t begin to pass muster on that front. Until they do, the presumption that they are motivated by bigotry rather than faith is perfectly legitimate.

In another post Andrew notes that Republicans are backing these bills and conservative media is cheerleading for them:

National Review has four pieces up right now on marriage equality. All take it as a premise that civil marriage for gay people is a civilizational catastrophe and argue for a ramped up culture war against it. Those who once thought there could be some accommodation between gays and the GOP can only be further dismayed. Our liberties and dignity are meaningless to them—and there are close to no gay writers or thinkers on the right or center right that are allowed to participate in this debate. At some point, you begin to wonder whether this isn’t more than posturing. When they believe gays should be denied any legally supported relationship, when they oppose all anti-discrimination laws for gays (but are fine with them for every other minority), when they oppose hate crime laws for gays (but support them in every other category), you begin to realize that they are still living in the 1970s.

But remember, kids, gay people are obligated to support Republican candidates because... democracy! Or something.

 

Comments (74) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
ferret 1
None of these bills will survive a challenge in Federal Court. They violated the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Posted by ferret http://https://twitter.com/#!/okojo on February 19, 2014 at 4:02 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 2
@1, activist courts!
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 19, 2014 at 4:07 PM · Report this
The Beatles 3
I think hotel owners, etc. want to discriminate against gays because their breath smells like ass. I mean, all that rimming, come on!

Either that, or they're just flaming right-wing homophobic bigots.
Posted by The Beatles on February 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM · Report this
rob! 4
Calling out inconsistent legislation is one thing, but it pisses me off that Andrew Sullivan *still* feels himself more closely allied to the same societal forces that thought "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a moral triumph for almost TWENTY FUCKING YEARS.

The notion that any kind of omniscient deity would equate selling a CAKE (or anything else) to an incognito cocksucker with condoning some class of a sin other than gluttony is insane on its face.
Readers know I have sympathy for those – like evangelical florists, say – who feel that catering a same-sex wedding violates their conscience. I don’t like the idea of forcing those people to do something that truly offends them...
—Sully
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on February 19, 2014 at 4:13 PM · Report this
Ophian 5
I'm not so sure that the Republican part is all that happy about a lot of the laws protecting non-gay minorities from discrimination and hate crimes.
Posted by Ophian on February 19, 2014 at 4:14 PM · Report this
fletc3her 6
Oh come on, Andrew Sullivan. There is a large group of Republicans, many with a national presence, who do not support hate crimes or anti-discrimination legislation for anybody. They'd repeal all of the civil rights era laws if they could.
Posted by fletc3her on February 19, 2014 at 4:18 PM · Report this
7
@Ferret I don't think that is the case because in order for the courts to claim that the state is actively engaging in unequal application of law they would have to prove, or have some precedent stating, that by virtue of allowing business owners freedom of association they are intentionally and explicitly engaging in prejudice policies against homosexual people. I don't believe the court will want to engage in murky waters when it comes down to the State's ability to regulate the religious beliefs of individuals, whether those beliefs are tolerant or intolerant is irrelevant, it's not Christianity that is on trial, or the notion that homosexuality is a sin, it's the matter of whether or not a business owner has the right to decide who he or she would like to patronize, and the courts will call that notion equal protection because in this case, it's no protection.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 19, 2014 at 4:19 PM · Report this
8
@Fletc3her I'm certain there is a large population among the left that would ban Christianity on the grounds that it promotes "Hate Speech" or ban Catholic health organizations on the grounds that they limit Reproductive Rights. There are crazy people all up in down this great Country, most are crazy as hell.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 19, 2014 at 4:22 PM · Report this
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 9
Dan,
In contemporary America, the “differences” between Republicans and Democrats are obliterated by both parties’ identical enslavement to war-mongering corporate masters whose power is derived from the blood of exploited workers.
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on February 19, 2014 at 4:23 PM · Report this
10
"when they oppose all anti-discrimination laws for gays (but are fine with them for every other minority)"

But that's missing the key point. These people would like to discriminate against other minorities, and they used to be able to do so, but now those opportunities for discrimination have been taken away, so all they have left to hate on are the gays, so they're trying to hold onto that for as long as they can. We're nearing the point where even that won't be possible, at least in polite society. (The existence of these proposed laws is proof that we are nearing this point. If we weren't, there would be no need to proposed them.)

One question remains: Who will be the next minority that it's still okay to discriminate against (for a while)?
Posted by Moag on February 19, 2014 at 4:26 PM · Report this
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 11
Frankly, I might be okay with letting businesses discriminate against customers, as long as they are required to prominently post who they won’t serve. I’d appreciate the assistance in making sure that none of my gay dollars find their way into the coffers of homophobic business owners.
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on February 19, 2014 at 4:31 PM · Report this
fletc3her 12
@8 Are you really sure of that? I can positively say I've never met anybody who wanted to "ban Christianity" or even ban Catholic health organizations. There certainly are no prominent Democratic politicians advocating either of those things.

Although I do wish the state would block the merger of our local secular hospital with a Catholic-based chain of hospitals so that we continue to have a secular option for emergency care.
Posted by fletc3her on February 19, 2014 at 4:38 PM · Report this
13
@Moag Never have I read such a collection of childish illogical observations. you represent everything that is unsettling with modern liberal ideologies. You truly see the world as "us against them" don't you? Oh no, watch out, the scary white straight male patriarchy is going to get you, and they'll take the flannel from the lesbians and make the femboys wear it, and they'll disenfranchise the blacks and molest the transvestites, it's going to be a Triple Holocaust!
You've be sold a frighteningly narrow view of American politics, that takes advantage of the myth of the "Oppressed" class and glibly flips it on it's head whenever there is an election coming up. The real fucking truth of the matter is not a single person with the exception of psychopaths wakes up in the morning and thinks ,"Boy, I'd love to cause harm and do evil today". People are all trying to do what they think is right, it's nearly always a minor change of perspective that keeps people from agreeing on what the proper course is.
It's sad that people are willing to judge homosexuals for their lifestyle even though they aren't hurting anyone. It's equally sad that you and your contemporaries think that it's acceptable to levy that same scrutiny at followers of a particular religion. When people have disparate world views, they should shake hands and agree to disagree, don't be so fucking petty.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 19, 2014 at 4:38 PM · Report this
14
@8 Citation, please.
You're talking out your ass. And even if you weren't, anyone on "the left" who wanted to ban Christianity is living in a trailer off the grid somewhere in the middle of nowhere. The people who want to overturn all anti-discrimination legislation are sitting in the US Senate preparing for a run at the Republican Presidential nomination in 2016.
Posted by usagi on February 19, 2014 at 4:40 PM · Report this
15
@12 Tell me you can name a prominent contemporary republican that's campaigned for the removal of the Civil Rights Act and that will become a fair comparison. Do not pretend that Liberals aren't prone to radical opinions the same way that Republicans are, that's why there is an entire classification of people in this country called "Centrist", to distinguish them from everyone else.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 19, 2014 at 4:41 PM · Report this
ferret 16
@7 It is not murky waters. It is very very clear. One can't discriminate against that is already legally protected. The equal protection clause and how it is interpreted, means law cannot be inacted that disriminate or used to discriminate.

Religious Freedom won't cut it.

These laws are not about Religious denomination organization forced to marry or host same sex marriage, these laws are allowed anyone to refuse services, business or government employee based on religious grounds

It violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, besides how the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendement applies. No law is allowed to discriminate or used to discriminate against a minority which have legal rights, part of society. These laws are not to be passed and wieled by the majority as a club.

Posted by ferret http://https://twitter.com/#!/okojo on February 19, 2014 at 4:42 PM · Report this
James6 17
"The gay issue"? I spit on you.
Posted by James6 on February 19, 2014 at 4:44 PM · Report this
18
@13: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann's_ag…

I cannot agree to disagree with you.
Posted by Hanoumatoi on February 19, 2014 at 4:48 PM · Report this
19
@usagi I'll assume you've stopped talking about the Civil rights era laws (Which is what I was countering from Flethcer's post mind you) and begun talking strictly about the Hate Speech, which actually went fairly unregulated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the framers of that law did not want to enter a realm of constitutional uncertainty. As far as the notion that the Government should classify certain speech as Hate Speech and punish people for it, of course they shouldn't, and many republicans and democrats are in agreement about that. There can be no attempt by the government to regulate the speech of it's people save that you can be arrested for inciting violence or slanderous harassment. There's no such thing as hate speech, there are merely many people, mostly people of uncertain principles or insecure self esteem, that hate speech.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 19, 2014 at 4:52 PM · Report this
ferret 20
@7 One more point..
Business owners can discriminate for numerous reasons, (bad credit, fail to pay previous services, etc) The difference here is that passing a law that use "religious freedom" to discriminate against whatever group, GLBT or Circassians, violates the 14th Amendment. The First Amendment states no law in the establishment of religion, and any of these laws could be interpreted as a violation of the First Amendment.

This is not really about obnoxious business owners, or obnoxious trades people refusing their business because they are homophobes, it is about states passing laws that are a blatant violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Posted by ferret http://https://twitter.com/#!/okojo on February 19, 2014 at 4:54 PM · Report this
21
@16 Interesting point, mine being that these laws do not explicitly discriminate they merely allow business owners the freedom to associate with whom they wish, and your refutation that even if they are just used by some as basis to discriminate they are equally illegal. I would counter that in the case of an evangelical florist forced to cater to a wedding she feels is immoral, by threat of lawsuit, her legal rights have been infringed upon in a way that is equally unsettling. The fact that she is a member of a religion which may be the most populace in the country does not disqualify her right of private conscience, that is her right to decide what is right and wrong. Why not engage in a thought exercise, if the state demanded that you accept something you consider immoral, perhaps you're an animal rights activist that is forced to harm an animal or some such thing, I'm not being intentionally sensational by including harm to animals in the exercise it's just a decent enough example, would you feel the government is within their right? That is the crux of the matter, these people will be forced to engage in an activity they consider to be immoral, and that is discrimination as well.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 19, 2014 at 5:03 PM · Report this
sperifera 22
@13 - Your addition of the words "for their lifestyle" when it wasn't necessary to get your point across, tells me pretty much all I need to know about your thought process.
Posted by sperifera on February 19, 2014 at 5:05 PM · Report this
23
@20 I disagree that it contradicts the separation clause, and for the record, I'm an atheist that feels very strongly about the sanctity of that particular clause, but in this case it's not the Government limiting or allowing extra privilege for religion, it's actually the opposite, because the state is unequivocally stating that they will not interfere in a matter that they deem to be religious in nature. Whereas if they said that any patently christian notion, like homosexuality being a sin, is now illegal, they would be interfering in matters of religion and overstepping their bounds.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 19, 2014 at 5:09 PM · Report this
24
@22 your willingness to disregard the content of a person's message based solely on arbitrary linguistic differences proves every point I just made about neoliberal intolerance and narrow mindedness. You just single-handedly killed Martin Luther King's dream, stay classy.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 19, 2014 at 5:12 PM · Report this
fletc3her 25
@15, Well, there's Sen. Rand Paul who has said he thought the Civil Rights Act should only apply to organizations which received public funding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact…

And of course there's widespread support among Republicans for ending affirmative action and for the end of the voting rights act.

The Republican party has embraced many views that were considered rather outlandish by prior generations of Republican leaders. They are lurching far to the right and reject even traditionally conservative ideals when they are proposed by centrists like Obama. The far left has almost no political power in this country today.
Posted by fletc3her on February 19, 2014 at 5:17 PM · Report this
Backyard Bombardier 26
@24: Oh please. "Lifestyle" is a common dog-whistle expression that reduces the full depth and range of the lives and experiences of gays and lesbians to something roughly equivalent to their choice of shoes or hair color. A "lifestyle" can be changed, and frequently is.

Put another way: do you think you are straight, or are you just "living the straight lifestyle"?
Posted by Backyard Bombardier on February 19, 2014 at 5:21 PM · Report this
ferret 27
@21 Look the problem is with these laws, the religion belief becomes the arbitrator of the basis of discrimination, the law is the carrier, and in many ways opaque on standards..

Someone who is part of the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion can refuse right to those with that are gluten intolerant. The Church of Lebowski, can deny those who only want a Black Russian..

You may not like a person's ethnic descent, or whatever, or it is against one's religious belief, but equal protection of the law just means that, laws have to be used to cover all with no discrimination of a person's identity.

No matter the David Bartons of the world who make up sanctimonious crap about the First Amendment. Religion is not to be ban, but more importantly it is not to be codify in the law. These laws establishes religious beliefs, (no matter vague) as part of the law, a big First Amendment no-no. Equal protection is part of the Constitution and supersedes religious or moral beliefs, which are not allowed to be made into state or Federal legal codes...

As much as legal procedure and law is based on logic, the logic that these laws are test of "religious freedom" won't passed by a court...
Posted by ferret http://https://twitter.com/#!/okojo on February 19, 2014 at 5:26 PM · Report this
28
So, @23, you, as an atheist, would be okay if you walked into a flower shop or hotel and asked for publicly available services, were then questioned about your religious beliefs (maybe in a covert way "which church should we deliver these flowers to," "would you like a list of local {insert religion of the proprietor here} services tomorrow?"), and then were denied service because they didn't like your answer? Nope, sorry...not gonna fly. You open a PUBLIC business, you serve the PUBLIC. Not the slice of the public you deem "acceptable." You are still 100% entitled to practice your faith...to hang scripture verses all over your business, pray every time you make change, whatever floats your boat, but you don't get to say "no soup for you" over something that you may not even be right about.

For example, if I walked into a flower shop and asked for flowers to be delivered to "Judy," the shop owner, under these laws, could sneer at me and order me out under the presumption I'm ordering flowers for my same-sex lover. Without even knowing that they'd, actually, be for my mom. Forbid if my husband happened to be named "Pat" or "Jamie" or something equally androgynous.
Posted by Ms. D on February 19, 2014 at 5:32 PM · Report this
29
@22 The reasoning you're using is a bit of a slippery ground. Since everyone is a sinner, only those repent their sins and who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior are saved and going to heaven. Is a Christian business owner legally entitled to only serve other Christians? Can you please address Sullivan's argument about the devout Catholic business owner not catering to the remarried divorced?

To your earlier point about the animal rights clause, we already have laws on the books about animal abuse and people who abuse animals and are caught are prosecuted. Because we as a secular society have deemed abuse of animals to be behavior that is punishable by law. So if our society has deemed that homosexual conduct is no longer punishable by law, then by refusing to serve gays, a business owner is refusing to serve someone who is not breaking any law of the land. They are merely refusing to serve based on conscience.

In all of this, something interesting comes up. I remember, as a child, seeing signs in shops that say "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason." Legal or not? If I turn away someone from my establishment because they are black or Jewish, have I committed a crime?

And if it is a crime, and I put that sign up anyway, then basically what I'm saying is f-you "society", nobody can tell me who I sell to and who I do not. In which case, let's bring back the whites-only lunch counters.
Posted by Pneumatic on February 19, 2014 at 5:39 PM · Report this
30
@13 "When people have disparate world views, they should shake hands and agree to disagree"

Um, no. "I'm different in some way that doesn't hurt anyone, so I wish to be treated the same as everyone else, not treated differently" and "You're different in some way that I don't like, so I'm going to treat you differently" are not disparate world views that can exist simultaneously. They are mutually incompatible. And if the latter happens to have power (physical, political, economic, whatever) over the former, then the former does, indeed, get treated differently, usually to their misfortune.

Bigots don't have to be psychopaths. Their bigotry is likely part of what they consider a good, normal, moral worldview. They can be sweet little old ladies who volunteer at church and also know that "those people" are going to hell, or they can be community leaders who serve in public office and lead worthy civic efforts and also understand that protecting the good people of this town sometimes means keeping "those people" in their place.

The "religious freedom" argument is a typical last-ditch attempt to defend what they consider a good society against a vicious attack. But they're wrong. No matter how nice they are in other ways, they're also fucking bigots. So fuck 'em. Their fate, god willing, is to either learn to be non-bigoted or else spend the rest of their life hating on other people but feeling increasingly anxious about it because that kind of hate ain't acceptable in polite society any more.

I, a straight white male, hath spaketh.
Posted by Moag on February 19, 2014 at 5:46 PM · Report this
31
Typo. I wasn't addressing @22. But rather @23 in my comment @29.
Posted by Pneumatic on February 19, 2014 at 5:54 PM · Report this
32
@26
1. I, personally, have no idea what you're talking about.
2. I, in my phrasing, attempted to use what I thought was considered the appropriate politically correct terminology, in the interest of fairness.
3.I think you should realize that you have entirely different standards for what is acceptable then other people might.
4. I don't care if people say I'm straight or whether they say I'm leading a straight life style, it sounds like a completely arbitrary difference. And if I did choose to read more into it I would be forced to admit that it was my particular subjective relationship with the phrase that was the source of the friction, and that relationship most likely bares no resemblance with what was the original posters intention when using that phrase.

Posted by North by Northwest on February 19, 2014 at 6:31 PM · Report this
33
@25 Rand Paul is a card carrying member of the republican party, but I honestly do not think his ideological stance is reflective of conservative values, it's reflective of libertarian values. Those same values, I could imagine, might lead one to be of the principle that the government implicitly has no right to legislate on any matter outside the sphere of governmental behavior, save law enforcement. They're like that. While you have proved your point that a member of the republican party has campaigned for partial repeal of the Civil Rights Act, so I concede that.

Frankly when I originally contested you on the topic I was under the impression that you were saying radicalism is exclusive to the Republican party, even among voters, not necessarily politicians, and it's on that point I thought you needed correction. It sounds like it was a mistake on my part in reading your original post, my bad. No matter how you look at it, there are radical liberals with crazy beliefs and there are radical conservatives with stupid beliefs.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 19, 2014 at 6:40 PM · Report this
raindrop 34
Political ideology and sexual orientation are not the same.
Posted by raindrop on February 19, 2014 at 6:49 PM · Report this
raindrop 35
Actually, it's either live in society that restricts prosperity and equalizes misery or live in a society where you can be the master of your own destiny. It's the same choice of ideology regardless of sexual orientation.
Posted by raindrop on February 19, 2014 at 7:00 PM · Report this
36
@34 Yes, and making sense is highly overrated, don't you think?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on February 19, 2014 at 7:27 PM · Report this
37
@27 But these laws do not explicitly enforce or require that any group of people be discriminated against, they just codify a principle that a business owner is the sole proprietor and master of the ethics of his business. It's a matter of property and authority. Things that are yours are yours solely, and though the government has every right to tax you and to ensure that you obey the law in the utilization of your property, they don't and shouldn't have the right to tell you what you do with your property.

Rather then looking at this in stale intellectual terms as a matter of principles, let's consider the realistic implications. Places like Kentucky or Tennessee where the laws are being passed, are culturally about as far from Seattle as two places in one country can be. I believe that if the majority of the community is uncomfortable with homosexuality then the community should have the right to ensure that they're society functions as they like and pass laws that work for them. The only matter to consider is whether or not anyone's fundamental human rights are being violated. Now do we all have the fundamental right to patronize EVERY business available to the public? I say no, that right doesn't extend to me as a straight person, and by virtue of equality that right can not exist specifically for gay people. I could walk in to any business in the country shorty of an emergency room which has a legal obligation to serve customers, and they do and should have the right to not serve me, and they don't have to tell me why. So if the right to patronage is not fundamental to all humans or even all citizens of the nation, how can we say that right is being violated?
I'm goddamn proud to live in a place where we generally aren't so stupid as to consider a person's sexual orientation anything worth crying about. It's meaningless to me frankly, like whether a someones prefers cats or dogs, but I live in reality and I understand that that's not the reality everywhere in this country. I believe that when a population has very strong feelings about something but is forced to go along with something else, it creates resentments that fester. This belief is guided by my study of history, trust that I'm not just bullshiting because there are too many of dozens of examples throughout history. As I see it you'll have the predominately Christian and anti-homosexual populations in the south forming new resentments against gay people, and as you and I both know resentment can be easily institutionalized through generations, as it was with racism in America particularly in the 19th and 20th century. So in effect you have people being forced to act counter to their beliefs for a few years, and you wind up with a new generation of bigots with an institutionalized hatred of the opposition. What I'm talking about is basically a hometown spin on the conditions that have led to political instability in places all over the world. I guess I envision a future, hopefully sooner rather then later, when we can be a country that argues about our role in the world rather then a country that bickers about who can marry who where.
More...
Posted by North by Northwest on February 19, 2014 at 7:39 PM · Report this
venomlash 38
I really don't have the time to go into detail, but North by Northwest is a mendacious individual whose response to any issue is to write several paragraphs amounting in essence to "tu quoque".
Posted by venomlash on February 19, 2014 at 7:50 PM · Report this
39
Please identify the party within a party that inflicts the Democratic Party with the equivalent racist and homophobic batshit craziness that is in control of the GOP. When you can point to a crazy leftist movement that can stop government dead in its tracks, then I may buy the empty argument that both sides have crazies so both sides are equal like that. Bullshit. Please enlighten us lefties as to what is the leftwing equivalent of Birtherism. Please enlighten us as to what is our equivalent effort to stop Republicans from voting. Please enlighten us as to what laws Democrats have passed that would deny marriage rights, employment rights, housing rights to conservatives. Please explain how hate crimes are not considered domestic terrorism by Republicans as they are crimes directed at entire groups of people and designed to terrorize those people. And yes, please do take a swing at the issue of why Catholics aren't pushing laws that allow then to refuse services to the divorced.
Posted by kwodell on February 19, 2014 at 7:53 PM · Report this
40
@39 Obama has avoided making a decision about the Keystone XL Pipeline because he doesn't want to upset the loony-left Chicken Little "the sky is falling" environmental freaks in his party.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on February 19, 2014 at 8:12 PM · Report this
seandr 41
@rob! allied to the same societal forces that thought "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a moral triumph

Certainly not a moral triumph, but a strategic win in terms of real politik. That law made it officially legal to be a gay soldier, which was a significant step forward. It also made heroes out of people who were discharged for "telling" after years of distinguished honorable service, and it demonstrated that fears of barracks turning into bathhouses were ridiculously unfounded.

Civil unions weren't a moral triumph, either, but they were ground gained on the path to marriage equality.
Posted by seandr on February 19, 2014 at 8:40 PM · Report this
ferret 42
@37
you wrote :
"I believe that if the majority of the community is uncomfortable with homosexuality then the community should have the right to ensure that they're society functions as they like and pass laws that work for them. The only matter to consider is whether or not anyone's fundamental human rights are being violated. "

?!? This is whole basis of Civil Rights Act of 1964, to counter act this.. One can't have community standards of discrimination. Laws cannot be made to discriminate on any minority group by the majority. GLBT rights are legal.

The proponents of these "religious freedom" laws want to base it on no inhibition from practicing a religion. However, religion and religious beliefs cannot be codified into the law, nor can it be the basis of the law.

Equal protection of the law supersedes any sort of religious beliefs, especially outside of a house of worship and into society at large. Equal Protection is in the US Constitution, Establishment of Religious beliefs as part of a law is forbidden. It is very clear cut.

Much of you write is kind of gobbley gook, and you tend to miss the point. These laws are unconstitutional. These laws are the utmost of the state getting involved and allowing discrimination.

This is not about the contention of property, or property rights, no one is contesting ownership. This is about an open end law that leaves it very blatant and flippant that anyone can refuse service, (florist, police man, fire man, doctor, bank officer, pharmacist) if they feel the person's lifestyle, whatever counters their religious belief!

These laws will get shot down by the Courts for numerous reasons.
Posted by ferret http://https://twitter.com/#!/okojo on February 19, 2014 at 9:15 PM · Report this
43
@38 LOL

@North by Northwest I'd like to invite you to meet my dear Auntie Seattleblues. I think you two would make a great couple.

Don't worry about gender thing, Auntie Seattleblues has that covered, she is secure in her right to declare what your gender is, so I figure she's cool with you declaring her gender.

I think you two have a lot in common and I'm guessing you both live in the PNW so go for coffee or something, get your grove on.

Leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 19, 2014 at 9:56 PM · Report this
Lissa 44
@21: oh no, no, no my dear you don't get to trot that out again.
As I pointed out in an earlier thread:
The State is in no way attempting to regulate her private morality, she is free to object to whatever she may wish, but oddly, before the legalization of gay marriage, her business practices never reflected her moral position. She had until then, shown no compunction what so ever in serving the couple in question. Indeed, they had been regular customers, and as gay as gay could be, yet her moral opposition did not prevent her from taking their money until they were afforded by the State the right to no longer live in Sin. So in effect she had no problem supporting "the homosexual lifestyle" one tiny bit, and her private morality remained private as it should have, and as it should have continued to do.
That dog ( or florist if you will) won't hunt.
Posted by Lissa on February 19, 2014 at 10:39 PM · Report this
DOUG. 45
Andrew Sullivan is the original stupid gay Republican.
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on February 19, 2014 at 10:50 PM · Report this
46
Really, NXNW, you don't think that PUBLIC businesses (discounting private clubs) have an obligation to serve the PUBLIC? Again, since you never answered this, if you walked into a hotel, maybe weary from your travels, maybe stranded on your travels due to weather, do you think it would be okay for the proprietor to turn you away because they ascertained from your answer to a question ("would you like a list of {insert religion} services tomorrow morning?") that you were not of their religion? Do you think it would be okay for the proprietor to turn away a couple they didn't believe were married (that could be anything from an obviously gay couple to a legally married straight couple in which the woman did not change her last name to a truly unmarried couple)? Do you think it would be okay for a florist to order me out if I chose to send flowers to a friend or family member of the same sex as me, on the presumption that I'm sending them to my same-sex lover because of their gendered name? Because that is what these laws allow.

Sorry...if you don't want to serve the public, then get a different job. If you open up a public shop or take a government job that serves the public, you have an obligation to serve the PUBLIC.
Posted by Ms. D on February 19, 2014 at 11:19 PM · Report this
47
@38 I know you are but what am I. And yes, I'm being intentionally ironic.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 20, 2014 at 12:36 AM · Report this
Dirtclustit 48
For one thing, this "acid test" about wrongful discrimination being OK so long as it's afflicted on everyone is flawed

Do you think there should be laws to make exceptions for clansmen who "genuinely" believe non-caucasians are sub-humans?

it doesn't matter at how "genuinely" some bigot may not be OK with gay couples, and I fully realize that there are some otherwise good hearted people who still hold bigoted views because of what they were taught and the times that they lived, as these areas of understanding the difference between right and wrong have been crippled by idiot psychologists, the media, and the mirror image liberal zealots of the ultra conservative bigots

But I don't expect many of you to understand what I am talking about, because many of you are the mirror image of those "genuinely" bigoted people

Ignorance is bliss huh?

What you are witnessing is the strong, firm grip of denial, so realize that these last ditch attempts at labeling their bigotry as something OK, is actually the final step they take before they are able to see their denial

after these displays and gnashing of teeth, you will get a better sense of who will be able to correctly tell the difference between love and hate

so this is actually a good sign (these idiots attempting to pass dumbass laws)

If a bigot operates any type of service, and he really wants to make a point about being a bigot, no anti-discrimination laws can prevent that, is it me or has everyone forgotten the "right to refuse service to anyone" signs that many private places of business display.

So just remember that bigots toward homosexuality will probably have a stronghold on ignorance similar to how the South used to be, complete with a business or two today that a non-caucasian can expect a bullshit reason why they are being refused service

If you really want to be productive, it wouldn't be the wisest choice to focus on barber-shops and bakeries in the South that will find a way to perpetuate hatred, esp if this was the year 1963,

You could do better than this, and if you really want to make this an issue, then don't make excuses for those who "genuinely" wrongfully discriminate. All that does is advertise that you too have trouble discerning right from wrong.

More...
Posted by Dirtclustit on February 20, 2014 at 12:45 AM · Report this
49
Don't feed the troll.
Posted by NineOneFour on February 20, 2014 at 6:23 AM · Report this
thelyamhound 50
@21 - I think freedom of association certainly applies if we're talking about churches, non-profit groups, and other organizations whose concerns are less material. I actually believe that churches are corporations are governments; they're all just different ways that this particular primate species organizes itself. But where ideological, spiritual, or aesthetic differences remain "practical abstractions" by which we can maintain tribal identities (which nation-states will never satisfactorily replace), all modes of organization which directly impact material possession, availability, or exchange (government, corporation) need to be held to similar and more universal standards. The material--not merely psychological, at least in enough cases, I'd wager, to be statistically significant--inconvenience of being refused service is problematic.

The evangelical florist may be compromising a deeply held conviction by making and arrangement for a same-sex wedding, but only in the same way and same degree that an evangelical Best Buy employee would be in selling a TV to someone who's going to watch porn on it. Neither threatens the employee or business owner's right to associate as they please on ideological grounds (they can invite, or not invite, whomever they care to over for dinner; they can continue to go to the church[es] of their respective choice, and so on). It simply says that your right to free association--i.e., the right to ideologically discriminate as they see fit--avoid placing material consequences on the shoulders of the segment of the population with whom they disagree.
...the state demanded that you accept something you consider immoral, perhaps you're an animal rights activist that is forced to harm an animal or some such thing,
Not really an apt comparison. A more accurate one would be to suggest that the state would still demand that an animal rights advocate serve someone who harms animals outside the scope of the business transaction. After all, the florist is not being asked to do something outside the scope of either her actions or her morality; she's simply being asked to do what she does for a customer who can pay.
More...
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on February 20, 2014 at 11:11 AM · Report this
ferret 51
The problem with the florist is this.... Gay Marriage is legal in Washginton.. She refused service because of Gay Marriage as she stated, even though she did business with the couple in the past with no problems. Her reasons are discriminatory and against the law. She may refuse service and kick people out of her store for numerous reasons, but she can't discriminate like this because of their legally recognized sexual preference. This is the whole point of equal protection under the law.
Posted by ferret http://https://twitter.com/#!/okojo on February 20, 2014 at 11:33 AM · Report this
52
@50 No my friend, it's entirely different. A florist or a photographer is not merely seeing this person one time, they're involved in multiple steps of the process, often for days at a time, and certainly during the ceremony which is the source of the discontent in the first place. And really, it's beside the point, a business owner doesn't want to take a contract, it's his or her decision, nobody should be able to tell them otherwise. The reason laws like this are necessary is you 100% certainly will have gay couples attempting to use evangelical services or even venues, being told no, and suing over it. it happened in Washington just as soon as gay marriage was legalized. If they're Christians who don't support gay marriage, don't ask them to work at your fucking gay wedding, how hard is that? Of course if the reason you went their in the first place was so you could sue them over their "discrimination"? Oh no that sort of thing never happens, I guess I'm just being a bigot.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 20, 2014 at 11:35 AM · Report this
53
@51 you're right, she should have lied about her convictions and just kicked them out on some dishonest pretense. We are allowed to have differing opinions here, even if someone's opinions is "You shouldn't be gay, you're wrong and immoral". that gives you absolutely zero right to nullify their opinion, just like if your opinion is "You shouldn't be Christian, it's intolerant and bigoted".

She had a deeply held conviction, she voiced it, as any American should feel free to do, she executed her rights as a business owner and decided not to accept a contract, the same way any business owner could do, and she was sued. It's immoral to punish somebody for holding a belief, it doesn't matter if you think that belief is intolerant, it's none of your business. That's what the right to private conscience is.

Now Ferret you're convinced that these laws will be struck down by the court. I'm telling you they won't so I guess we'll just wait and see who's right, but I'll still go on the record and say no matter how the court treats these laws, people in Kansas should decide how things are done in Kansas and people in Washington should decide how things are done in Washington, In a place like Kansas where a majority of the population doesn't support homosexuality, period, so if you're gay and you want to be in Kansas, you'd better accept that a lot of people aren't going to like it, and no law is going to change their mind. You don't change the hearts and minds of people by forcing them to toe the line, that will only make things worse for gay people in the long run.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM · Report this
Lissa 54
@52: Again, she never had a problem with them as customers. They had been using her services for years, which is why they chose her when they wanted to get married. Not to prove any point, but because they had an existing business relationship with her. Up until that moment she had happily supported their gay lifestyle and taken their money.
You need to stop using her as an example, because poor put upon martyr suddenly being forced to serve this couple she is not.
Posted by Lissa on February 20, 2014 at 11:57 AM · Report this
55
@54 Before they walked in bought flowers and left, what they did in this case was attempt to conscript her to do their wedding, which is entirely different. if she didn't support gay marriage, obviously it's only working at the marriage that she had a problem with, she didn't say she wouldn't serve gay customers, she said she wouldn't serve at gay weddings.

When I said "The evangelical florist" I was using a general example meant to include all the evangelical florists and evangelical photographers and evangelical venues in this country that would be opposed to doing a gay wedding. They all have the right to not want to go to a gay wedding, if they don't even think gay weddings are valid, why do you want them there in the first place?
Posted by North by Northwest on February 20, 2014 at 12:11 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 56
@52 -
No my friend, it's entirely different.
No, it really isn't. I, as a personal trainer, cannot--or shouldn't be able to--reject a potential client whose lifestyle is immoral. I can refuse to train them any differently than I train anyone else. I can refuse to change the music I play while training to something they find ideologically inoffensive. I can even "fire" them if I think the way I train and what they need are ill-suited for each other. There's plenty of ongoing investment of time, but what I think of their religious beliefs or sexual practices is, or should be, irrelevant, provided I don't believe any laws are being violated.
If they're Christians who don't support gay marriage, don't ask them to work at your fucking gay wedding, how hard is that?
I don't disagree with that, per se; people who disagree with or simply don't appreciate the aesthetics or ideology of my work as a playwright or actor would probably do well to stay away, as would people looking for a trainer who didn't want the sort of training services I offer. But I absolutely reject the notion that it should be my right to refuse to serve them on the basis of those disagreements. Free association in economic transactions is the prerogative of the buyer, not the seller.
Of course if the reason you went their in the first place was so you could sue them over their "discrimination"? Oh no that sort of thing never happens, I guess I'm just being a bigot.
I say more delusional and paranoid than bigoted, if you actually believe a statistically significant number of people would do so.
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on February 20, 2014 at 12:23 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 57
@53 - Her opinion isn't being nullified. She just isn't being granted the right to directly, materially inconvenience anyone because of it.
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on February 20, 2014 at 12:25 PM · Report this
58
@56 what is a "statistically significant number of people" to the one person who loses their business over a lawsuit?
These laws exist for people in the wedding industry that do not want to be forced to work at a gay wedding. If you think a statistically significant number of people are going to use laws like these to remove customers on the basis of sexuality, at palces like bars or restaurants, despite the fact that they're paying customers, you're being paranoid and delusional. I find most of the left has become increasingly paranoid and delusional regarding who's "oppressed" and who's "disenfranchised". Fuck there's even a boogie man called the patriarchy, that smacks of paranoid delusion. These laws can and should exist for a very serious reason, when a business owner is asked to perform a function he thinks is immoral, on threat of lawsuit, he deserves a valid defense in court so that he can continue to run his business how he sees fit. Frankly your personal trainer job is irrelevant, if you could ever conceivably be put in a position where you were forced to compromise your morals on threat of lawsuit, you deserve a valid defense, because you are being scrutinized unduly by the government/courts.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 20, 2014 at 12:31 PM · Report this
59
@57 No she was forced to accept a contract on threat of lawsuit, the only alternative would be to pay the lawsuit and probably wind up in debt and having to shut down. That's intimidation. If you're morally righteous position is so morally righteous, intimidation wouldn't be necessary.
Posted by North by Northwest on February 20, 2014 at 12:35 PM · Report this
Lissa 60
Way to back peddle. So now it's just gay weddings. Before it was the homosexual lifestyle. Sure.
She doesn't have to go to the wedding. They can pick up the flowers and leave. The flowers could be delivered to the venue and she can leave. If there is set up involved some one else from the shop can do it. She isn't a one man operation.

If they were good enough to buy her flowers when they were living in sin they're good enough to buy 'em when they're married.

But all that's moot. She's no more entitled as a business to discriminate than those fellas back in Greensboro. And they used exactly the same arguments you are. Jim Crow is still Jim Crow.
So here's the thing NXNW, it didn't work for then and it won't work now.

Posted by Lissa on February 20, 2014 at 12:46 PM · Report this
thelyamhound 61
I've granted you the privilege of my attention for long enough, NxNW; my business and my art demand that I put an end to my dalliances here, so I'll do you one more kindness and respond to your points as though they're cogent enough to warrant analysis, and then I'm afraid I must leave you alone for at least several hours and, depending on whether your follow-up is any improvement to what you've offered, perhaps the rest of time as we understand it.

Intimidation has been required to defend morally righteous positions throughout history; slavery and segregation, for instance, did not end in the U.S. (to the degree that they ended at all) by democratic process.

As an able-bodied white man, I think you're a bit deluded if you think the "patriarchy" is something that someone made up to give you trouble.

There's no difference between the "function" the florist serves for a straight wedding or for a gay one. She is not being required to adopt the ideology of her paying customers, any more than I, as a trainer (a parallel you dismiss, without actually explaining the distinction in empirical--or otherwise useful or compelling--terms), am required to adopt the ideology of mine. Again--the service she is being asked to perform is the same for either a heterosexual wedding or a same-sex wedding. The beneficiaries of her work may be engaged in something she finds ideologically problematic, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of what she's doing, and unless you can illustrate otherwise, in terms more coherent and specific than the ones you're offering, you are, at best, a mediocre rhetorician, and at worst a concern troll.
Posted by thelyamhound http://thebayinghound.blogspot.com on February 20, 2014 at 12:48 PM · Report this
venomlash 62
@52: If an organization is explicitly religious (such as evangelical services or a venue such as a church) then their religious considerations are relevant to the business being transacted. Otherwise, their owners' ideology doesn't have a chance at trumping state law.
@53: According to your logic, Jim Crow laws should still be in effect in the South.
@59: Intimidation is sadly often necessary. You'd think that banning slavery would be universally seen as righteous, but it took a war (started, let me be clear, pre-emptively by the slave-owning faction) to get that to happen. It took armed Federal troops to integrate schools.
Righteousness means nothing to people who can't distinguish it from wickedness. Sometimes violence or the threat thereof is the answer.
Posted by venomlash on February 20, 2014 at 12:54 PM · Report this
sissoucat 63
@45 Exactly. Sullivan still identifies as a Republican.

It must hurt him to bits that the people who love to discriminate on anything non-white, non-male, non-elderly, and who enrich themselves by "enpooring" everyone else, just won't like him - just because of his sexuality.

"Hey, I have the same ideology than you guys ! Thatcher was my godess ! Let's make heaps of poors around us !" -- Sullivan.
"Er, I believe this one likes man privates ? Let's make it legal for us to starve him to death !" -- the Right Wing.
Posted by sissoucat on February 20, 2014 at 2:26 PM · Report this
ferret 64
@53 The laws will be struck down, because they are badly written laws, that violate the 1st Amendment, (establishment clause) "Religious Beliefs" cannot be the foundation of a law. Period, full stop It violates the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause. Whatever group is getting discriminated, they have legal rights that laws, no matter if 99.9% of the community supports them cannot be used to take away their basic legal rights because of their identity, their gender, their ethnicity, etc.

The florist can have deep convictions, and deep religious beliefs. However, she cannot discriminate against a couple that have legal rights, or refuse service because of their sexual identity. It is about protecting the rights of the couple. If those rights are not protected they are denied.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, has been used and stood up against racial discrimination, sexual discrimation, etc. etc. A business owner or owner of a service can deny a person their services for many reasons, but they cannot deny it because of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, disability, because it takes away those minorities' rights. Laws cannot be made that can be used to discriminate.

This isn't about the stupid florist, or she should had lied. These bills would make police, doctors, loan officers, pharmacists, EMT personnel to deny their services to anyone who they find objectionable.

Once again, get it through your thick skull, Religious beliefs cannot be codified into the law, these bills won't get passed the first round in the Federal Courts.

Show me where in Case Law where the courts upheld "Religious Freedom" laws or something similar that deny others rights, legally protected rights...
More...
Posted by ferret http://https://twitter.com/#!/okojo on February 20, 2014 at 3:29 PM · Report this
65
NXNW, you have not yet answered the argument regarding the Civil Rights Act. I'm interested in hearing your opinion on whether a florist (or baker or caterer) could refuse to work the wedding of an interracial couple, if such marriages were against their deeply held religious beliefs.

No one is going to try to force a church/synagogue/mosque/what have you to perform religious rites for a wedding. What you might see is someone trying to rent a space that a C/S/M/WHY regularly rents to the public for events, being turned down because it's for a gay wedding, and complain. Which they would be within their rights to do.
Posted by clashfan on February 20, 2014 at 7:23 PM · Report this
66
Unless i am mistaken, sexual orientation is not a protected class under the federal equal rights act. While other laws and the constitution limit state laws, they do not protect people of any sexual preferences from not being served, etc. They only rotect them from discrimination under state laws. These state laws seek only to codify people's rights to not serve gay people. As much as i find that offensive, i do not think the federal government can stop them. However, they may have various reasons why they will. It seems inherently odd and wrong for a state to make a law that protects the right to do what Ithink is legal anyway. But politicians do it all the time.

On the other hand, and here is where it gets interesting, the civil rights act of 1964 does protect gender but not sexual orientation. And while I dont known the details, I know that some federal laws protect domestic situation or maybe marital status. But I don't think that includes protection from discrimination in a place of business, only in housing and employment. So, one question is, are a married gay couple seeking protection for being gay, or for marrying a same sex partner. The florist did business with gay guys, but objected over their domestic or marriage status. It may seem minor, but I suggest it is significant. A property manager may have the right to hate and discriminate againsta a gay single person because they hate gays, but do they have the right to discriminate against a not married or married gay couple due to their domestic status? Of course, that is different from a florist.

Unfortunately, I do not think the federal government can strike down these laws. Of course, other laws can be passed which would put it into conflict. Any legal scholars care to weigh in?
More...
Posted by rpsf on February 21, 2014 at 12:48 PM · Report this
67
Unless i am mistaken, sexual orientation is not a protected class under the federal equal rights act. While other laws and the constitution limit state laws, they do not protect people of any sexual preferences from not being served, etc. They only rotect them from discrimination under state laws. These state laws seek only to codify people's rights to not serve gay people. As much as i find that offensive, i do not think the federal government can stop them. However, they may have various reasons why they will. It seems inherently odd and wrong for a state to make a law that protects the right to do what Ithink is legal anyway. But politicians do it all the time.

On the other hand, and here is where it gets interesting, the civil rights act of 1964 does protect gender but not sexual orientation. And while I dont known the details, I know that some federal laws protect domestic situation or maybe marital status. But I don't think that includes protection from discrimination in a place of business, only in housing and employment. So, one question is, are a married gay couple seeking protection for being gay, or for marrying a same sex partner. The florist did business with gay guys, but objected over their domestic or marriage status. It may seem minor, but I suggest it is significant. A property manager may have the right to hate and discriminate againsta a gay single person because they hate gays, but do they have the right to discriminate against a not married or married gay couple due to their domestic status? Of course, that is different from a florist.

Unfortunately, I do not think the federal government can strike down these laws. Of course, other laws can be passed which would put it into conflict. Any legal scholars care to weigh in?
More...
Posted by rpsf on February 21, 2014 at 12:52 PM · Report this
68
So have the Log Cabin Republicans disbanded yet? I mean really - obviously working within the party isn't working. How can they be associated with them?
Posted by abrock_ca on February 21, 2014 at 3:03 PM · Report this
69
oh - my other question - isn't this basically setting up "religious tests"? I mean, in order for someone to deny a gay person service, they have to prove that it violates their "sincerely held religious beliefs" (as the Idaho law says). So - how do they prove they sincerely hold them? Do they have to go to services X number of times a year? Pray on their knees? Give a certain amount of money to their religious institution?

I thought religious tests, at least for candidates, is against the constitution - do we really want to institute them for citizens?
Posted by abrock_ca on February 21, 2014 at 3:13 PM · Report this
ferret 70
@69 Basing a law on "religious beliefs" is against the US Constitution. The proponents of these bills are betting that courts will uphold these laws under the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, while completely ignoring the Establishment Clause, forbidding Congress to make any laws respecting the establishment of religion. Besides ignoring the 14th Amendment, and Congress right to regulate Interstate Commerce, (ie regulate discriminatory practices and denial of rights to individuals)
Posted by ferret http://https://twitter.com/#!/okojo on February 21, 2014 at 4:37 PM · Report this
71
One more time NXNW, since this law does not limit the refusal of service to gay wedding services, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH A BUSINESS OWNER REFUSING YOU SERVICE BECAUSE YOUR LIFE VIOLATES THEIR SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS? It is not even remotely extreme or out of the question that a proprietor of a business would view serving someone who does not attend services of their faith or tithe properly or what have you as violating their sincerely held religious beliefs. It is not insane to think that, even if there were two beds in the room, that an extremely devout hotel owner could see allowing a male and female friend or unmarried couple to share a room to be objectionable, and refuse service on that basis. If you're being consistent, you're okay with this. Say it loud and say it proud or keep not answering. Both speak volumes.
Posted by Ms. D on February 22, 2014 at 1:57 AM · Report this
Dirtclustit 72
nineonefour you sure are an ignorant fucker ain'tcha,

I get that Slog is just a hype publication that doesn't give a fuck about the truth, I fully understand that it's strictly pop culture

but someone who doesn't just going through the motions and bickering about what isn't debatable in the first place --- because truth is not debatable --- before dipshits like you get they underwear in a bunch, why wouldn't they first research the laws as for providing a public service without a contract, which is exactly what most businesses do if you are the average American Cattle consumer, because these laws are all bullshit, so nine one four, what are the laws regarding businesses that post signs saying "we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone"

God damn you people get butt hurt over nothing. I stay am an alley for equal rights, but cattle from seattle and slog staff and it's ignorant readers can all pucker up...
Posted by Dirtclustit on February 22, 2014 at 5:35 AM · Report this
73
Really, why stop at divorce or other church policies?

To Catholics, the very existence of protestants is offensive to their deeply-held religious beliefs. And to many protestant sects, the very existence of Catholicism is offensive, basically by definition.

And then there's the Jews. "Oh, you're Jewish? We can't host/cater/tolerate your wedding and/or marriage here!"

But that would be *wrong*, right? Or is your "Christianity" basically defined purely by your homophobia by now, being the *current* hot-button political thing? Because, you know, shooting all the Catholics isn't uh, allowed anymore.
Posted by gromm on February 22, 2014 at 6:19 PM · Report this
74
All this gay stuff comes from WHORING heavy drugs and sex outside of marriage, when that happens people receive evil spirits. If you go out as a young person to bars looking for the opposite sex and wind up in the sack with someone involved with bi-sexuality or someone involved with the occult, and you didn’t know it …u received a evil backwards spirit.

Many people in this generation have evil spirits and (don’t know it) that includes straight people..because of whoring and very few have repented. Others are polluted with evil spirits and r possessed and sleep around everywhere infesting more people…inside of those who r possessed, “{gay)”,many many r waiting to be freed from the grip of satan because they r possessed and there is nothing they can do about it, unless someone prays for them. Which very few do, because for whatever reason, no one seems to understand.

At the same time many gay people who r possessed, secretly get involved with churches not telling people they r gay and end up wearing holy e tire….telling the people to except the gay life style, blah blah blah and because so many people have very little faith, they will except whatever they r told to keep peace and for the good of humanity….which is a pile of crap!

This is a current list of accused priests http://bishop-accountability.org the number of accused priests is beyond staggering!

Many other churches have the same problem…a good church is far and wide between in this generation.

If u were to look back in history, there was alot of gays in the early 1900′s and gay movies at theaters. In 1917 The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to children in a place called Fatima. She gave a warning that if people don’t repent God the Father will punish us by a world WAR…that happened, not just once but twice. When the wars was over, in the 40′s and 50′s was the cleanest time with many living with good morals. Divorce was taboo, the movies were clean and decent and people like my mom did not even know what a lesbian was until the 60′s.

In the 60′s young people rebelled…heavy drugs, dirty feet and dirty bodies and hair…open sex ,orgies and whatever. The singer Cher was a part of that and tried a lesbian thing that she realized was not for her….the point is, she tried it! and got cursed for it, just look at her daughter or son…whatever this person is? that goes with many many others…it started back in the 60′s and many r cursed by it. There is even prophecy that the pope at that time stated “the smoke of satan has entered the church.

Here’s something off the wall. The Lord has different ways of showing people stuff, if they r receptive. The rock star Alice Cooper was the first man to have a woman’s name .We all know how he flaunted sick images of all kinds in everyone’s face. Alice Cooper comes from a very strong long line of ordained Baptist Ministers and other preachers in his family. His father was a ordained Baptist Minister and the woman AC married, her father is also a ordained Baptist Minister.

When he first came out IN 1968 0R 69 the majority of people hated his guts BIGTIME!…In LA people would buy tickets just to walk out….even when they came to see Jim Morrison and the Doors…they cleared the building empty when Alice Cooper took stage before the Doors.

Within ten yrs after Alice Cooper …gay bars flourished in all major cities…men dressed like women and women dress like men…Everything u see when u look at Alice Cooper is what this generation is all about…total darkness. What people use to hate is now excepted as a normal thing. When AC chopped babies to pieces in front of the world…they didn’t realize, it’s about them and the onslaught of abortions everywhere!…instead, they would point the finger at AC and say your sick! when it’s really the whole generation that is sick.

AC has never, ever, whored around, never divorced, and he’s not covered in tatoo’s like everyone he is surrounded by.

There is more to this, The Blessed Virgin has appeared everywhere around the world…VERY FEW LISTEN….There is a Great Warning coming to everyone…After the Warning, many will flock back to church not realizing many of the churches r sick. Soon, after the Warning, the ANTI CHRIST will come out as a man of peace and per sway the people that gay is ok, and preachers the current pope and governments political people and many by the multitudes will agree with this anti christ…until he shows his full colors.

When he shows his full colors, persecution of Christians will be alarming…..the same thing that everyone has seen at a Alice cooper concert…the hangings guillotines, electrocutions will happen in real life to many Christians and to those who will not take the mark of the beast…which will be a computer chip on the hand or forehead..

It’s true…The Second Coming of Christ is right above us. It’s going to happen in our life time…once the Warning, then the anti christ for approx 3 and a half yrs…then The Second Coming.

Only Catholic prophets r calling out about the Warning in the Christian world..all other Christians from different denominations….r putting flames to it because it comes from the Virgin Mary and only a few listen to her when she appears with messages for the whole world. Even many many Catholics today r against these messages of The Warning and Second Coming of Jesus.

Because a whole pile of them, r queer.

In Jesus Name, Thy Will Be Done, Amen and Amen (*)
More...
Posted by The Flash on August 25, 2014 at 6:19 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy