Intolerant Gay Rights Activists Decry Individual Liberty, Endorse Gov’t Coercion

[rangerrebew]

Intolerant Gay Rights Activists Decry Individual Liberty, Endorse Gov’t Coercion



March 30, 2015 - 4:44 PM

 
By Jen Kuznicki

 

Indiana Governor Mike Pence


The recent legislation signed into law in the State of Indiana by Governor Mike Pence hinges on the idea that if a person opens a privately-owned business, they must be able to serve those who wish to pay for services under their own discretion of right and wrong.

It is simple liberty, just as it is simple liberty to refuse service to those people coming into a business without proper clothing, or who are acting untoward.

But gay activism has shot liberty down, as Indiana has been the focus of boycotts by those interested in promoting the idea that if you own a business, you shall have no control over who you provide service to.

Considering that a lawsuit brought by gay rights activists could jeopardize a business’s ability to continue, the law protects the rights of the business owner from governmental overreach while maintaining that private business is not public business.

The idea that a member of the public can force a private business to act when it does not wish to, breaks down the meaning of private and causes friction with their free exercise of commerce.

The idea also, that rules governing a for-profit business should force that business to serve anyone who walks through the door, forgets that your labor is something you own and that for a lot of people, their labor is for the greater glory of God.

I frankly don’t understand why gay activists would want to enlist government to enforce their ability to receive a service, like for example, the creation of a wedding cake for a “gay wedding” from a business who adamantly refuses their business.  You can’t make people change their minds, yet with the boycotts, the message is: make me a cake, or your livelihood is over.

This introduces the communistic method of common ownership of the means of production, by ascribing a “right” to receive services.  But like all ideas coming from the left, it reduces autonomy, ending in complete control of commerce by the state.  It never works though, and this sheds light on a massive problem with the left, which endeavors to convince the people that they, as a body politic, should own all means of production and then have no say in how it’s managed.  Your money is confiscated so that “philosopher kings” can run it, while you have no say in how your tax dollars are spent, for the “greater good.”

There is no restriction for a gay couple to find a cake maker who would be more than happy to provide them a service.  The gay activists, it seems, would rather force someone (force being another communistic tool) to bake them a cake rather than taking their money where it is wanted, (without force).

It seems certain that all gay individuals would not want the means of production to be held, by force, by the government alone. So it’s not clear why more people aren’t speaking up about the importance of keeping business and government separate.

The fact that there are rules set by the owners of the establishment about common decency that go hand in hand with the ability of a business to provide a service proves that there are restrictions on any transaction moving forward.

I am reminded of a class I took on bartending: One of the attendees of the class remarked that he was told by a patron that he could not be thrown out of the bar upon coming in too drunk to talk, because it was a public place.  Though it seemed obvious to me that, while a person is a member of the public, once they enter a private business they are to comport themselves in a manner that will get them the service they seek or be refused, the attendee couldn’t see that line of logic.  A “public place” is a road, a park, a government building, anything that is paid for by public tax dollars.

So, it seems to me that if you want government to own all means of production, a stated goal of communism, you should come right out and admit that you prefer that failed method of government and that you decry individual liberty, including religious liberty, the balance sought by a representative republic.

Jen Kuznicki is a wife and mother, seamstress by trade, and American patriot who says, "Now is the time to act."

 Source URL: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/jen-kuznicki/intolerant-gay-rights-activists-decry-individual-liberty-endorse-gov-t

[Fishrrman]

The real credo of "the Rainbow Coalition":

[Charlespg]

you want to stop this crap right in its tracks?

Conservatives should ban together nation wide

  And lets start targeting liberal / gay owned bakeries ,florists ,caterers etc
and demand that they bake something like this


  or this or similar type cakes


demand that they cater a Nazi or KKK themed party, minstrel show or something like that
 when the don't comply sue them under the same public service laws...if the state rules against you
then bring a lawsuit against the state for not equally enforcing the law

Start putting our heads together and start collecting intell and personal info on the ACLU lawyers and gay activists bringing these lawsuits.We cant do it under this or any democratic administration but there is grounds for a big RICO suit against these people if we can prove ,and I think it very well be proven they only targeted Christian business

In the meanwhile lets use their own laws against them ,We can do if it folks banded together

[Luis Gonzalez]

The recent legislation signed into law in the State of Indiana by Governor Mike Pence hinges on the idea that if a person opens a privately-owned business, they must be able to serve those who wish to pay for services under their own discretion of right and wrong.

It is simple liberty, just as it is simple liberty to refuse service to those people coming into a business without proper clothing, or who are acting untoward.

But gay activism has shot liberty down.

Blatantly and incontrovertibly incorrect.

It has long been the law in the US that businesses are not allowed to refuse services to people based on their religion, sex, race, age, etc.

We're just working out what the next classification will be.

[Carling]

It has long been the law in the US that businesses are not allowed to refuse services to people based on their religion, sex, race, age, etc.

That's untrue, at least based upon the words of the First Amendment.  I happen to not care about gay marriage, and probably would say I support it, but I respect the constitutional right of a US citizen to exercise whatever their religious beliefs are in terms of owning their own business.  You mention religion/sex/race/age, but nowhere do I see sexual preference listed.

This law isn't being attacked as unconstitutional, it's being attacked as bigoted.  I disagree with the left's argument, but if you're insinuating that a religious person should have to conform to what would be an unconstitutional intrusion by government, we're going to have to disagree.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's untrue, at least based upon the words of the First Amendment.  I happen to not care about gay marriage, and probably would say I support it, but I respect the constitutional right of a US citizen to exercise whatever their religious beliefs are in terms of owning their own business.  You mention religion/sex/race/age, but nowhere do I see sexual preference listed.

This law isn't being attacked as unconstitutional, it's being attacked as bigoted.  I disagree with the left's argument, but if you're insinuating that a religious person should have to conform to what would be an unconstitutional intrusion by government, we're going to have to disagree.

Read all the sentences in the post.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"... if you're insinuating that a religious person should have to conform to what would be an unconstitutional intrusion by government, we're going to have to disagree."

Basically, some religious groups and individuals are claiming that the First Amendment protections of their religious rights protects them from being discriminated against while they engage in discrimination of other individuals based on their religious beliefs.

Do you understand what an incredibly poorly written bill this was?

This opens the door for Indiana residents to deny lodging to an interracial couple and claim that their actions were based on their religious belief that racial mixing is a sin and used this law ro avoid any legal action by the State government.

It's too vague, too broad, and badly constructed.

[Carling]

Basically, some religious groups and individuals are claiming that the First Amendment protections of their religious rights protects them from being discriminated against while they engage in discrimination of other individuals based on their religious beliefs.

Do you understand what an incredibly poorly written bill this was?

This opens the door for Indiana residents to deny lodging to an interracial couple and claim that their actions were based on their religious belief that racial mixing is a sin and used this law ro avoid any legal action by the State government.

It's too vague, too broad, and badly constructed.

I don't understand how poorly written the bill is.  All I know is that the gay SJWs are screaming to high hell about it, so based on that experience in my life, that means that its likely being misrepresented by the liberals and the media.  As always, I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. 

Also, which recognized religion considers interracial marriage a sin that is against their teachings?  Why is only the gay community against this bill, if what you posit is actually true about racial discrimination? 

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't understand how poorly written the bill is.  All I know is that the gay SJWs are screaming to high hell about it, so based on that experience in my life, that means that its likely being misrepresented by the liberals and the media.  As always, I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. 

Also, which recognized religion considers interracial marriage a sin that is against their teachings?  Why is only the gay community against this bill, if what you posit is actually true about racial discrimination?

In the pre-Loving v. Virginia days in the US, a significant portion of the opposition to interracial marriage came from religious groups.

Eventually, a number of religious leaders came pt in opposition to interracial marriage bans, but it is fair to say that Christians historically (durting the pre-Loving years) may have more opposition than support for interracial marriage

[Carling]

In the pre-Loving v. Virginia days in the US, a significant portion of the opposition to interracial marriage came from religious groups.

Eventually, a number of religious leaders came pt in opposition to interracial marriage bans, but it is fair to say that Christians historically (durting the pre-Loving years) may have more opposition than support for interracial marriage

That doesn't at all explain how banning interracial couples from a bed and breakfast is now legal in Indiana.  That is a federal crime and has been deemed unconstitutional, and has been that way for years.   You even cited the case, which kind of defeats your own initial argument.

Are you equating sexual preference to race?  If so, I understand it, but strictly looking at existing federal law, the banning of interracial couples is not considered the same as banning gays.  I vehemently disagree with banning people based on race and/or sexual preference, but I understand the difference in terms of legality. 

[pjohns]

The left in America is typically very tolerant--just as long as one marches in lockstep with their politically correct views...

[Luis Gonzalez]

That doesn't at all explain how banning interracial couples from a bed and breakfast is now legal in Indiana.  That is a federal crime and has been deemed unconstitutional, and has been that way for years.   You even cited the case, which kind of defeats your own initial argument.

Are you equating sexual preference to race?  If so, I understand it, but strictly looking at existing federal law, the banning of interracial couples is not considered the same as banning gays.  I vehemently disagree with banning people based on race and/or sexual preference, but I understand the difference in terms of legality.

That's exactly my point.

I can claim that renting a home to an interracial couple places an undue burden on my ability to freely exercise my religious belies, so this law now files at the face of earlier established State and Federal laws which will bring about the eventual classification of sexual orientation and gender issues as protected classes under Federal law via the eventual, inevitable SCOTUS case.

This is basically the identical sequence of events which led us up to Lawrence v. Texas and the striking down of all anti homosexuality laws.

[olde north church]

What it boils down to is, homosexuals recognize heterosexuals do things better because they lack an agenda.