When H8trs H8


The new war on religious people (of whom I not one) takes on a new urgency as Huffington Post detects a new threat to the republic.

Pence and his state have faced significant national backlash since he signed RFRA last week. The governors of Connecticut and Washington have imposed bans on state-funded travel to Indiana, and several events scheduled to be held in the state have been canceled. Organizers of Gen Con, which has been called the largest gaming convention in the country, are considering moving the gathering from Indiana as well.

Nearby cities like Chicago are capitalizing on the controversy, with Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) trying to lure Indiana-based businesses into his city.

UPDATE: 1:52 p.m. — White House press secretary Josh Earnest responded to Pence’s comments Tuesday, saying the Indiana law has backfired because it goes against most people’s values.

No, it is against the left’s values. The institutional left. The hysteria extends beyond the usual left and may involve a few weak willed Republicans like those who pressured Arizona governor Jan Brewer to veto a similar bill a year or so ago. Fortunately, Arizona has a new and presumably more firm governor.

Narrowly speaking, that is, the left’s hatred of RFRA is about preserving the authority of the cake police—government agencies determined to coerce bakeries, photo studios, florists and other small businesses to participate in same-sex weddings even if the owners have eccentric conscientious objections.

Whether Indiana’s RFRA would protect such objectors is an open question: The law only sets forth the standard by which state judges would adjudicate their claims. Further, as the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group, notes, the Hoosier State has no state laws prohibiting private entities from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. (It does have same-sex marriage, pursuant to a federal court ruling.) There are also no such antidiscrimination laws at the federal level. Thus under current law, only certain cities and counties in Indiana even have a cake police.

The “cake police” are, of course a term of art from James Taranto to describe the opportunistic left who enforce the gay rights agenda on unsuspecting Christians.

“As Michael Paulson noted in a recent story in The Times, judges have been hearing complaints about a florist or baker or photographer refusing to serve customers having same-sex weddings. They’ve been siding so far with the gay couples.” That is, the judges have been rejecting small-business men’s conscientious objections and compelling them to do business with gay-wedding planners. Bruni approves.

Without harboring animus toward gays or sharing the eccentric baker’s social and religious views, one may reasonably ask: If a baker is uncomfortable baking a cake for you, why call the cake police? Why not just find another baker who’s happy to have your business?

This, of course, is far too simple.

Baking a cake, arranging roses, running an inn: These aren’t religious acts, certainly not if the establishments aren’t religious enclaves and are doing business with (and even dependent on) the general public.

Of course ! A religious person cannot indulge their own conscience in acts of public virtue. On the left, it is allowed to do so in such examples as Global Warming which require a very public demonstration of piety. Sort of like driving a Prius but more important.

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank devoted to “promoting free-market solutions,” has been holding these confabs since 2008, sometimes twice a year. And the strategy appears to be working. At the end of day one, Morano—whose claim to fame is having broken the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story that sank John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign—leads the gathering through a series of victory laps. Cap and trade: dead! Obama at the Copenhagen summit: failure! The climate movement: suicidal! He even projects a couple of quotes from climate activists beating up on themselves (as progressives do so well) and exhorts the audience to “celebrate!”

Yes, we must assert that temperatures are rising in spite of inconvenient facts like stable global temperatures.

The gay “Mafia” is good at enforcing conformity. The hysteria about a small pizza restaurant in Indiana that was entrapped by an enterprising TV reporter who asked a question that had nothing to do with real actions by the store, is but the latest example.

ABC-57 reporter Alyssa Marino’s editor sends her on a half-hour drive southwest of their South Bend studio, to the small town of Walkerton (Pop. ~2,300). According to Alyssa’s own account on Twitter, she “just walked into their shop [Memories Pizza] and asked how they feel” about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Owner Crystal O’Connor says she’s in favor of it, noting that while anyone can eat in her family restaurant, if the business were asked to cater a gay wedding, they would not do it. It conflicts with their biblical beliefs. Alyssa’s tweet mentions that the O’Connors have “never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding.”

There was no request to cater a gay wedding. The girl was asked a far-fetched hypothetical question.

The result was hysteria led by Huffington Post, a leftist blog.

The Huffington Post headline screams:

Indiana’s Memories Pizza Reportedly Becomes First Business To Reject Catering Gay Weddings

Memories Pizza is a nine-year-old shop in downtown Walkerton, Indiana, just a few blocks from John Glenn High School. It’s owned by an openly-Christian couple, the O’Connors, who decorate their shop with mementos of their faith in Christ. So how does a small business in a small town wind up making headlines around the world as the new avatar of Christian bigotry?

Perhaps, you say, they brought this upon themselves, seeking out publicity for their strict biblical views.

Er, no they were asked a hypothetical question.

What makes that Times editorial surprising is the frank admission that the editors are unwilling to apply their principles to the religious group they disfavor, namely “conservative Christian groups.” That’s not to say their candor is untarnished by bad faith. They set up a dichotomy between “religious minorities” and “conservative Christian groups.” But unless the old Moral Majority was—and still is—worthy of the latter half of its name, the dichotomy is self-evidently a false one.

It is also an invidious one, since it singles out one religious minority (or, to be precise, one category thereof, since there are many kinds of conservative Christians) and deems it unworthy of the first freedom. And that supposed unworthiness is not limited to the matter of same-sex marriage, or gay rights more generally. The Times once again rebukes the Supreme Court for having “helped the cause of Christian conservatives with its 2014 Hobby Lobby decision,” which held that RFRA limited the government’s coercive authority vis-à-vis the provision of contraceptives through employee medical benefits.

This is shameful ! Imagine allowing Christian Conservatives to practice their religion without interference.

The only remaining question in the same-sex marriage “debate” was what kind of space, if any, an ascendant cultural liberalism would leave to Americans with traditional views on what constitutes a marriage; that the correlation of forces (corporate now as well as cultural and legal) was such that the choice of exactly how far to push and how much pluralism to permit would be almost entirely in the hands of liberals and supporters of same-sex marriage.

What about other religions ?

To take another example: Suppose we went to a devout Muslim baker and ordered a cake decorated with the image of Muhammad. Presumably he would refuse. If the state moved to compel him to fill our order, would he not have a very strong religious-freedom claim?

Obviously, the Christians must be suppressed. Muslims, of course, are a different issue as they sometimes cut off heads.

The one good aspect of the whole controversy is that a Gofundme site has almost $400,000 after less than one day for the pizza shop owner. And just in time for Easter.

Good Friday today.

23 thoughts on “When H8trs H8”

  1. “No, it is against the left’s values. The institutional left.”

    Like NASCAR.

    Like Asa Hutchinson.

    THAT institutional left that is conservative in all other world’s except the 20%’ers who deny reality…even when it’s staring them in the face.

    Most Americans believe discrimination was resolved back in the early 1960’s.

    The extreme right and Michael Kennedy remind us that there are hold outs who insure that bigots wrapping themselves in religion or America’s flag are rewarded with donations from the like minded.

  2. in all other world’s except the 20%’ers who deny reality…even when it’s staring them in the face

    Right. Because our traditions of freedom of speech, religion and association are meant to protect powerful majorities with culturally dominant views.

  3. “who insure that bigots wrapping themselves in religion”

    Thank you for identifying yourself as one of the gay mafia that demands that all bow to your preferences, even if they affect no one who does not invite attention.

  4. As far as your “20%” is concerned, Ramesh Ponnuru calls attention to two polls. In the first poll, Marist finds that 65 percent support letting businesses withhold wedding services from same-sex couples. In the second, an AP poll found a 57 percent majority for the same position.

    It’s reassuring to see that not that many Americans are H8ers.

  5. There was a Supreme Court decision, written by Scalia, of all people called Employment Division v Smith. This was a peyote case. the logic of the majority in Smith was that religions cannot be exempt from laws of general applicability. The logic of the decision was so broad that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed requiring such laws to pass strict scrutiny. Both Democrats and Republicans supported it at the time because most people realized that were Smith’s logic enforced at the time of Prohibition, Catholics and Orthodox would not have been able to count on a religious exemption and that state of affairs was widely recognized as trouble just waiting to happen.

    So the gays, by agitating against RFRA without suggesting any more acceptable legislation to replace it are coming after traditional christian communion.


  6. If it’s wrong to condemn homosexuality, then it’s wrong to condemn heterosexuality. Feminism is an ideology of bigotry.

  7. Perhaps someday Christians and other lovers of liberty will fight for the rights of Americans, as the Founding Fathers fought for the rights of Englishmen. That day is not today and not tomorrow.

  8. Kevin Williamson is a national treasure, especially now.

    There are three problems with rewarding those who use accusations of bigotry as a political cudgel. First, those who seek to protect religious liberties are not bigots, and going along with false accusations that they are makes one a party to a lie. Second, it is an excellent way to lose political contests, since there is almost nothing — up to and including requiring algebra classes — that the Left will not denounce as bigotry. Third, and related, it encourages those who cynically deploy accusations of bigotry for their own political ends.

  9. This whole controversy is not about hate, it is about a minority forcing acceptance of its opinions on the majority. It is one thing to protect the minority’s rights. It is another to impose their beliefs on the majority. It is no coincidence that this issue focuses on wedding cakes, as part of the aim is to undermine traditional marriage and family.

    Those supporting the minority view should consider the implications for another minority, muslims. When bakers have to make cakes celebrating the latest muslim atrocity against another minority, say homosexuals, which minority will prevail? Undoubtedly the one most prone to violent reaction if it loses. Good luck folks.

  10. It is a racket. One knows this because it follows a clear pattern with clear benefits for the racketeers. There is a media ambush of some unsuspecting person whom no one would otherwise be interested in. The media interchange then gets spun as an example of injustice and activists target the subject and rally hatred from their constituents. The payoff is Web traffic and ad revenue for the media, financial donations for the activists and pols and perhaps a wave of popular support for their causes. Alinskyism.

    There are worthy causes that get little public attention because their natural constituencies are disorganized or structurally weak. A friend of mine volunteers as a guardian ad litem in the local child-protection bureaucracy. She is a very conscientious person and complains that the system has little interest in enforcing child-support orders in cases where the father is known, employed and clearly evading his obligations. My response is that this situation exists because child-support payments go directly to mothers and no one in the system gets a cut. Abused prison inmates are another example of such an underserved constituency.

    Then there are causes that are largely made up but that persist because of their political utility to some group. The feminist Left has the bogus campus-rape crisis and the homosexual Left has discrimination. These issues are similar because they are both greatly exaggerated and useful in generating outcomes for the Left that are not readily available through the legislative process. Discrimination against gays in this country is such a small problem that perpetrators must be manufactured by conducting media ambushes of naive small-business owners. Yet wealthy, politically powerful gay leftists focus their public outrage on the small fry rather than on people like the Saudis who really do persecute gays. But this makes perfect sense, since the Saudis will do nothing to further leftist political agendas, while public abuse of suburban shop owners will convince many Americans that public acquiescence to what gay leftists want is the path of least resistance.

  11. I have been contending that this was the end objective of the gay marriage stuff since the beginning. Remember when this was all about how poor gay couples couldn’t visit in hospitals, etc. (not that any of this was something that couldn’t have been resolved by quick power of attorney letters etc.) Then it became benefits based so civil unions were proposed. Not good enough, because it was all about making same sex relationships the SAME as the opposite sex relationships with a million years of history. It is the pretense of being the “same” that causes problems. Otherwise someone might point out that Heather does not have two mommies, she has a mother and a father that wasn’t invited to the party. It is this regularization of same sex relations that does the harm, and the religious person is most aware of it. It’s sad enough to be homosexual in many respects, but to feel like you have to force it to be a pretense of traditional marriage/child rearing is extremely sad.

  12. “Otherwise someone might point out that Heather does not have two mommies, ”

    The absence of serious research on children of gay parents is another indicator. It’s like the “studies” that purport to prove that stay-at-home mothers are no better at raising children than working mothers.

    Notice the Source.

    As Warner writes in her book Perfect Madness, an eight-year study in 1955 “found no significant differences in school performance, psychosomatic symptoms, or closeness to their mothers” between children of working and nonworking mothers.

    This stuff is very important to the left.

    The only place you find opposing opinions is in the religious “Right” sources.

    The usual sources from academics are uniformly supportive of gays.

    One of the biggest challenges facing same-sex parented families is that they must live in a culture that supports heterosexist and homophobic attitudes and beliefs, which can affect these families in a variety of ways. A second complication is that these families are usually part of a blended family and include children from previous heterosexual marriages.

    Yes. What a shame !

    The left automatically attacks any attempt to study the topic honestly.

    Conservatives are excitedly promoting a new study that supposedly reveals negative outcomes for the children of same-sex parents. Like the infamously flawed Mark Regnerus study rushed out two years ago, the new study seems timed to impact the Supreme Court’s upcoming consideration of marriage equality for same-sex couples. It suffers, however, from some of the same flaws and biases as Regnerus’ study, and doesn’t actually support the argument against marriage equality that it tries to make.

    We will be lucky to find any honest study. All we have are anecdotes, usually from unhappy children.

    There are “two rights” that every child shares when they arrive in this world, Katy Faust wrote in her brief. “First, the right to live. Second, the right to have a relationship with his/her father and mother.”

    Dawn Stefanowicz said her gay father was so preoccupied with sex that when she was in high school and brought home a male classmate, both her father and his lover propositioned him for sex.

    B.N. Klein said her mother and lesbian partner disdained heterosexual families completely, and she didn’t have a clue about the daily interactions of a husband and wife until she went into foster care.

    Robert Oscar Lopez said his two lesbian mothers were conscientious about his upbringing, but he became so emotionally confused that he turned to gay prostitution as a teen and gay and bisexual relationships as an adult.

    It’s hard to know how representative these kids are,

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/8/gay-couples-children-oppose-same-sex-marriage-tell/#ixzz3WIFeNHqr
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

  13. Strange world. An ‘animus’ towards homosexuality is bad, an ‘animus’ towards Christians is good. Condemn homosexuality and you’re a victim of a mob; condemn heterosexuality and you run a studies department at university.

    Human nature is constant; only the targets change. This century (and the last): bad elements, Christians, Jews, kulaks, untermenschen, et. al. In the future, other groups.

  14. It will have to be explained to the powers that be there are limits to how much power can reveal intrinsic madness in terms of policy.

    There is no pretty clarification possible, nor is it deserved.

    Nor would any respectable person so offended and transgressed against desire to settle as such.

    For context such an clarification and setting of bounds occurred at tragic but unavoidable cost during Clinton’s first term. These sacrifices were not in vain and we reap the benefits to this day.

    For it’s not uncommon for criminals to hold power, nor weaklings, nor the venal, nor sadly the Mad. It’s our misfortune that our present Elites are weak, venal, criminal and raving Mad.

    This should not dishearten you anymore than a beat cop who’s realized the nature of those he repeatedly must arrest or otherwise correct: for all of those still understand FEAR.

    Especially the Weak. The Present Administration’s and certainly the Media Weak is their most outstanding quality, followed by Madness. Fear has long kept the Criminal and Mad in line.

    This will be worked out. Ugly but it will work.

  15. I understand that the uproar on the left about the pizza place has died down now that the GoFundMe total is over $600,000.

    The latest story from the left is that the poor TV reporter was tricked into reporting the story so the pizza owner could collect.


  16. The latest story from the left is that the poor TV reporter was tricked into reporting the story so the pizza owner could collect. Amazing.

    Any lie will do. It’s one of the Left’s defining characteristics.

  17. Strange world. An ‘animus’ towards homosexuality is bad, an ‘animus’ towards Christians is good. Condemn homosexuality and you’re a victim of a mob; condemn heterosexuality and you run a studies department at university.

    Human nature is constant; only the targets change. This century (and the last): bad elements, Christians, Jews, kulaks, untermenschen, et. al. In the future, other groups.

    Well said, alas.

    But it occurs to me that the American left is attempting to “otherize” not merely an unpopular and/or disarmed sliver of the national population but a portion of the people inhabiting the territory of the United States perhaps as large as all practicing Christians or all white males or even all cultural Americans as defined circa 1980. This is a much greater task than merely using the armed might of the state to erase a despised minority.

    Worse for them, I suspect they’re relying much more upon those mystic chords of memory that once bound all Americans both to cement their gains and to keep them safe. They’ve spent my entire lifetime and more attempting to erase the Constitution, end the Rule of Law, and lately, “fundamentally transforming” the United States.

    You can’t unring a bell. If the Constitution is now a dead letter, it’s a dead letter for everyone, not merely for the people who want it to be so.

    Everyone can read Alinsky, after all. And despite their bestest efforts, they still haven’t been able to disarm the American people. Too late for that now, for them.

    Too many Americans are thinking of themselves in the role of the Jews, or the Kulaks, or etc.

  18. ” … the American left is attempting to “otherize” not merely an unpopular and/or disarmed sliver of the national population but a portion of the people inhabiting the territory of the United States perhaps as large as all practicing Christians or all white males or even all cultural Americans as defined circa 1980. This is a much greater task than merely using the armed might of the state to erase a despised minority…”

    Yes, this is exactly what they are trying to do – to otherize a whole range of Americans; conservatives generally, Tea Party types, the observantly religious, genuine political non-conformists of every sort. I don’t know how many of those enthusiastically agreeing to the ‘otherizing’ have really sat down and considered exactly how many people they are consigning to the outer regions as kulaks, or considered the implications of what they have been led to do … but I am pretty certain they also will rationalize what happens to ‘those others’ as just meet, just and what we deserve as ‘others.’

Comments are closed.