Great grandmother florist is the latest victim of the secular-leftist gay inquisition

WINTERY KNIGHT

This is from the Daily Signal.

Excerpt:

A florist in Washington state is being sued for adhering to her Christian beliefs in declining to make flower arrangements for one couple’s wedding.

Before the lawsuit, Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Wash., had employed workers who identify as homosexual and sold floral arrangements to gay and lesbian customers.

One such customer turned out to be one of the men who would sue her for not being willing to be hired for their same-sex wedding.

Unlike businesses that face similar lawsuits for refusing to provide specific wedding-related services to gay and lesbian couples on religious grounds—among them bakers in Oregon and farmers in New York—Stutzman is being sued in both a professional and personal capacity.

When Washington state legalized same-sex marriage in 2012, she decided that as a matter of conscience she could not participate in or further same-sex ceremonies…

View original post 318 more words

The Smoking Gun Turns On Marriage

What the last great culture war has to tell us about the new one.

The health of the individual was never the goal. No matter the public and private expenditure, 20 percent of the American population never seemed to get on board with anti-smoking zealotry (while 100 percent enjoyed it while drinking). People were content to leave the nonbelievers to their smoke-filled rooms. The advent of second-hand smoke campaigns, however, raised their consciences. Suddenly the actions of barroom enablers and individual users threatened the poor waitress.

The gay lobby has found that self-esteem is their secondhand smoke. Waitresses are turning ample tips into homophobic hatecrimes. Gay meth addicts murdered by their drug-dealing lovers are victims of homophobia. States that have experienced no wave of homophobic hiring practice despite the lack of anti-discrimination laws for gay people are at risk of mass-discrimination by quote-unquote religious people. And if your church preaches what every church—Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, hell, even Communism—preached for millennia, well then, you’re no different than the inhuman, diabolical douchebags draping “God Hates Fags” banners over military funerals.

The problem isn’t that the traditionalist view exists; the problem is that traditionalists exist. The new goal is to punish, not persuade, the individual, because of his potential threat to the community writ large.

NYT Reporter: Traditional Marriage Supporters ‘Unworthy of Respect,’ Deserve Incivility, Marriage Is Whatever Gov’t Says It Is

Figures.

Civil discourse has long been regarded as a necessary component of a well-functioning democracy. But a New York Times reporter believes that value should be abandoned in relations with those who disagree with him on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Josh Barro claimed that those who oppose redefining marriage to include same-sex unions are “unworthy of respect” and he is justified in being uncivil toward them in a Twitter debate with Ryan Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

The debate began when Barro tweeted on July 23 that “anti-LBGT attitudes” should be “ruthlessly” stamped out. Several conservative publications noticed the tweet and wrote about it (see here and here). They pointed out that in 2012 a gunman did try to “stamp out” the traditional marriage supporters at Family Research Council. Barro clarified that by “stamp out” he did not mean to “off people,” but “we should make anti-LGBT views shameful like segregation.”

On July 26, Anderson, who writes and speaks often in defense of the traditional definition of marriage, tagged Barro saying that “we may disagree, but no need to be uncivil.” To which Barro responded with the argument that segregationists should not be shown respect. He also described the expectation of civility in political discourse as “ridiculous.”

In a couple of different replies, Anderson argued that it is possible and preferable for those with disagreements to show respect for one another. Even those with deeply flawed thinking, such as segregationists, are deserving of respect due to the “innate human dignity” of every person, he added.

[…]

Anderson wrote about the exchange for a July 29 op-ed for The Daily Signal.

“Leave aside the dismissive way he refers to policy arguments for why marriage should be the union of a man and woman as ‘anti-gay’ (much like liberals deride pro-lifers as ‘anti-choice’ and welfare reformers as ‘anti-poor’),” he said. “The larger problem is that one of the country’s leading policy wonks and correspondent for The New York Times thinks that some people are ‘unworthy of respect.’ Not that some ideas are unworthy of respect, but that the people are.”

The Twitter debate also included a debate about the definition of marriage. Anderson has co-authored a book and several articles (here, here and here, for instance) presenting a case against changing marriage to include same-sex couples. The debate over marriage is not a debate about “equality,” Anderson says, because to know whether two things are equal, you first need to know what they are; so the debate over marriage is, at its core, a debate about what marriage is.

Barro argued that marriage is whatever government says it is. If that is true, Anderson responded, then “government could never define marriage wrongly,” so the real question is “how should government define it, based on what it is.”

“That’s part of our disagreement. You think the state creates marriage, I think the state recognizes marriage, based on human nature,” Anderson added.