Archive for Gays

Would You Like Fries With That?

Since Mark Steyn parted ways with National Review, I am less drawn to that site.

But Kevin Williamson is one big draw:

A couple of weeks ago, I ordered a ribeye, extra rare, and the chef or the waiter or somebody messed it up. I sent it back to the kitchen. A lesbian couple near Uniontown, Ohio, ordered a baby, extra white, and their order got messed up — the sperm bank mistakenly gave them the product of a black man, with the result that their daughter, Payton, is half black. And that’s the problem with treating children as consumer products: You cannot send them back to the kitchen.

Good thing fertility doctors don’t work for tips.

Naturally, there is a lawsuit — for breach of warranty, among other things. The couple say that they are suffering stress from raising their mixed-race daughter in an overwhelmingly white community. I can picture the scene: A mob of angry Ohioans, torches and pitchforks at the ready, menacingly reads a declaration: “We, the town fathers of Obscurity, Ohio, were perfectly ready to be accepting, supportive, and welcoming of this lesbian couple’s test-tube baby. But when that lesbian couple’s test-tube baby turns out to be half black — well, that’s a bridge too far for the decent people of Ohio.” I suppose they might then burn half a cross — Ohio’s pretty weird.

While one must pity the poor little girl who is being treated like a defective Honda Civic, it’s a delicious clash of progressive pieties. The mother — and somehow I suspect that I’ll be informed five minutes from now that it is wicked to call the half of the couple who carried the child and gave birth the “mother” — Jennifer Cramblett, among other things complains that it is difficult to find a place to get her daughter a decent haircut. It should be a hoot watching her make that case in court. I’m a white, conservative guy from Texas, and even I know better than to go skipping merrily into the cultural minefield that is black women’s hair, a subject that calls to mind my favorite cowboy proverb: “Never miss a good chance to shut up.”

Cowboy or blogger, them’s words to live by.

Of course the couple have a legal case: the product they were delivered was not what they ordered. And indeed they can’t send it back. Everything after that is abhorrent.

Contrast these women with the lummoxes who host the sports talk show I listen to every morning. Imagine being in the delivery room with your wife, they proposed, maybe hoping for a son, and a girl is born. There is not one second—not one instant—of disappointment. That’s your daughter! She’s your baby girl. Maybe you return the catcher’s glove, maybe you keep it, but the last thing you concern yourself with is who will be her barber.

I know several gay couples with children. If anything, they are better parents than many straight couples I know, though the sample size is small. I put that down to self-selection: it takes a little more thought and effort to have a baby if you’re gay. If you’re straight, it may take little more than a bottle of zinfandel.

But narcissism cares not about race, gender, or sexual preference. Regardless of where it came from, these women have another life in their hands. The “mother” carried it to term in her womb. Give them their money back, absolutely; come to a settlement over the “mistake”. But I hold these women to a higher standard. They are accepted in their community, even if they are different in at least one respect. And they can’t reciprocate? To an innocent baby?

Last word to Williamson:

A strange thing: Nothing in the modern world has contributed to the devaluation of women as pitilessly as has the reduction of motherhood to the status of a take-out order of ovum foo young, and yet nothing is held so sacred by feminists. I cannot imagine that when the early feminists wrote about the “commodification of women” that they ever imagined it would get so literal, with product warranties and all.

Comments

That’s So Gay

An offensive expression, I’m told, but I don’t know why.

Gay means very, very small:

The National Health Interview Survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is the federal government’s most relied upon estimate of the nation’s health and behaviors, found that fewer than 3% of respondents self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Only 1.6% of respondents self-identified as gay or lesbian, and even less, 0.7%, self-identified as bisexual.

The estimate of the percentage of bisexuals was lower than the 2008 General Social Survey, which estimated that number at 1.1 percent, while other surveys have intimated that the percentage of bisexuals is the same as gays.

Conversely, 96.6% self-identified as straight, while 1.1% answered, “I don’t know the answer” or stated they were “something else.”

And they didn’t ask a follow up question???

Gay people are upset:

Gay leaders are expressing alarm at the just-released numbers from the Center for Disease Control that place the percentage of Americans identifying as homosexual at only 1.6% of the adult population.

Anyhow, I would have thought the number was larger, but I didn’t ask 35,000 people.

The CDC defends its survey, explaining the current survey polled 35,000 adults. The CDC’s National Center on Health Statistics told the Washington Post they “conducted rigorous tests to come up with the questions and interview method. They conducted more than 100 in-depth interviews—far more than is typical—and did three field tests, including one in which they experimented with a more private interview method that allowed respondents to listen to questions using headphones and type their answers into a computer.” James Dahlhamer, a health statistician with the CDC, told the Post there was no difference in the results using the two methods.

Like I said, I might have supposed the percentage was larger, but what do I know?

But get a load of what really makes the gay lobby angry:

Scout, who goes by one name, a spokesman for CenterLink’s Network of LGBT Health Equity, told the Washington Post, “The truth is, numbers matter, and political influence matters.”

Ellyn Ruthstrom, president of the Bi-Sexual Resource Center in Boston, said, “It’s just going to make it harder for us when we’re going out and talking to people about the bisexual population. We have a real hard time already with people not taking the bisexual identity seriously.”

“Political influence”? “Taking the bisexual identity seriously”? I don’t care what the number is, but I believe there is a number. And I believe it is derived by methods a lot closer to the CDC’s than to “Scout”‘s or the Bi-SexResoC’s. May I suggest that if you wish to be taken seriously, you act seriously.

Comments

Congress Shall Make No Law…

But boy, does it ever.

I support gay marriage, but with one nagging doubt. Once we decide we have the right to change the definition of marriage, do we have the right to stop? What are our criteria for defining what is not marriage? Wherever we draw the line, aren’t we just giving in to another set of prejudices and biases?

That’s not enough to change my mind about two men or two women marrying with full legal rights, but my prejudices and biases are piqued. Indeed, we have heard of challenges to marriages from polygamists, incest advocates, and others who want to speed the “evolving paradigm” of marriage. Who are we to bar the courthouse door?

It’s not enough to allow gay marriage; it must be celebrated under penalty of law:

Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission on Friday ordered a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, finding his religious objections to the practice did not trump the state’s anti-discrimination statutes.

The unanimous ruling from the seven-member commission upheld an administrative law judge’s finding in December that Jack Phillips violated civil rights law when he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012. The couple sued.

“I can believe anything I want, but if I’m going to do business here, I’d ought to not discriminate against people,” Commissioner Raju Jaram said.

Phillips, a devout Christian who owns the Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, said the decision violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of his religion. “I will stand by my convictions until somebody shuts me down,” he told reporters after the ruling.

He added his bakery has been so overwhelmed by supporters eager to buy cookies and brownies that he does not currently make wedding cakes.

Perhaps that’s the best solution. Rather than allow a business owner to refuse service to someone (a practice with a very bad history), the business just changes its practices. Phillips never discriminated against customers for being gay—even baking cakes for them—he just refused the business of baking their wedding cakes. As with a lot of thorny social problems, I see both sides. His solution to stop baking wedding cakes altogether seems the best solution. His business is booming, and the gay couple who felt discriminated against feel vindicated. Both claim victory.

Or perhaps not. What was the exact damage down to the gay couple looking to purchase a wedding cake? How many other bakers do you suppose would have refused? I’d say none. In fact, I find it almost astonishing that they had the bad luck to choose the one devout Christian baker who would decline to accept their business. No, that’s not right. He would happily accept their business—for muffins, rolls, scones, even cakes—just not a wedding cake. To do so would violate his religious belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. How did these three find each other?

I am certain that Adam and Steve (I can’t be bothered to check their real names) would have found joy at just about every other bakery they went to. There was no systemic discrimination against them (as there was with black people at lunch counters and water fountains in the 50s), just one man with a religious conscience. But that could not be tolerated. Tolerance is a one-way street, and that street leads inevitably to acceptance, and thence to celebration. Woe betide you if you try to go against the prevailing direction.

And why stop at marriage?

Medicare will now be covering sex change surgeries–meaning it won’t be long before private insurance is required to do likewise.

But that won’t be the end of it. Over at Human Exceptionalism I nominate Body Integrity Identity Disorder–sometimes called “amputee wannabe”–as the next affliction for which surgery will one day be required to be a covered service. In this time of identity-is-all politics, what principled reason can there be to say no?

I have no good answer. Do you?

PS: The title of the post is misleading. It’s not the legislative branch (or not just) that’s leading the charge against the traditional definition of marriage, but the judicial branch. Marriage is defined in state laws across the country, but court after court now insists those laws are discriminatory. Again, I agree. But now what?

Comments

You’re Next

Mark Steyn got into trouble (as if—the kind of trouble David Ortiz feels when he sees a hanging curveball) for citing this old Bob Hope chestnut:

“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

As he learned—as so many have learned—gay does not mean what it used to mean (cheerful: happy, jolly, merry, bright, glad, sunny, joyful, joyous, lighthearted, in good spirits, in high spirits, sparkling, bubbly, exuberant, buoyant, ebullient, elated, gleeful; breezy, cheery, jaunty, animated, radiant, smiling; jovial, genial, good-humored; carefree, unworried, untroubled, without a care in the world; informal upbeat, chipper, chirpy, peppy, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, full of beans; dated gay; formal jocund, blithe):

Mozilla Chief Executive Brendan Eich has stepped down, the company said on Thursday, after an online dating service urged a boycott of the company’s web browser because of a donation Eich made to opponents of gay marriage.

The software company came under fire for appointing Eich as CEO last month. In 2008, he gave money to oppose the legalization of gay marriage in California, a hot-button issue especially at a company that boasts about its policy of inclusiveness and diversity.

While gay activists applauded the move, many in the technology community lamented the departure of Eich, who invented the programming language Javascript and co-founded Mozilla.

“Brendan Eich is a good friend of 20 years, and has made a profound contribution to the Web and to the entire world,” venture capitalist Marc Andreessen tweeted.

Eich donated $1,000 in 2008 in support of California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in June.

His resignation came days after OkCupid.com, the popular online dating site, called for a boycott of Mozilla Firefox to protest the world’s No. 2 Web browser naming a gay marriage opponent as chief executive.

That’s it. A single $1,000 donation (pocket change, toll money), and it’s off to Elba for this guy. (I want to say Robben Island just to pi** people off.) You don’t have to agree with him—I don’t—to find his treatment abhorrent (detestable, hateful, loathsome, despicable, abominable, execrable, repellent, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, disgusting, distasteful, horrible, horrid, horrifying, awful, heinous, reprehensible, obnoxious, odious, nauseating, offensive, contemptible).

I do. Just as I find the compulsory baking of gay wedding cakes abhorrent (detestable, hateful, loathsome…).

We grew up learning that our republic protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. But who or what protects the majority (Prop 8 passed) from the tyranny of the minority?

I support gay marriage, but I’m strongly tempted to drive to the nearest Chick-fil-A for lunch. I hate bullies of all shapes and colors, including rainbow.

Comments

Sweets for the Sweet

Sasha and Malia seem pretty nice. And you can’t blame the dogs, Bo and… the other one.

The rest of the inhabitants seem a pretty bitter lot:

The White House executive pastry chef, Bill Yosses, is calling it quits, in part because first lady Michelle Obama has discouraged his creativity in working with full fat, sugar, and eggs, The New York Times reported.

“I don’t want to demonize cream, butter, sugar and eggs,” Yosses told the Times.

Old-fashioned “20 percent traditional desserts” make White House appearances only on special occasions. On Thanksgiving, “the Crustmaster,” as President Barack Obama calls him, was authorized to make different kinds of pies, and on Christmas he has created a detailed gingerbread version of the White House.

When German Chancellor Angela Merkel came in 2011 for a state dinner, Yosses created his own version of phyllo strudel with a plethora of farmer’s cheese, raisins, and apple. When French President Francois Hollande came in February, Yosses was permitted to prepare chocolate pastries without fretting about fat and sugar.

Here was that glorious moment:

We’re using a paint sprayer (previously unused of course) to give a micro-thin layer of chocolate over soft and creamy ganache cake. The bittersweet chocolate comes from Hawaii, and it will be served à la mode with vanilla ice-cream from Pennsylvania.

Bet that peeved Michelle no end. No wonder he was out a month later.

Yosses, now 60, was brought on board by Laura Bush in 2007 when decadent desserts were more welcome. With the arrival of the Obamas, Yosses found himself picking more ingredients from the White House garden, including strawberries, blueberries, and pineapple sage.

Á chacun a son goût, as they say. If the Obama’s like pineapple sage better than crème brulée, why shouldn’t they have it? But you’ve seen the president when he’s allowed to go out without the little ball and chain. It’s all butter, cream, chocolate, and eggs. And you can’t keep an ice cream cone out of his hands when he’s on vacation. Any nutritionist will tell you to include a little fat in your diet. You crave it and you need it. But let Michelle terrorize the kitchen staff if it keeps her happy.

But I want to consider a different angle (Rush and I came to these thoughts independently). Yosses is gay, and is moving to New York City with his husband. You all know that’s a-ok with me.

But if a gay couple can insist that a baker may not refuse on religious grounds to make their wedding cake (offering muffins and cookies—even non-wedding cakes—in their place), why does Michelle get to hound a gay baker out of his job without being criticized?

Besides:

A new review of published evidence challenges current guidelines that suggest in order to reduce heart disease risk, people should generally restrict intake of saturated fats – like those found in butter and dairy foods – in favor of unsaturated fats – such as in margarine and sunflower oil.

The analysis, published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine by an international group led by a team at the UK’s University of Cambridge, included 72 separate studies on heart risk and intake of fatty acids.

They found no evidence to support guidelines that say people should restrict saturated fat consumption to lower their risk of developing heart disease.

God spare us from these liberal do-gooders. They’ll be the death of us. Certainly the death of our jobs.

Comments

Impeach Fuzz

I can’t say I’ll sign their petition, but I hope they succeed:

A coalition of black pastors announced on Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. that they are launching a campaign to gather one million signatures on a petition calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder for violating his oath of office by trying “to coerce states to fall in line with the same-sex ‘marriage’ agenda.”

“President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have turned their backs on the values the American people hold dear, values particularly cherished in the black community: values like marriage, which should be strengthened and promoted, rather than weakened and undermined,” says a statement by the Coalition of African American Pastors that has been posted online with their impeachment petition.

“Our nation calls for the building up of a healthier marriage culture; instead, our elected leaders are bent on destroying marriage, remaking it as a genderless institution and reorienting it to be all about the desires of adults rather than the needs of children,” says the coalition.

“For abandoning the oath he swore in taking office and his duty to defend the common good, Attorney General Holder should be impeached by Congress,” says the coalition. “CAAP is calling on all men and women of good will to sign the following petition urging Congress to take action against the Attorney General’s lawlessness today!”

Again, I don’t agree with them on gay marriage, but there are plenty of reasons Holder should go (urging state AGs to ignore the law being the most recent one). I will also defend their right to their position, even if don’t agree with it. They are not haters; they are pastors taking a position on principle. But if they are to be true to their principles, they should call for Obama to go too.

Comments

Enough!

We’ve stayed mostly out of the Duck Dynasty kerfuffle.

But please:

A closeted gay student living in West Monroe, Louisiana has written a powerful essay, criticizing the town’s most famous residents – Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson.

Robertson made headlines after issuing homophobic comments in a GQ article, at one point comparing gay sex to bestiality, which got him put on suspension by the A&E network. But the network announced yesterday that they would be reinstating Robertson to the show, who so far has remained unapologetic about the comments.

In an essay posted on Times-Picuyne columnist Robert Mann’s blog, the communications student writes that Robertson probably didn’t mean to hurt anyone with his statements, he nonetheless created a hostile environment.

‘He encouraged – hopefully unintentionally – a two-week-long “fag bashing” in Monroe and around the world. He made me feel unsafe in my own home. I can’t count how many times I heard “faggot” over the Christmas visit home.’

The author says he’s never met Robertson but was raised by a man just like him, revealing that his father called him an asshole for coming out to his mother and told him that his boyfriend would never be welcomed at his house.

‘My Phil Robertson threatened my life because I had the audacity to be who I am,’ he wrote.

You’ve never met him, but you know all about him? Who’s prejudiced now?

Among the lesser-quoted sayings of Phil Robinson:

“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

The next time I watch Duck Dynasty will be the first time. I do not share much theologically with Phil Robertson (and not much more politically).

But I cannot stand people who play the victim. You kept your reputation to yourself, but had no problem smearing Robertson’s, ascribing beliefs, words, behaviors to him opposite to those he seems to hold. Weak. Very weak.

Did Robertson put the F-word in your family’s mouth? No, they did that. Sorry, sucks to be you, I guess, but it’s nothing to do with Robertson. You’ve got family problems, we get it, but you don’t know Robertson and he doesn’t know you.

Any sympathy I might have felt is reversed into contempt for the way you went about this.

Comments (1)

Back to Hating PajamaBoy

I called off the literary dogs on young Ethan Krupp shortly after discovering him for myself. Not visual barbs—how could one pass up ridiculing this visual?

But I didn’t like the homophobic drift of some of the commentary around the Web.

I just wish Ethan Krupp had the same forbearance:

Ethan Krupp, the little man who played “Pajama Boy” in a widely mocked Obamacare ad, once characterized himself as a “liberal f*ck.”

Krupp, an Organizing for Action (OFA) content writer who became the face of progressive America while wearing a onesie pajama suit, also remarked that gays “are all liberal f*cks” and criticized a “conservative gay prick” on his now-deleted WordPress blog, entitled “Not Being Creative.”

“I am a Liberal F*ck,” Krupp wrote in one post. “A Liberal F*ck is not a Democrat, but rather someone who combines political data and theory, extreme leftist views and sarcasm to win any argument while make the opponents feel terrible about themselves. I won every argument but one.”

Funny. I’ve known many, many liberal f*cks, and all they are is liberal f*cks. But E was just getting started:

Krupp then detailed the only political argument he claimed her ever lost, a drunken encounter he had with a “conservative gay prick.”

“I sat in a pizza joint, chomping on meat-heavy pizza and slamming whisky sours with gay guys on Pride Parade day in Columbus, Ohio; My gay roommate and friends loved to ironically ‘bro-out.’ I love gays because they are all liberal f*cks too,” Krupp wrote.

That last paragraph must be the most smug example of self-regard since Henry VIII’s last diary entry. I had a gay roommate in college (albeit many years ago); I can’t recall that he and his gay friends ever “bro’d-out” “chomping meat-heavy pizza” while “slamming whiskey sours”. At a pizza “joint”, no less. Is that our Pajama Boy play-acting Chuck Norris or something? It’s certainly putrid writing.

And it explains the conceited expression on his face, which seemed to settle on his face long ago:

As The Daily Caller reported, Krupp was accused of racism and anti-Semitism during his college-aged stint as the editor of the Madison, Wisconsin comedy newspaper the “Madison Misnomer.”

“We have no morals, and we will attack you. But you really don’t have to worry because no one reads the paper anyway,” Krupp added.

Madison is where Krupp cut his fangs:

“I have had the privilege of knowing Ethan Krupp for five years,” wrote a blogger on the website Ryanwolf.so.

“The past couple days have shown what the other side consists of. In short: homophobics, bigots, and prejudice emasculators. Even more concisely: assholes. Mustering up mud to sling at a photo of someone they don’t even know. Basing opinions on appearances. Their opining proving their foolishness, ignorance, and rottenness,” wrote the friend.

“For one, you would have been hard-pressed to see Ethan on the UW campus without a beautiful, I mean beautiful girl on his arm.

Yes, we all know girls like that. But what is a “prejudice emasculator”?

I don’t care if Ethan Krupp is gay, straight, left-handed, or Inuit. But I take him at his word, with more than ample supporting evidence, that he is a “liberal f*ck”. I won’t be gratuitously cruel, but should he ever resurface, I will treat him as he deserves.

Comments

Talking Turkey

I don’t know what to make of the Duck Dynasty kerfuffle.

I’ve never seen the show; I support full gay rights (including marriage), and don’t see homosexuality as a sin.

But more than anything, I hate tyranny. And this is fascistic tyranny, no matter how liberal the fascism:

“I speak with authority here, because I was openly gay before the ‘Stonewall rebellion,’ when it cost you something to be so. And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech,” [Camilla] Paglia, a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Thursday.

“In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as well as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I one hundred percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right of religious freedom there,” she added.

“To express yourself in a magazine in an interview — this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades,” Paglia said. “This is the whole legacy of free speech 1960’s that have been lost by my own party.”

Paglia went on to point out that while she is an atheist she respects religion and has been frustrated by the intolerance of gay activists.

“I think that this intolerance by gay activists toward the full spectrum of human beliefs is a sign of immaturity, juvenility,” Paglia said. “This is not the mark of a true intellectual life. This is why there is no cultural life now in the U.S. Why nothing is of interest coming from the major media in terms of cultural criticism. Why the graduates of the Ivy League with their A, A, A+ grades are complete cultural illiterates, etc. is because they are not being educated in any way to give respect to opposing view points.”

“There is a dialogue going on human civilization, for heaven sakes. It’s not just this monologue coming from fanatics who have displaced the religious beliefs of their parents into a political movement,” she added. “And that is what happened to feminism, and that is what happened to gay activism, a fanaticism.”

I don’t blame A&E—yet I do. They’re running a business, and they don’t need their spokesmen making trouble for them. Yet the network has done extremely well by the Dynasty dynasty. A little backbone, a little loyalty, is never a bad thing. They could have (and should have) condemned the remarks (if they found them condemnable), and dealt with the fallout like adults.

I don’t blame gay fanaticists—yet I do. Gay people have had it rough (stop laughing!), but their rights are lightyears beyond where they were even a decade ago. A man—a queer man (in the original sense of the word), quoting Corinthians, who also conceded that it was for God to judge the sinner—is allowed to hold and voice an anti-gay opinion without dragging homosexuals back into the closet. (An opinion expressed in a print interview, it must be noted, not on the show.) A&E’s premature capitulation is proof of who holds the power in the country. It ain’t the Bible-thumpers.

I don’t blame the Robertsons—yet I do. See above about freedom to hold and voice an opinion. But also see above about A&E being free to drop him. You make duck calls, you’re not a preacher. You’ve far exceeded your 15 minutes of fame, and you have a huge following. You are owed nothing more.

I guess the only people I blame unreservedly are the leftist cabal that called for duck scalp. I may share certain opinions, but you people disgust me.

Comments (4)

Love Muffins

You all know my position: I support gay marriage. I’ve been to one, and had a good time (the two women had more than a few hot-looking friends). I support gay marriage because I support marriage, and because I support equal treatment under the law.

Which is why I’m aghast at this:

Jack Phillips owns the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., about 10 miles from downtown Denver. In July 2012, two gay men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, asked Phillips to provide the cake for their wedding celebration. Though same-sex marriage is not allowed in Colorado — the Colorado Constitution states that “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state” — the two men had been married in Massachusetts.

As acknowledged by all parties, Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”

Jack Phillips is an evangelical Christian, and his religion does not allow him to participate in same-sex marriages or celebrations of same-sex marriages.

In other words, Phillips made it clear from the outset that he does not discriminate based on the sexual orientation of a prospective customer. He will knowingly sell his products to any gay person who wishes to purchase his baked goods.

Nevertheless, Craig and Mullins went to the ACLU, which then sued Phillips. On Dec. 6, administrative law Judge Robert N. Spencer handed down his decision:

“The undisputed facts show that Respondents [Masterpiece Cakeshop] discriminated against Complainants [Craig and Mullins] because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage, in violation of ? 24-34-601(2), C.R.S.”

The Colorado state constitution mandates selling wedding cakes to gays?

Sort of:

“It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of … sexual orientation … the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.”

Lest you think that cover this case, let Dennis Prager disabuse you of that notion:

If opposition to same-sex marriage is not a legitimately held religious conviction, there is no such thing as a legitimately held religious position. Unlike opposition to interracial marriage, opposition to same-sex marriage has been the position of every religion in recorded history — as well as of every country and every American state until the 21st century.

The Colorado baker made it clear to the gay couple — as acknowledged by the court — that he would be happy to bake and sell cakes to these gay men any other time they wanted. Therefore, he is not discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. He readily sells to people he knows to be gay. What he is unwilling to do is to participate in an event that he opposes for legitimate religious reasons. Until, at the most, 10 years ago, no one would have imagined that a person could be forced to provide goods or services for a same-sex wedding.

If a baker refused on religious grounds to provide the wedding cake for a polygamous wedding, should the state force him to do so? If a baker refused to provide a cake to a heterosexual couple that was celebrating living together without getting married, should the state force him to?

The left is not content with disagreement. Those who believe differently from liberal orthodoxy are not merely wrong, they are criminally wrong. They must be compelled to believe. Reeducation camps and stonings are the next step.

Charlie and David were denied a mere wedding cake; Jack Phillips has been denied his freedom of religion. He is either compelled by the state to bake their damn cake for them, or suffer criminal penalty (potentially even jail) if he refuses. Shame on Judge Spencer for his ruling, and shame on those two… gentlemen… for suing the poor bastard. What a [bleeped] up world.

If it’s any consolation, he’s got friends.

Untitled

Comments (2)

Beware the Hate Crime

While the New York Times shrugs off true hate crimes like the “knockout game” as mere anecdote, what they would term a hate crime is self-inflicted:

A New Jersey waitress who received thousands of dollars in gratuities after claiming she received a homophobic note in lieu of a tip has been let go by the restaurant at which she worked.

Dayna Morales, a 22-year-old former Marine, claimed last month that a family of four who racked up a $93.55 bill at the Gallop Asian Bistro in Branchburg, N.J., left her no tip, only a note saying they couldn’t leave any extra cash for her service because they “do not agree with your lifestyle.”

Morales quickly emailed the story to a gay advocacy website and later posted a photograph of the purported check on her Facebook page. The alleged incident made national headlines and resulted in thousands of dollars being donated to Morales, who said she would send all proceeds to the Wounded Warrior Project.

But Morales’ credibility has come under heavy scrutiny since, and the family who allegedly stiffed her has disputed her story.

The restaurant announced on its Facebook page Saturday that it had conducted its own internal investigation, and although it was “inconclusive,” the eatery said it had come to a mutual agreement with Morales that she no longer work there.

“In light of the investigation and recent events, both Ms. Morales and Gallop Asian Bistro have made a joint decision that Ms. Morales will no longer continue her employment at our restaurant,” said the Facebook post, which did not specify the conditions under which she left. “We wish her well in the future.”

Liar, professional victim, slanderer, thief—I don’t agree with her lifestyle either.

Meanwhile, a representative of the Florida-based Wounded Warrior Project could not confirm Morales had made any donations as of Wednesday, Bridgewater Patch reported.

The couple accused of leaving the note for Morales has since denied doing so, telling NBC 4 New York they did in fact leave an $18 tip on the $93 bill. The unidentified couple also provided the station a credit card statement that indicated the tip, according to the report.

NBC News has also reported that a Pentagon source said Morales was dismissed from the Marine Reserve Corps in May because she was not attending drills and that she was discharged under “less than honorable” conditions.

Several of Morales’ acquaintances also since questioned her credibility. Kristina Calamusa, who described herself as a former friend of Morales, told The Daily Caller late last month that the waitress claimed to her that she was “blown up by a land mine overseas.”

But, according to Calamusa, that story was false; Morales was never on active duty. The Journal News of White Plains, N.Y., has also quoted acquaintances of Morales who say she lied about her military service and that she suffered from brain cancer.

There are real victims of homophobia and real victims of racism. But many of the recent reports are turning up hoaxes. Not only does that diminish any real incidents, it over-sensitizes us toward gullibility. A report may prove false, but it may still leave an impression of truth.

Meanwhile, young black men really are sucker-punching people (sometimes other black people) in the head—in spite of what you may read.

Comments (1)

Stay Classy, San Diego!

He’s a Republican, which doesn’t suit my agenda at all and makes Captain Arizona positively tumescent, but I just had to share:

A possible successor to disgraced San Diego mayor Bob Filner, 70, who resigned on Friday after weeks of allegations of sexual harassment, has also been accused of inappropriate sexual behavior.

According to investigative website Voice of OC, Republican ex-councilman Carl DeMaio, 38, has been caught on multiple occasions leaving meetings and masturbating in restrooms at work.

DeMaio’s spokesman Dave McCulloch has categorically denied that any such behavior took place and accused his political opponents of dirty tactics.

‘It is absurd and ludicrous. It is absolutely ludicrous to report on something like this in the first place,’ McCulloch told the site on Thursday.

The Voice of OC reported that in 2009 Democrat Ben Hueso, San Diego council president at the time, twice walked in on DeMaio masturbating.

He claims that he walked in on his colleague engaging in the inappropriate act in front of a urinal with his pants round his ankles.

Hueso, 52, said: ‘DeMaio was masturbating. He jumped, caught by surprise. He jumped to the sink … saying ‘I’m sorry, I’m sorry’ about six times. Then washed his hands, darted out.’

Unbelievable.

You know what’s more unbelievable? Hueso is Spanish for “bone”. I [bleep] you not.

There’s only one teensy problem:

The openly gay DeMaio is currently running for Congress but thought to be once again considering challenging for mayor. DeMaio lost the mayor’s election to Filner in November 2012.

Spokesmen for DeMaio have strongly denied the allegations. ‘There is no other way to respond to this than to call it what it is: a lie,’ Jason Roe told The Daily Caller.

‘If Ben Hueso started this rumor,’ spokesman Roe continued, ‘he embarrasses himself and our great city. This is exactly the kind of gutter politics that has lead to the dysfunction of our political system in San Diego and Washington, D.C.’

What better way to slime an openly gay political opponent than to make him out as some kind of pervert?

How would any of us know this is true? But when I saw that he was a gay Republican, I instantly suspected the source. San Diego Democrats have no problem with a serial butt-grabber if he’s a fellow Democrat. But show them a Republican man who loves men and they gay-bash like it’s going out of style.

Comments (3)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »