New Concept of ‘Rights’ in America: If You’re Not Gay, You Don’t Have Any

Posted on Comments

Gosh, it seems like just a few years ago that allegedly serious people were warning about how the “christofascist godbags” of the Religious Right were an existential threat to freedom in America, and if you disagreed with these allegedly serious people, you were just a hateful bigot.

Now? Well, you’re still a hateful bigot, but freedom’s just another word for “nothing left to lose”:

New Mexico’s Supreme Court rules that people must set aside their religion in order to avoid creating the slightest inconvenience for gay people. . . .
No, by all means, let’s use the power of the state to reach as deeply as possible into people’s lives instead of just telling the gay couple to “Look online for ten minutes and find someone else.”

Ace of Spades is not a homophobe, not a hater of any kind. Everybody who knows Ace knows this: Ewoks don’t even have a word for “hate.” And yet we may notice that Ace has had it up to here with the New Normal of Compulsory Approval and Correct Thought:

The New Republic Headline in 20 Point
Font: “He Is Not Bradley Manning.
She Is Chelsea Manning. Deal With It.”

and also . . .

Salon, the Web Magazine for Dumb People:
Why Is the Media Referring to Bradley Manning,
Who is a Man Named Bradley Manning, as a
Man Whose Name Is Bradley Manning?

Do you see what this is really about? If not, let me tell you that this is really about, “We, who are Your Moral Superiors, have authority to dictate your behavior, your words and, indeed, your thoughts.”

The language of “rights” is not about freedom, but rather power. I tried to warn people about this in November 2008, but nobody listened, because Important Smart People (e.g., Nicolle Wallace) were telling Republicans to forget about that “social issues” stuff.

Things that almost no one predicted in 2003, when Justice Kennedy created the “emerging awareness” doctrine out of thin air to justify overturning the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, are now happening routinely. The truly weird thing is that so few people understand why it’s happening or what it means.

“The military . . . decided this guy was a Solid Citizen posing little-to-no security risk and could and should be trusted with our top secret military and diplomatic communications.”

Yeah, that’s kind of random and coincidental, like a high-school dropout with a background in anime Web sites getting a six-figure top-secret clearance job in an intelligence agency. But if you think this is not random and coincidental, you’re a paranoid kook.

 

113 comments

  1. If I were a business person whose profession catered to those things governed by this NM law, I would be planning to close up shop and move to Texas.

  2. For the next decade or so, let us just refer to this POS as “Prisoner Manning”…

  10. What a bunch of twaddle.

    Christians are not any different than anyone else, they have to provide public accommodations for everybody. A gay couple is not allowed to hand a “no Christians” sign outside their store, same rules apply to Christians. This nation is not going back to “no blacks allowed” signs outside businesses. Christians benefited from this for decades and never complained until they are the ones expected to accommodate,

  11. Tell Bruce Willis.
    Maybe he will tell you it’s Robbins or Mitchell!
    Seriously, it’s Barack for last 5 years.

  13. “Bruce” has been the pejorative term since before Bruce Willis was ever a gleam in his agent’s eye….and to try and replace that with “Barack” would be “racist”,right?

  15. the Scots consider the pejorative use of Bruce extremely racist against the only race that could not be conquered by the Romans.
    Barack is half white, half black, so it is not possible to call anything related to him racist, unless one hates white and black, which only occurs in 1.5 billion Asians.

  16. Haven’t you heard?…ANY criticism or insult to Barokeydoke is automatically “racist”….just ask anybody in the MSM or any Dem….and why do you suppose Scots wear those cute little kilts anyway? heh

  18. These hypothetical poofs could do the civilised world a favor and at least hang their festive banner at the door! That should be sufficient notice, I would think…

  19. wow, to think that insulting Barack would be racist would imply an oversensitive prick as president. that sounds very racist. you, sir, are accusing those MSM folks of being racist. A hurricane of invective be upon you for misusing the term racist.
    and Scots like to take a crap when their minds suit them. they are not cute, but functional and warlike.
    or are you double racist against the half white/half black race and Scots race. and if you deny Scots as a race, you know no Scots.

    barely human, really. quite a bit of neanderthal in them, i suspect.

    sometimes, i fear everything, every thought, glance at Oprah, etc. is a sign of racism.

  21. There’s a huge constitutional issue here; by saying that people have to abrogate their sincerely held religious beliefs, the government is saying that they don’t actually have religious freedom and in fact is making a law that is unconstitutional as they shall make no law that abridges freedom of religion.

    Additionally, providing a good or service, such as selling a cupcake or taking a senior picture, are neutral; nobody is objecting to photographing gays generally, just in support of weddings that people don’t believe are valid. The government is, in effect, forcing people to provide a service that supports something that is against their sincerely held religious beliefs. There are two additional problems; first, is gay marriage legal in NM? If not, there should be no legal issue here; second, the gays are targeting Christian businesses when they’re sure they’ll be turned down based on religious belief. They’re looking to make Christians keep their religion out of the marketplace. More Christian businesses should close on Sunday.

  22. And it even fits better than convict, according to The Chronicles Of Riddick:

    There are inmates and there are convicts. A convict has a certain code. And he knows to show a certain respect. An inmate, on the other hand, pulls the pin on his fellow man. Does the guard’s work for them. Brings shame to the game. So, which are you gonna be?

  24. 1. I don’t buy it. Didn’t he want to be known as “Brianna” just a couple of months ago? Why “Chelsea” now?

    2. I still don’t buy it. If he was doing this because he felt he should be a woman, and fighting for the women’s cause, he’d drop the name “Manning” because it has “Man” in it and would remind “her” of the “evil patriarchy” that “she” feels is oppressing “her”.

    3. Sorry Brad, you just got convicted and sentenced to 35 years. You don’t get to make demands of what you want.

  25. And now you understand why the US government is so eager to import more and more hardline Islamists into the country. Because in order for them to have THEIR freedom of religion, they must have Shari’ah, and since to them, Shari’ah also applies to non-Muslims, they’d be able to maim and kill whoever they want. Obviously, the government will crack down on that (after a while), and that’s how they make the case that you cannot have free exercise of religion.

  26. Bubba, if a photographer is a “public accomodation”, why not a writer? Or a newspaper? Or an actor? Photography is expression and NO ONE should be forced to produce an expressive work. Indeed, the NM decision is so convoluted in saying behavior is intrinsically part of status then privileges the behavior of gays over the behavior of religious folk.

  28. Public accommodation trumps religious freedom. My religious beliefs may oppose interracial marriage, but that would not give me the right to not sell them a wedding cake. This is not different, nor is it a violation of freedom of religion. “My religion says no” is not a trump card. You are not being asked to gay marry, you are being asked to bake a cake, you can do that and still oppose gay marriage.

    This situation has been in place since civil rights movement, and Christians never complained about people being forced to serve Christians (even against some religious belief of theirs). Only now are you complaining.

    As for the other question. Marriage was never sex specific in NM constitution, it just says 2 people, one county clerk has started handing out licenses, AG of NM said he has a right to do so.

  29. How is this different than being forced to bake a cake for a Christian or interracial couple, laws that have been in place for decades. Wedding photography is a business, that deals with clients. If he just made pictures for himself it wouldn’t be a problem.

Comments are closed.