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. Unfortunately friends and neighbors, if Bradley…errr…Chelsea decides to do the full monty, IYKWIM, we, the American taxpayer will be on the hook for the operation(s) and hormone treatments.

    Of course, his/her cellmates could probably fix him/her up without costing us a thing.

  5. We should have spent the last decade fighting tooth and nail to secure religious freedom; the push to require Christian pharmacists to dispense abortifacients was warning enough.

  6. Know any screenwriters? I do and they are a business too just like a photographer. Can a Jewish screenwriter be forced to write a script on a movie that denies the Holocaust? Can a black copywriter be forced to write pro-white supremacy?

    Heck, NEWSPAPERS are corporations! Can they be forced by law to accept ALL advertising?

    Can a photographer be forced to marry a polygamous wedding? Say either fundamentalist LDS or Muslim?

  7. Same tactic being used to promote the LGBTQWXYZ agenda: Lawfare. Bankrupt any business or person that doesn’t support their agenda (or at least knuckle under to their demands) via endless legal fees. Why do you think so many businesses go along? They are intimidated, fearful of going bankrupt.
    I weep for our nation.

  8. Public accommodation trumps religious freedom.

    Let’s look at what the actual Bill of Rights says, shall we?

    AMENDMENT I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Nope, nothing in there about me having to give up my “free exercise thereof” on account of your butthurt. You have the right to whine and cry into your pillow about it, but neither the Fed nor the State have any right to force anyone to act against his/her religion.

    Christians never complained about people being forced to serve Christians (even against some religious belief of theirs).

    [Citation needed]

  9. Cite where “Public Accommodation” is specified in the Constitution. Freedom of religion IS specified as a right, the free expression of which is guaranteed.
    Fucking nazi.

  12. This might sound odd, but I’m going to say it anyway.

    As someone that happens to be LGBT, the fact that Private Manning is using his lifestyle / orientation / preferences / etc as a politically correct shield against his BLATANTLY ILLEGAL behavior boils my blood.

    For Christ’s sake! Over the past years with LGBT people enrolled in the military, we have responsible, honorable red-blooded Americans that are thrown themselves in harms way as pilots, medics, and so on– gay or straight they all bleed American– and the gall of this creep!

  13. There is a huge difference between being a person with an LGBT orientation and being an LGBT activist/nazi. I condemn the sin but not the sinner for we all are sinners and in need of redemption.

  14. C’est l’affaire New Mexico–

    Well, honestly, for the central issue… “the law is the law”, even if it’s a bad law. That’s what separates reasonable human beings from utopian left-wing / far right / etc folks. If the New Mexican legislature passed a business regulatory regime as a matter of fair and square votes that they designed to prohibit this kind of stuff, then this kind of stuff is prohibited. The court has to follow the law. That’s what they did.

    Now, as for the law itself, well… it IS a matter of discrimination to say “no shoes, no shirt, no service”, “no dogs allowed”, “kosher food served here”, and other such things. You can also look at Boston cemeteries that refuse to bury fundamentalist Muslim radicals such as the bomber brothers as an even more serious example. If you’re a person with strong convictions and you run a business / non-profit and want to run it based on your values, then it should be your right.

  15. Well as a matter of sin / sinning the whole central point of traditional Christ-based Christianity is that all human beings have sinned and all humans being are one in their sin because every last one of them– from having lied, cheated, stole, coveted, etc– require the love and salvation of Christ, every day and every week that should pray and re-dedicate themselves.

    I would not really call myself a traditional believer per se because there are some things that I don’t really agree with (Like why is it a problem for the virgin Mary to have, after Jesus was born, to have had biological children with Joseph so that Jesus has ‘brothers’? What if the Holy Spirit isn’t a different entity than Jesus but is just another facet of Jesus’ reach and power? And what if a lot of things regarded as sins such as eating ham, eating shellfish, homosexuality, making processed food, and so oncondemned in the Old Testament no other things no longer applies to God’s people, with the New Testament superseding what came before. Etc.)… but I do know it.

  16. “why is it a problem for the virgin Mary to have, after Jesus was born, to have had biological children with Joseph so that Jesus has ‘brothers’?”

    That’s not all Christians, it’s Catholics. Protestants have no problem with the fact that Mary had sex with her husband and had more kids.

  17. Depends on the Protestant church. I’ve heard a lot of different lines. Not to mention that the Orthodox church has it’s own line.

  19. So any business that hangs up a sign saying “We reserve the right to refuse business to anyone,” is illegal in NM?

  22. So, if a “customer” can sue a business for choosing not to do business with him, her, or it–said refusal based on religious belief– can a business likewise sue a customer who chooses not to do business with them if that refusal is based on religious beliefs?

  23. Remember, Churches are under the control of frail (and sinful) human beings. Much of what has accreted over the centuries is mans interpretation.

    Man oft errs and limits God in the the mind (and theology) to the level of the human condition. God is unknowable in his majesty and power, He is limitless and all powerful beyond the ability of His creation to know, existing out of time, unaffected by our limitations. Most of what you cite are human squabbles, not Gods Word.

  26. What I don’t understand is that many socons stay at home and don’t vote on any level, then these grotesque laws about discrimination based on the fraudulent concept of “sexual orientation” are passed – and then people like Elane get sued and everyone else cowers as well.

  33. Having a deformed psychology about sexuality does not equal having dark
    skin. Prejudice based on race is bad, having a healthy view of sexuality
    which does not submit to a liberal homosexuality agenda is good

  34. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

    How things change!

  38. If people had voted in more socons (not just any crappy liberal
    Republican), laws shoving homosexuality down everyone’s throats, like
    these based on the ridiculous concept of sexual orientation
    discrimination, would have never been put into the books in the first
    place.

  39. I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from a legal standpoint. The photographer is refusing to provide service because it would be serving a destructive political and social agenda.

    See, if two heterosexual men ordered a homosexual wedding photo, because they were getting married – mind you that nothing today prevents them from getting married where SSM is legal – and Elaine refused, could they sue the company for sexual orientation discrimination? What sexual orientation would that be?

    That’s the crux of the matter. There is no such thing as equating “sexual orientation” to race (or any in-born physical characteristics), thus legislation that equate it to racial discrimination is empty of
    meaning. It is a fraudulent concept at its very root.

    One more case that evidences that every piece of legislation regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation is a joke and must be scrapped.

  41. You would have no problem defending an islamoterrorist who said no to gays so spare me your twaddle cum guzzler.

Comments are closed.