May 27, 2015

"We are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech."

"Because today, we've reached the point in our society where, if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.... After they are done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech and there’s a real and present danger.”

Said Marco Rubio.

304 comments:

1 – 200 of 304   Newer›   Newest»
RazorSharpSundries said...

He is correct.

Gahrie said...

Meanwhile ignoring the fact that Islam is much more hostile to gays, and is actually executing them all over the world.

JackWayne said...

True. But the slippery slope has already been slipped. Aided and abetted by "good people".

Anonymous said...

We've crossed that bridge already.

Soon the Supreme Court is going to codify it into our laws as having been there all along.

rhhardin said...

It's a mistake to argue from religion.

Religion is a poeticization of something else, which is the thing to be argued from.

In this case, the institution of marriage as a coherent word for man/woman relationships, including their ways of breaking down.

Civil unions have are analogues of marriage but have their own dynamics.

Religion, as it happens, needs the word marriage preserved; but so does everybody else.

Kyzer SoSay said...

It's amazing how many people automatically associate the term "Christian" with "bad". I'm almost wondering if this cultural shift is too late to reverse.

mezzrow said...

If you want to swerve the hate speech, stay clear of the comments at the link.

It's open season on Christians out there.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Glug glug glug, Mark. But naaah, no need. The aim has been achieved socially anyway, so no need to formally attack the Church. Support for traditional beliefs (both religious and w/r/t "tolerance") has been thoroughly hollowed out. Enough people find the literal statement (of the Church's beliefs) repellent, so why would the Left need to attack along those lines? Maneuver warfare will work better than a frontal assault here, even though they'll win either way.
Call it hate speech, call it "ugly," call it unkind. Even when stated lovingly, if your beliefs offend the right people--that is, if the right people say your beliefs (no matter how expressed) offend them in any way those beliefs will be condemned as hateful, harmful, and ultimately outside the protection of a concept as quaint as "freedom of speech." Oh sure, you can speak all you want, but you won't have a job, or a friend, or be given a moment of peace. We handle ostracism a little differently now, friend, you don't even have to leave your house! Society will remove itself from you.

Anyway Ted Kennedy was a Catholic and Nancy Pelosi still is, so the Church must be ok.

campy said...

As the kids say: Duh.

Dr.D said...

I'm not a Rubio supporter, but I think he got this one right. An all out attack on Christian teaching is right around the corner, and it is going to weed out all the nominal Christians real fast. Only those who truly believe the whole Christian message will remain.

Strange as it may seem, this may be a very good thing. The Church has always flourished in times of persecution. It is happening today in the middle east, and it will happen in the USA as well.

MadisonMan said...

I am skeptical of the claim, although others may not be.

I don't see how you can reconcile Religious Freedom with Rubio's claim. There's a pretty long history of letting religions do what they want in the US.

lgv said...

I believe Rubio is correct in his assessment. We are already seeing it. I wouldn't be surprised if fundamentalist Christianity went underground over the next generation. I mean, just voting against gay marriage in California can lose you your job, which is bizarre considering over half the voters voted the same way.

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

If they had their way, most LEFTISTS in this country would LOVE to see Christians rounded-up and put into "re-education" camps, or worse...

cubanbob said...

Rubio does have a point, PC speech isn't free speech.

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

If they had their way, most LEFTISTS in this country would LOVE to see Christians rounded-up and put into "re-education" camps, or worse...

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

If they had their way, most LEFTISTS in this country would LOVE to see Christians rounded-up and put into "re-education" camps, or worse...

Robert Cook said...

No, "mainstream" Christian teaching is not hate speech, quite to the contrary. (This assumes "mainstream" Christian teaching derives from the New Testament and from the teachings of Jesus.) However, some fundamentalist Christian teaching can be kooky and/or stupid in all sorts of ways.

Rubio is just pandering to his base.

traditionalguy said...

He's a good talker. That was a sly way of saying that Christians are already up to their neck in that body of water.

All marriage talk that does not include gay couples is seen as hate acts and all favorable mention of the old traditional straight marriage is deemed hate speech disqualifying the speaker from normal human interaction and employment. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Scripture is the source of hate speech. It scares lawless people because it hints hints there is an authority that still lurks somewhere that SCOTUS has not ruled unconstitutional, yet.

tim maguire said...

So long as government recognizes marriage, it has to be under government rules. It can't be under Christianity rules. That said, Rubio is obviously right. The activists will never control themselves, they will never declare victory and go home. It is for society to step in and say "enough, you've pushed it as far as it needs to go."

When that happens, there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but there is no avoiding that. The alternative to never pushing back is to forever tolerate the pushing.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

He's right. We thought when we voted for "civil unions" in California, that the Gay mafia would be happy to be legally wed. Nope. They had to agitate and find a gay judge who wished to be "married" without acquiescing to the term civil union, and have said judge find a hitherto unknown constitutional right to marry that contradicted our California constitutional amendment. The pastor of a Baptist church I attended at the time said the day was coming when California would force every church to open their properties and perform ceremonies for gay weddings. He seemed a little paranoid at the time. Now he seems quite prescient.

It has already come to pass in Canada that one can be brought up on "Human Rights" charges for quoting the Bible out loud. We are on the edge indeed. This willingness to speak plainly and tell the truth could be a good sign from young Mr. Rubio! No wonder the Left fears him.

BarrySanders20 said...

Meh. Christians are pikers. The action is mainstream Islamic teaching. The debate there is how many stories to climb before tossing the gay man over the side of the building.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I guess maybe overall it's a good thing that some people take offense at being thought of as not nice.

Sertorius said...

I tend to agree with Rubio, but I have to object to his use of the term "hate speech."

This term has absolutely no meaning whatsoever under US law, where the Constitution protects your right to be as mean or nasty or bigoted or judgmental as you want, so long as you don't cross the line into actual threats directed at particular people.

"Hate speech" is a concept borrowed from countries much less protective of speech than the US. I'd encourage people who care about free speech to object every time they hear the term used.

stan said...

He's right.

The attack on the faith from the Left has been ongoing for a long time. When pollsters showed that the biggest single predictor of voting was regular church attendance, the abuse directed at Christians by the Left grew exponentially.

I have some friends whose son went to Harvard some years back. He said that there was a constant condemnation of Christianity on campus.

Our society has been moving this way for quite awhile. It will get a lot worse before it gets better.

J. Farmer said...

Blah blah blah. The national security deep state is a far greater threat to individual liberty than SSM, but Rubio and his coterie are wildly in favor of it.

n.n said...

The trans equivalence movement is notable for its principled selective exclusion (i.e. pro-choice). Not to mention bullying and shaming to force a uniform behavior among trans and hetero individuals alike.

That said, the separation of Church (i.e. organized moral/legal consensus) and State is a fantasy told by special interests with intention to marginalize and neutralize their competing interests, then establish their religious or moral/legal philosophy.

bbkingfish said...

Rubio thinks it dangerous to consider the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech?

Why would a mere argument set Marco's knees a-knockin'? Anxiety related to repressed guilt, perhaps? Strange.

Dale said...

Some of your own statements Ann Althouse prove Marco Rubio to be speaking truth.

CJinPA said...

There's a pretty long history of letting religions do what they want in the US.


Yes there is, and the argument is that this is changing.

I'm not terribly animated by the issue of gay marriage. (The decline in marriage with children involved, and its impact on children, poverty, schools and incarceration is another point.) But it's hard to not see what's happening.

As an exercise, try to think of a way someone could oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (or ANY grounds) and not be considered a "homophobe." I can't think of a scenario in which the guardians of thought would allow that.

Here's how a writer at the Daily Beast started out mocking Rubio and then accidentally agreed with him:

If you claim that LGBTs do not deserve marriage equality, and your argument has the ring of prejudice about it—and it necessarily would because you are arguing against the principles of equality—then expect to be called out for it.

Disagreement on this issue is 'necessarily prejudiced.' And prejudiced views have long been silenced in the U.S. And there you have it.

etbass said...

Dr D said... at 10:49

Ditto

Cog said...

The gay marriage issue was always a litmus about a revolutionary restructuring of society, disguised as simply being about tolerance for gay lifestyle. The duplicity of the activists' own intolerance has been on full display since 2012 when Obama indicated he lied about his own gay marriage position up until then. It no longer seems impossible that the next phase to this revolution will be indoctrinating the next generation of Americans to demand all members of the Catholic church and non-liberal-progressive Christian denominations renounce their faith.

Etienne said...

The solution, as I see it, is to get the states out of the marriage business.

If there is no financial incentive to marry, people will just find a different kind of contract.

If the IRS follows suit, the whole issue disappears. From that point on marriage will just be a religious thing, and to get the protections of a contract, then you can find some instrument to make that happen.

Maybe call it a Smith Family, LLC, or the Jones Family Trust. etc.

It doesn't have to be all doom and gloom. Think like a corporation...

Original Mike said...

Five years ago, I would have said this was crazy talk. I don't think that anymore.

J. Farmer said...

Quick question: what are Christians unable to do now as a result of SSM? Nobody has a right to not be called names.

Mark O said...

Censorship is nothing more than unvarnished power.

Alex said...

Coupe - at this point that would be considering spiteful against gays. It will take 20-30 years before this thing calms down enough for that to be considered.

buster said...

I've read a couple of recent op-ed pieces, one by Frank Bruni, claiming that the Catholic Church, or at least American Catholics, is becoming more accepting of SSM. The claim reflects a profound ignorance of Catholic teachings, but it does indicate that part of the effort will be to change Christian doctrine. Rather than attack Christianity from without, destroy it from within.

Etienne said...

The problem, as I see it, is that we have zero, as in none, candidates who think the government is too large. That it is sucking-in too much money.

There is no candidate, that is saying we need to chop off huge sections of waste. For example: how much does 2400 hydrogen bombs actually cost? Do we really need that many submarines, to fire that many nukes? Could we deal with maybe 100 nukes instead of 2400? How much does one nuke cost?

What is the end-game for World War II? When are we going to bring the troops home from Japan and Germany?

If they spend money on queers, then you are going to have a lot of queers.

MadisonMan said...

As an exercise, try to think of a way someone could oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (or ANY grounds) and not be considered a "homophobe." I can't think of a scenario in which the guardians of thought would allow that.

The "guardians of thought" (an apt phrase) are not -- at present -- the Government. It's easy to ignore them. Chances that the Government will become the Guardian of Thought is pretty slim, and I think that's really what this whole thread is about.

If someone thinks poorly of me because of what I believe to be true, I really do not care.

I've often said that Gays should not care what others think of them -- that applies to Christians too.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Coupe wrote:
"The solution, as I see it, is to get the states out of the marriage business.
If there is no financial incentive to marry, people will just find a different kind of contract."

You don't get the state out of the marriage business by replacing it with a contract enforced by the state.

Louis said...

When a majority is atheist, Christianity will be treated as a minority-held and obsolete ideology. Hate speech using it as a guise will be easily discerned as such, analogously to our recognizing a form of exploitation in polygamous life styles even when dressed as a practice of religion.

What Rubio is saying is noxiously self-demonstrating or self-evident to me. Is he heralding the end of "christianity" as an answer to a pollster? Is he concerned about that? Are you?

DKWalser said...

There are lots of calls for just getting government out of the marriage business. This ignores the multitude of practical reasons government got in the marriage business in the first place. When couples join for the purpose of making a family, their lives become entwined in many ways. When that union is parted, by death or for some other reason, we as a society found it necessary to have rules for how to disentangle the couple from each other.

These issues cannot be adequately addressed by merely instructing everyone to negotiate there own marriage contracts. The wealthy already do. They call them pre-nuptial agreements. Such agreements are often the subject of lengthy and bitter legal battles. Those with lesser financial means will not or cannot seek legal advice before joining together to form families.

Browndog said...

I reject the notion of a "slippery slope".

The destination is, and always was, dead ahead. You've stopped and gazed a the flashing neon along the way, never looking back at the scalps that litter the roadway, starting with Anita Bryant.

Now, you wonder if we traveled too far to turn back.

Slippery slope my ass.

Lyssa said...

I assume that Sen. Rubio is aware that "hate speech" is not a term with any meaning, and only means refers to speech that the person using the term has a problem with.

However, I also assume that many people (on all sides of the political aisles) are not aware of this, and believe that labeling speech such would somehow create an end-run around the first amendment and the possibility of legal sanctions. Whether or not Sen. Rubio is attempting to use this unawareness, I am not sure.

Lyssa said...

There are lots of calls for just getting government out of the marriage business. This ignores the multitude of practical reasons government got in the marriage business in the first place. When couples join for the purpose of making a family, their lives become entwined in many ways. When that union is parted, by death or for some other reason, we as a society found it necessary to have rules for how to disentangle the couple from each other.

Very true. While you could call it something other than marriage, it is clear that we as a society will form pair-bonds and will share our property and create children with them. Society absolutely needs some legal function to deal with that bond, particularly when it ends (which it always will, be it through divorce or death).

Etienne said...

Terry, one of my points, was that the state essentially gives a license that has great value, for free. It then rewards people for getting that license.

What if that all went away? What if a contract with the same provisions required a lawyer? What if it cost $700?

Extrapolate from there...

Fernandinande said...

Coupe said...
The solution, as I see it, is to get the states out of the marriage business.


Yes. People can make contracts with each other, and get married in a church or whatever, in a ceremony without any meaning to the state, like a baptism.

Terry said...
You don't get the state out of the marriage business by replacing it with a contract enforced by the state.


Sure you do - it's just contract(s), like buying a house on credit, not a marriage. The state might get involved if someone breaks the contract, but if both parties agree, then it doesn't.

"I want so-and-so to make my medical decisions if I'm incapacitated", and "I want what's-his-name to handle my estate when I die", like "I agree to pay $1000/month for this mortgage" which is different than "The state says you'll pay $1400/mo for that mortgage, and will intervene - with jail maybe - if you don't."

cubanbob said...

J. Farmer said...

Quick question: what are Christians unable to do now as a result of SSM? Nobody has a right to not be called names.
5/27/15, 11:30 AM

In some places refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

What Madison Man said, followed by Lyssa's observation.

Until he stumbles over the concept of "hate speech" Rubio actually constrains his observation to the fact that the Christian faith suffers from "argument" and "label[ing]". In other words, it suffers from the exercise of free speech by its critics. If such critics are successful it is because their arguments are persuasive.

Rubio and those who support him need to come up with are counter arguments of equal persuasiveness. And everyone can talk about it.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@cubanbob:

"In some places refusing to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings."

Yes, this is the one example that is referred to ad nauseam by opponents of SSM. And they continually ignore the fact that these cases are based on state anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation. It is a wholly separate issue than SSM. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a far greater intrusion into the average small business than gay discrimination laws, yet oddly the ADA is never held up as a sign that our fundamental liberties are coming to an end.

Larry J said...

Gahrie said...
Meanwhile ignoring the fact that Islam is much more hostile to gays, and is actually executing them all over the world.


Maybe Christians (and I'm not one) should act more like radical Muslims and start chopping off a few heads.

Lyssa said...

Sure you do - it's just contract(s), like buying a house on credit, not a marriage. The state might get involved if someone breaks the contract, but if both parties agree, then it doesn't.

What would be the practical difference between this and what we call marriage? You can still negotiate the terms now if you want to, but most people just don't have a reason to do so. When you're describing a contractual arrangement that the majority of people will enter into at some point in their lives, it makes good sense to have what amounts to "standard contract" (the state's laws surrounding marriage), that can be augmented if desired.

cubanbob said...

Blogger Coupe said...

The problem, as I see it, is that we have zero, as in none, candidates who think the government is too large. That it is sucking-in too much money.

There is no candidate, that is saying we need to chop off huge sections of waste. For example: how much does 2400 hydrogen bombs actually cost? Do we really need that many submarines, to fire that many nukes? Could we deal with maybe 100 nukes instead of 2400? How much does one nuke cost?

What is the end-game for World War II? When are we going to bring the troops home from Japan and Germany?"

We used to have a lot more nukes and missiles and bombers than we do now. Lets not forget why our troops are still in Germany-NATO, which really was intended to keep the Germans down, the Russians out and the Americans in. With Putin strutting around and the Germans starting to stir just a little bit maybe its not a good idea to bug out now. As for Japan, same. With China getting a bit aggressive, little Kim's insanity and the overall neighborhood getting getting a little antsy now is not a good time to quit Japan either.

As for cutting government down a bit, lets start with a complete review of the FDR and LBJ creations, there is a lot to be eliminated there that wouldn't be missed.

Rusty said...

J. Farmer said...
Quick question: what are Christians unable to do now as a result of SSM? Nobody has a right to not be called names.


Opt not to participate.

MikeR said...

What Rubio is saying is not hard. Just read the comments to that article, and you will see dozens of people who would stamp out his point-of-view, without ever giving a moment's attention to freedom of religion.
This society is turning into one where people of traditional religion will not be able to breathe. Althouse and perhaps the Supreme Court think that that is basically a good thing, or at least not an unreasonable consequence.

MikeR said...

"Lets not forget why our troops are still in Germany-NATO, which really was intended to keep the Germans down, the Russians out and the Americans in. With Putin strutting around and the Germans starting to stir just a little bit maybe its not a good idea to bug out now. As for Japan, same. With China getting a bit aggressive, little Kim's insanity and the overall neighborhood getting getting a little antsy now is not a good time to quit Japan either." Huh? Either let them defend themselves, or pay us the cost for defending them. Why do I have to pay to defend France from Germany? Where did this become the status quo, and why can't it be changed?

buwaya said...

"yet oddly the ADA is never held up as a sign that our fundamental liberties are coming to an end."

Because the ADA can be supported by (many) people across the ideological divide as a manifestation of Christian charity. Arguable from many directions, but this is not inherently anti-traditional-religion. In the old European conception of the manifestation of religious obligations as a community obligation, this is something that conservatives could support, on its face. Just as there was no traditional religious objection to Bismark's social legislation. Or consider Rerum Novarum.

Unknown said...

I am wondering why AA posed this. I am wondering if she expected the near unanimous agreement with Rubio's statement.

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

"Opt not to participate."

Name one example.

@MikeR:

"This society is turning into one where people of traditional religion will not be able to breathe."

This is such alarmist nonsense. Please explain how this will happen. How do people in a comments section expressing their anti-Christian views stop Christians from expressing their pro-Christian views?

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

"Arguable from many directions, but this is not inherently anti-traditional-religion."

Divorce is condenmed far more harshly in Christianity than homosexuality, yet I rarely see that cited as a reason to change divorce laws in this country.

More than 80% of Americans are Christians, and about 60% of Americans support SSM. That suggests to me that there are a very large number of American Christians who do not see SSM as an assault on their religious beliefs or religious freedoms.

Fabi said...

Nothing's ever going to happen to Christians who oppose gay marriage. But when it does, they'll deserve it. Rod Dreher made this point succinctly.

buwaya said...

" what are Christians unable to do now as a result of SSM? "
Several things. Just some examples, strictly from the point of view of the effect on free speech.

- To a degree, they are unable to teach in public schools under certain circumstances, in that they may be required by the state to advocate an official point of view. This is the case in certain states with detailed curriculum standards.
- In certain states they cannot contribute funds to political campaigns opposed to it, without a high risk of professional loss or compromise of fiduciary responsibilities.
- In certain places (like San Francisco) they can be removed from teaching or pastoral responsibilities due to the outcry from the mob - see the case of Fr. Joseph Illo. This is a priest who cant preach, standard boilerplate Catholic doctrine, out of risk of damage to his affiliated institutions.

This all adds up, and for every specific case, there are thousands more deciding on silence.

Etienne said...

Lyssa said...What would be the practical difference between this and what we call marriage?

First of all, there would be no annual tax advantage.

The reason the queers want to get married, is because they feel the hetero's are getting a great deal. They are being left out. It's only fair they get free stuff (taxpayer funded) too.

Lacking any advantage, no normal queer or hetero would ever want to get married.

They'd want a better contract than what you can get for free in a simple state marriage.

buwaya said...

" I rarely see that cited as a reason to change divorce laws in this country."

The Catholic church had no ability to affect divorce laws in the US, but it has consistently and strongly fought them where it could do some good.

Sebastian said...

"Only those who truly believe the whole Christian message will remain."

True, except that many "Christian" churches will also be changed from within, on the model of Gates and the Boy Scouts.

It will be a small remnant in any case.

The culture war is at a tipping point.

J. Farmer said...

It is pretty depressing seeing so called conservatives playing the same victim-obsessed identity politics that has so thoroughly infested the Democratic Party.

buwaya said...

"This is such alarmist nonsense. Please explain how this will happen. How do people in a comments section expressing their anti-Christian views stop Christians from expressing their pro-Christian views?"

- Because if their (the Christians) identities are revealed, they will likely be made notorious, their employers will be informed, and they will be dismissed from their employment. I gather you do not work in a large US company. This is indeed the atmosphere.

buwaya said...

"True, except that many "Christian" churches will also be changed from within, on the model of Gates and the Boy Scouts."

All such churches are collapsing into irrelevance. So will the Boy Scouts.

Gahrie said...

It is pretty depressing seeing so called conservatives playing the same victim-obsessed identity politics that has so thoroughly infested the Democratic Party.

The difference being, the Right is playing defense and the Left is playing offense.

DKWalser said...

yet oddly the ADA is never held up as a sign that our fundamental liberties are coming to an end.

There is a difference in kind between the interference in private business between the ADA and federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The size of door openings, the ability to enter/exit a building without needing to negotiate stairs, and similar ADA requirements do not involve matters generally understood to be covered by the 1st Amendment. The ADA might be seen as wasteful and overly intrusive, but not as undercutting the fundamental liberties protected by the Constitution.

Requiring an artist to use her artistic talents in support of an event she does not support is seen as threatening the liberties enshrined in the 1st Amendment. Such a requirement violates the artist's freedom to control her expression and her freedom of association. And, if her objections to the event are religious, it violates her freedom to practice her religion. In the photography and wedding cake cases, we had a trifecta of 1st Amendment violations -- all of which were ignored by the courts in service of the even greater good of "anti-discrimination". Too bad the Framers neglected to include protection of that good into the Constitution. (Evil bigots!)

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

First, excuse me if I consider your examples all laughably grasping. Let's take each one in turn.

"- To a degree, they are unable to teach in public schools under certain circumstances, in that they may be required by the state to advocate an official point of view. This is the case in certain states with detailed curriculum standards."

Yes, public school teachers are forced to teach public school curricula. If they consider aspects of it anathema to their religious teachings, then they shouldn't become public school teachers. There are plenty of religiously-affiliated schools that would welcome them with open arms. This point is a lot like saying people who work for Coca Cola should also be permitted to advocate for Pepsis on company time.

"- In certain states they cannot contribute funds to political campaigns opposed to it, without a high risk of professional loss or compromise of fiduciary responsibilities. "

No loss of rights there. Freedom of speech gives people the ability to advocate and financially support holocaust denial, but it doesn't mean they will be protected from the consequences of such activity. Now I think things like firing the head of Mozilla or boycotting Chic Fil A is a stupid waste of time, but I am not a SJW liberal.

"- In certain places (like San Francisco) they can be removed from teaching or pastoral responsibilities due to the outcry from the mob - see the case of Fr. Joseph Illo. This is a priest who cant preach, standard boilerplate Catholic doctrine, out of risk of damage to his affiliated institutions."

Again, if an organization chooses to make accommodations in response to a public outcry, that is not something the state has done or something that represents a violation of fundamental liberty.

Your examples are merely illustrative of the fact that the anti-SSM is losing in the court of public opinion. So now we must play the poor benighted victim game.

buwaya said...

"It is pretty depressing seeing so called conservatives playing the same victim-obsessed identity politics that has so thoroughly infested the Democratic Party."

Well, it is depressing. But there is a crucial difference. Democrats can proclaim their identity politics with no fear; many conservatives (not all, certainly, the more "blue collar" one is, the lighter the yoke falls) cannot, without genuine personal financial risk or risk towards their fiduciary or professional responsibilities - i.e., they cannot let down their investors, stockholders, clients through imputed notoriety.

Jason said...

"Opt not to participate."

Farmer: "Name one example."

Any vendor in Washington, Oregon or New York, bitch.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

"- Because if their (the Christians) identities are revealed, they will likely be made notorious, their employers will be informed, and they will be dismissed from their employment. "

Again, nobody has a right to not be publicly ostracized.

@DKWalser:

"Such a requirement violates the artist's freedom to control her expression and her freedom of association."

I am largely in agreement with this. I believe in total right of association, and if someone wanted to run a "whites only" restaurant or a "blacks only" hotel or a "muslims only" cab service, I'd be fine with it. But the fact of the matter is that the state already intrudes in the decision-making power of business owners in regards to the manner in which they provide their services. Businesses are already prevented from discriminating based on race or gender or age, etc. I don't believe in adding sexual orientation to that list, but if it is added it's not the ridiculous deathblow to liberty as being portrayed here. And lastly, anti-discrimination laws are wholly separate from SSM. You can have SSM without anti-discrimination laws.

buwaya said...

"If they consider aspects of it anathema to their religious teachings, then they shouldn't become public school teachers"

Well then, you have just cut a large part of the population out of a major source of employment. This is not a trivial matter.

"Now I think things like firing the head of Mozilla or boycotting Chic Fil A is a stupid waste of time"

It is not a waste of time. It is highly effective in suppressing the reality of free speech. It is now preventing thousands of people similarly inclined from both public speech and political campaigns from raising funds.

"Again, if an organization chooses to make accommodations in response to a public outcry, that is not something the state has done or something that represents a violation of fundamental liberty."

There are laws and then there is reality. If the law permits that which a powerful faction can effectively suppress, where is the freedom promised by the law ? The law is null.

J. Farmer said...

@Jason:

"Any vendor in Washington, Oregon or New York, bitch. "

That is because those states have anti-discrimination laws that protect sexual orientation along with a number of other factors. I don't support them, but those laws are completely separate from SSM. The baker would have just as easily run afoul of those laws for refusing to provide a cake for a gay pride parade. Are you capable of understanding this distinction, dumbass?

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

If somebody advocated holocaust denial and anti-semitism, and people reacted to him or her with anger, frustration, and ostracism, would you say that person had lost their fundamental liberty?

buwaya said...

"Again, nobody has a right to not be publicly ostracized. "

The US has rarely seen such atmosphere of universal public ostracism.
When it was done to a FEW communists in the 1950s it was a major and continuing point of grievance.
When it is practiced against many hundreds of thousands of professionals and people in business today, it is of no significance.

I question your judgement.

buwaya said...

"If somebody advocated holocaust denial and anti-semitism, and people reacted to him or her with anger, frustration, and ostracism, would you say that person had lost their fundamental liberty?"

Yes. The modern public attacks against persons livelihoods for their personal opinions is unprecedented.

buwaya said...

" I don't support them, but those laws are completely separate from SSM."

They are not. These laws are being enforced highly selectively for a reason. The precedent is being set for them to be similarly enforced for any other purpose. This is extremely dangerous.

Anonymous said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

"Opt not to participate."

Name one example.


A couple was fined in New York $13,000.00 for refusing to host a gay wedding. Now they will no longer host any wedding ceremonies on their property because the State was forcing them to include gays marriages.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

"Yes. The modern public attacks against persons livelihoods for their personal opinions is unprecedented."

So what can the state do to protect people from being ostracized?

Anonymous said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...
@buwaya:

If somebody advocated holocaust denial and anti-semitism, and people reacted to him or her with anger, frustration, and ostracism, would you say that person had lost their fundamental liberty?


This is the fruit of SSM. We've gone from Congressional hearings on communism that was thought so beyond the pale we still make movies about it to, 'Um, isn't this normal behavior?'

J. Farmer said...

@eric:

"This is the fruit of SSM. We've gone from Congressional hearings on communism that was thought so beyond the pale we still make movies about it to, 'Um, isn't this normal behavior?'"

No, Congressional hearings are a far different matter than members of the public acting well within their rights. That's a distinction between the state and civil society that I had hoped conservatives would appreciate.

Jason said...

Farmer. Dumbass. You asked for specific examples of instances where Christians had lost their right NOT to participate in same sex weddings. Each of these states has levied financial fines against Christians who did not want to participate...A florist in Olympia, WA, Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon, and the owners of a wedding venue in New York.

It matters not a whit if they were prosecuted under a law forbidding broader discrimination against GLBT. Their fundamental right not to participate in what they feel to be a mockery of a sacrament is gone.

I met your challenge squarely. It was a stupid challenge for you to make, because these three cases and more are so easily identified and you only asked for one.

Big Mike said...

@buwaya, you are right and Rubio is right. And Farmer has no judgment. He merely parrots the latest SJW line.

I'm an atheist, but unlike Richard Dawkins I'm not a proselytizing atheist, and the man manifestly does not speak for me. I remember what Martin Niemöller wrote, and I'll stand with the Christians.

PackerBronco said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...

Sigh. This conversation again. Do we have to state again that opting not to provide a service does not necessarily mean discriminating against a person?

A little old Jewish lady who starts a business providing wedding planning services for Orthodox Jewish Weddings does not, by the nature of her business model, show discrimination against Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, Muslims, or atheists.

buwaya said...

The state has a role in enabling this, but this is in the main a cultural war and not a matter for legislation. Still, there are important issues.

- The state need not insist on public disclosure of political contributions. This is true in only some states, but where it has happened it has effectively shut down fundraising for conservatives.

- The state often misbehaves in its enforcement of laws, prompted by such ostracism campaigns. This is notorious in the case of the IRS scandal. It has been noted in regulatory treatment of such target companies (several cases in CA). It is widely rumored regarding attitudes of regulatory agencies, etc. You certainly don't want a hint of such notoriety when going before a Public Utilities Commission for instance.

Lyssa said...

Coupe said (regarding how private contract would be different from marriage): First of all, there would be no annual tax advantage.

First, plenty of people face a tax penalty for marriage, yet still marry. It's a pretty well-known issue called the "marriage penalty." But second, coupling is so common, and involves so much shared property, that it would be absurd for the tax code (as it is currently in place - I would like to see it radically overhauled, but that's neither here nor there) to not take those relationships into account. Would you have the stay-at-home parent with a high-income spouse be taxed as if he or she were a single parent with no income? That's just silly.

Jason said...

If somebody advocated holocaust denial and anti-semitism, and people reacted to him or her with anger, frustration, and ostracism, would you say that person had lost their fundamental liberty?

Absolutely, yes, if they were threatened with mob violence. This was the case for Memories Pizza.

Absolutely, yes, if their website were illegally hacked or their property vandalized.

Absolutely, yes, if they faced lawsuits or fines that would drive them bankrupt as a result.

Absolutely, yes, if state sanctions forced them to withdraw from their line of work or livelihood.

Each of these eventualities has specifically come to pass in cases related to same sex marriage.

steve uhr said...

We are past the water's edge. So what. If you want to call it hate speech it is still legal. Why are the Republican's so thin skinned? They can say whatever they want without risk of going to prison or being found guilty of "hate speech" in civil court. They should not have an expectation that their adversaries will be nice to them.

J. Farmer said...

@Jason:

"It matters not a whit if they were prosecuted under a law forbidding broader discrimination against GLBT. Their fundamental right not to participate in what they feel to be a mockery of a sacrament is gone.

I met your challenge squarely. It was a stupid challenge for you to make, because these three cases and more are so easily identified and you only asked for one. "

No, you are wrong. I am well aware of those cases. My point in asking the question was because the laws affecting those people were anti-discrimination laws at the state level that prevented businesses from discriminating against certain classes of people. If they had chosen to not provide cakes to an interracial marriage, for example, they would have just as easily have run afoul of the law, and it has nothing to do with SSM. You can have GLBT protections without SSM and you can have SSM without GLBT protection. They are mutually exclusive laws. If all SSM was ended tomorrow, bakeries in Oregon and Washington still could not refuse to provide cakes for gay parties or gay commitment ceremonies.

I oppose the laws, and if I lived in those states, I would advocate their repeal. But I would still support SSM. The consequences of those laws are being used to oppose SSM, when they are not the same thing.

J. Farmer said...

@BigMike:

"He merely parrots the latest SJW line."

You don't know any fucking thing about me. I have already said in this very comments section that I support private businesses from discriminating against anyone they choose for any reason they choose, but I am parroting the "SJW line." Can you actually engage an argument instead of relying on such boring cliches?

J. Farmer said...

@Steve uhr:

"They can say whatever they want without risk of going to prison or being found guilty of "hate speech" in civil court."

Exactly!

If a Christian group considers a television show to be indecent and offensive to Christians, and they decide to put pressure on advertisers or networks to pull it, are the writers, producers, directors, actors, and myriad other technicians losing their fundamental rights because their livelihood is being threatened?

Anonymous said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...
@eric:

"This is the fruit of SSM. We've gone from Congressional hearings on communism that was thought so beyond the pale we still make movies about it to, 'Um, isn't this normal behavior?'"

No, Congressional hearings are a far different matter than members of the public acting well within their rights. That's a distinction between the state and civil society that I had hoped conservatives would appreciate.


It sure is far different. Which is why I wasn't making that point. If conservatives can appreciate a distinction between the state and civil society, surely you can appreciate straw man arguments.

Take a look at my post (A response to your challenge) you failed to respond to. Then maybe you'll have a clue it's the State in both cases.

Jason said...

There are certain things you can't do by contract. A stay-at-home spouse can't contribute to an IRA, though. You have contribute earned income to an IRA and if your personal earnings are zero, you aren't eligible to contribute to an IRA.

Married couples can use a spousal IRA, though. The spouse with earnings can contribute on his or her spouse's behalf. Unmarried couples can't do this and they can't contract their way into this.

You also can't contract your way to the tax-free transfer of assets at death to a spouse and gain the unlimited estate tax exemption. Sure, this is unusual. You also can't contract your way into the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion on a personal residence. You can't contract your way into spousal social security benefits in the event of widowhood.

Not everyone is going to have a will, and not everyone is going to have life insurance.

Get the government out of marriage and you will disinherit millions of little old ladies whose partner dies without a will. Why? Because intestate laws distribute property according to a default system: Spouse first, then next of kin according to a specific set of rules defined by state law. If there is no SPOUSE, then she gets nothing. She gets treated as a roommate. She's not related by blood. So there MUST be some kind of legally recognized and easily definable mechanism where she gets included in the mix.

All these things require some formal adjudication and definition of some kind of domestic arrangement. Call what you want, but there's no 'getting the government out of marriage.' People who think that's possible haven't thought it through.

CJinPA said...

The "guardians of thought" (an apt phrase) are not -- at present -- the Government. It's easy to ignore them. Chances that the Government will become the Guardian of Thought is pretty slim, and I think that's really what this whole thread is about.

The thread is about "hate speech." "Hate speech" is a societal construct, not governmental. Is it easy to ignore a movement that can bankrupt your business or get your fired? Of course not.

Then there's this: Many on the left believe that "hate speech" is not covered by the first amendment. Many counties outlaw "hate speech." The chances that the government stays out of this are slim.

Jason said...

My point in asking the question was because the laws affecting those people were anti-discrimination laws at the state level that prevented businesses from discriminating against certain classes of people.

It matters not a whit. The right of Christians not to participate in SSM has been stripped from them in these jurisdictions. That was what you asked for, specifically. Whether the law also covers non-SSM-related discrimination is not relevant. Christians in these states have been stripped of their freedom of association and freedom of worship right not to participate.

Farmer said...

Hey! That Farmer ain't this Farmer! Call him J. Farmer! Or JF. I don't really care, just don't call him Farmer!

Jason said...

It was the government, not a private suit, that bankrupted Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

It was the government, not a private suit, that fined the New York couple.

Jason said...

Heh. There's another "Jason" that posts here sometimes!

I usually agree with him, so it hasn't been a problem.

J. Farmer said...

@Eric:

"Take a look at my post (A response to your challenge) you failed to respond to. "

No, I have responded to those examples several times. New York has laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against certain groups of people. That couple could just as easily have been fined for refusing to allow an interracial marriage on the grounds of racial discrimination. Now, I support that couples right to rent their property to whomever they choose. If they don't want any blacks, I am fine with it. But I do not support state-enforced segregation. It would be illogical to say that because I oppose state-supported segregation, I must equally oppose private segregation. That is the strawman argument you have concocted. If New York state abolished gay marriage tomorrow, their anti-discrimination laws would still prevent people in commerce from discriminating against gays. These are two separate issues.

Browndog said...

So, after the Supreme Court rules that homosexual marriage is a Constitutional right, and the SSM crowd lives happily ever after in marriage bliss, we can all go back to the days of yore, when society in general lives tolerantly side-by-side with Christian society?

Or, is there more to the story?

steve uhr said...

I assume Rubio's definition of mainstream Christianity includes Jerry Falwell, who blamed 9-11 on homosexuals. Not very surprising that people respond to that with a little hate of their own.

J. Farmer said...

@Jason:

"It matters not a whit."

These laws predate gay marriage and would still be in force without gay marriage. So, yes, it does matter "a whit."

Iowas has had SSM a lot longer than Oregon and is a more religious state than Oregon, so where are all the examples of Christians being put out of business and having their freedom of worship taken away from them?

@Farmer:

"I don't really care, just don't call him Farmer!"

An easy way to remember is that I am the one who, while supporting gay marriage, would never be caught dead with such a 1970s pornstache.

Big Mike said...

@Farmer, I do not propose to go through all of Althouse's blog posts comment by comment looking for exculpatory material on you personally. If you act like a worthless scumbag I will call you a worthless scumbag. Is that clear yet?

As I've said with great regularity, I'm not opposed to giving single sex couples the legal standing of a heterosexual married couple, but I recognize that to some Christians marriage is a sacrament and the use of the word "marriage" for a same sex union is clearly meant to be a thumb in their eye. If you wish to stick your thumb in someone's eye, expect them to respond strongly. How hard can that be to understand?

Technically I have no dog in this fight. I've been happily married to a beautiful woman for decades but as an atheist I hold nothing to be "sacred." But many, probably most, devout Christians are good people and if there is any such thing as an SJW who isn't worthless on the best of day of his or her life, I have yet to meet that person. You are right; I only know you through the comments you've written and I've read. But based on that criterion, you do not appear to the be the first counterexample.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Big Mike:

So you know my stance on a single issue (gay marriage), which is different than yours, and that is enough to label me an SJW and a worthless scumbag? Do you see how lame tribal politics are?

And who said anything about going "through all of Althouse's blog posts comment by comment?" Look at what I have written just here. I have said repeatedly that I oppose all antidiscrimination laws in terms of private business but still support SSM and have only pointed out that they are two mutually exclusive issues.

buwaya said...

"Do you see how lame tribal politics are?"

Tribal politics ARE modern politics. And, probably, in retrospect, much of the politics of the good old days also.

steve uhr said...

Big Mike - I just don't follow when you say that the use by gays of the word "marriage" is "clearly meant to be a thumb in" the eyes of Christians. Marriage is not a Christian thing or even a religious thing. If it were, the government wouldn't be allowed to have a role. Plenty of nonbelievers marry every day without giving it a second thought.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

"Tribal politics ARE modern politics. And, probably, in retrospect, much of the politics of the good old days also."

Exactly why democracy is such an overrated institution. And when you attempt to have it in the face of mass multiculturalism, it's a downright disaster. Americans who gleefully anticipate the collapse of white anglo America by the middle of this century are masochistic fools.

Jason said...

J. Farmer:

These laws predate gay marriage and would still be in force without gay marriage. So, yes, it does matter "a whit."

No.

Either these vendors have a right to Just Say No when asked to enter a contract provide personal or custom services to a same-sex wedding or they do not.

If they do not, then they no longer have a right not to participate. Period.

Your challenge was quite specific and easily met. But you'r not intellectually honest, so you're still trying to throw chaff, move the goalposts and fling poo, so Let's review:

J. Farmer said...
Quick question: what are Christians unable to do now as a result of SSM? Nobody has a right to not be called names.

@Rusty:

"Opt not to participate."


You lost the argument right there. But you were too thick to realize it.

J.Farmer Name one example.

At which point, because the illustrations were so clear and so well known and so numerous, you got your head bashed in with a Louisville Slugger.

Better put some ice on that.


Fabi said...

Anyone here expecting an honest argument from the SJWs (and their apologists or allies) is on a fool's errand. They'll defy logic, create false premises, flail strawmen, ad infinitum, all to avoid reality. How many times does one have to witness their mendacity before simply ignoring these cretins?

Bruce Hayden said...

For those who believe that we are moving quickly into a post-Christianity America, let me suggest here that religion in this country, just like gun ownership, has become tribal. It is on the wane maybe in the White portion of Blue America, which is where most of the pundits, journalists, etc. live, but seems alive and well here in deep Red America. Those, esp. in the MSM, who are predicting the demise of Christianity in this country are mostly, I would suggest, just exhibiting the effects of living in a progressive bubble.

One of the interesting things in this election cycle is that Gov. Huckleberry probably has little chance at the nomination, despite tokenly coming in second last time around. He did well that time because he was able to get a lot of the more conservative Christian vote. But, that isn't going to help him this time, since so many of the nominees speak to this demographic, and don't have his history of big government spending (nor his hokey religiousness).

Sen. Rubeo spoke this way because he is trying to appeal to a very large demographic in this country - that of those who oppose SSM on religious grounds. Yes, the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, speaks out repeatedly against homosexual behavior. We are probably talking 3,000 years of church teachings. My view is that calling this hate speech is far more hateful than most things done in the name of Christianity. Who are the real haters here? I would suggest it is the LGBT(etc) community and their supporters.

Jason said...

steve uhr: Marriage is not a Christian thing or even a religious thing.

Ummm.. it's a sacrament in the Catholic faith.

So it kind of is a religious thing.

chickelit said...

I think Rubio's words resonate and they need amplification.

steve uhr said...

Jason -- I meant that marriage does not only have religious connotations, contrasted with, say, Baptism.

Bruce Hayden said...

Tribal politics ARE modern politics. And, probably, in retrospect, much of the politics of the good old days also.

It is just that the constituencies of the tribes have changed. Now, the one tribe consists of statists, progressives, fascists, as well as many Blacks, Hispanics, and for a short time longer, Asians. The other consists of most everyone else, and in particular, those who are either religious fundamentalists or libertarians. Back then, the one tribe consisted of relatively recent immigrants along with slave owners (and after the Civil War, former slave owners and their supporters). The other tribe consisted of those Protestants whose ancestors came to this country earlier.

J. Farmer said...

@Jason:

"At which point, because the illustrations were so clear and so well known and so numerous, you got your head bashed in with a Louisville Slugger.

Better put some ice on that."

You are free to taunt me in the most childish way imaginable. It takes a lot for an anonymous Internet commenter to hurt my feelings. But you either do not understand the point I am making or are unable to respond to it. Either way, it's not my problem that you're a vinyl stuck on repeat unable to change its tune in response to anything I actually said.

So let me repeat myself for the umpteenth time. Antidiscrimination laws are not the same thing as same-sex marriage. You cannot blame SSM for the effects of a law that has nothing to do with marriage. New York has something called the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation in employment; admission to and use of places of public accommodation, resort or amusement; admission to and use of educational institutions; publicly assisted housing; private housing accommodations and commercial space; and relation to credit."

Now here's the rub. That law was passed in 2002, before there was any SSM in the United States. And if SSM was abolished in New York tomorrow, that law would still be on the books and in force. I disagree with that law and would advocate for its repeal, but I still support SSM. My position is not contradictory. If you want to oppose non-discrimination laws protecting sexual orientation, then advocate for it. But it's not an argument to say you oppose SSM because of the effects of another law unrelated to SSM.



garage mahal said...

Rubio is a Palm Tree Palin. The question always is whether they believe this crap for real, or is it just to whip the rubes up and keep them interested.

steve uhr said...

"If you gave Falwell an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox" -- Christopher Hitchens

Hate speech can still be fun speech.

Jason said...

J.Palmer:

Keep throwing chaffe dolt. You lost.

Business owners in WA, OR and NY lost their right to refuse to participate. Full stop. You're bullshitting.

You're also lazy: I'm not anonymous.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Went to a Memorial Day Ceremony at the Alabama National Cemetery Monday.

Two pastors.
Multiple prayers, some even used the name Jesus.
Christian hymns.

Kept looking around for the ACLU and/or The Freedom From Religion Foundation, or maybe the SPLC to put a stop to such nefarious activities.

Christianity isn't as on the ropes as lot of people think.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diamondhead said...

The end of Christendom doesn't mean the end of Christianity. I would argue it's going to end up being very bad for society, but from the perspective of a Christian, being called a hater or a bigot only matters to you if it, well, matters to you. Jesus promised that Christians would be hated for his sake.

Maybe the more interesting issue is how long will it be before being gay is a matter for the courts again? In terms of left wing identity politics, Muslims already hold the trump card. When will they feel empowered enough to demand it? And will the safe-space/microaggressions/trigger warning crowd be able to say no? Will they fight for gay rights at personal risk? Imagine the student council at Oberlin without the U.S. military between them and ISIS. I'd give the secular left about...thirty years of decadence before it unravels.

J. Farmer said...

@Jason:

"Keep throwing chaffe dolt. You lost.

Business owners in WA, OR and NY lost their right to refuse to participate. Full stop. You're bullshitting."

Hmm...so let's just recap. I make an argument and provide evidence and support for it. You call me names. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

So let me just concede for the sake of argument that I am a bullshitting, bitch, dumbass, lazy dolt. Please explain to me why the effects of a law passed in 2002 are the result of same-sex marriage, which was made legal in 2011.

MikeR said...

' "This society is turning into one where people of traditional religion will not be able to breathe."
This is such alarmist nonsense. Please explain how this will happen.'
Perhaps you wouldn't mind living in a society where public school will teach your children that you are a bigot. Where it will be the conventional wisdom that you are an evil hater. Where people will debate whether governments can make laws closing down your business because you won't make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage - or maybe they shouldn't make such a law, despicable as you are.
But I think you would mind. And people will happily tell you that you have absolutely no right to try to make the society that you want; it's against the Constitution, you see.

J. Farmer said...

@Diamondhead:

"Imagine the student council at Oberlin without the U.S. military between them and ISIS."

Thousands of miles of open ocean are a far greater defense against ISIS than US warplanes futilely attempting to bomb it out of existence.

MikeR said...

"More than 80% of Americans are Christians, and about 60% of Americans support SSM. That suggests to me that there are a very large number of American Christians who do not see SSM as an assault on their religious beliefs or religious freedoms."
And those who do are outvoted, so they don't count. Why does this argument make any sense? Do you imagine that all American Christians think the same way?

Mark said...

The solution, as I see it, is to get the states out of the marriage business

Possibly. But then the states would need to get into the business of a structure of legal protections and obligations pertaining to those relationships which have the inherent potential for producing children solely through that relationship.

You can distort and corrupt the word "marriage," but you cannot eliminate the reality that (1) male-female relationships are unique and fundamentally different from inherently sterile same-sex relationships, and (2) this inherently potentially fertile male-female relationship requires a legal structure that is irrelevent to and superflous for same-sex relationships.

J. Farmer said...

@MikeR:

"Where people will debate whether governments can make laws closing down your business because you won't make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage - or maybe they shouldn't make such a law, despicable as you are."

Iowa has had same-sex marriage longer than Washington, Oregon, or New York and is a more traditionally religious state than any of those other states. So where are all the persecuted Christians of Iowa?

Business owners have been legally barred from discriminating against race for decades. How have you been able to tolerate living in such an intolerant society for so long?

sparrow said...

MikeR

Most people who claim to be Christian won't fight for it. For example only 20% of the people who claim to be Catholic go the mass weekly.

J. Farmer said...

@MikeR:

"Do you imagine that all American Christians think the same way?"

No, which is exactly my point.

jimbino said...

Crazy. Neither Jesus, a childfree single guy, nor St Paul, inventor of Christianity and likewise a childfree single guy, had anything positive to say about marriage. Quite the contrary.

Read your Bible and let me know where therein the model for Amerikan "one man and one woman" marriage can be found.

The model for most marriages I've observed is in the Book of Job.

Mark said...

Quick question: what are Christians unable to do now as a result of SSM?

(1) They are unable to not sell wedding rings to same-sex couples, and
(2) They are unable to sell wedding rings to same-sex couples.

jimbino said...

Crazy. Neither Jesus, a childfree single guy, nor St Paul, inventor of Christianity and likewise a childfree single guy, had anything positive to say about marriage. Quite the contrary.

Read your Bible and let me know where therein the model for Amerikan "one man and one woman" marriage can be found.

The model for most marriages I've observed is in the Book of Job.

Diamondhead said...

@Diamondhead:

"Imagine the student council at Oberlin without the U.S. military between them and ISIS."

Thousands of miles of open ocean are a far greater defense against ISIS than US warplanes futilely attempting to bomb it out of existence.

If ISIS were a state with a military you might have a point. But since it's an ideology with a billion potential adherents living all over the globe, you sound naive.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

steve uhr said...
I assume Rubio's definition of mainstream Christianity includes Jerry Falwell, who blamed 9-11 on homosexuals. Not very surprising that people respond to that with a little hate of their own.


I blame global climate change.

sparrow said...

"And those who do are outvoted, so they don't count"
I see: quite the show of respect minority rights then. If I don't agree I don't count.

Rusty said...

Jason said,
"You lost the argument right there. But you were too thick to realize it."


Enlighten me.

sparrow said...

jimbino

Matthew 19:4-6 You don't know your Bible clearly.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

How about:

I assume steve uhr's definition of acceptable mainstream political thought includes the viewpoint of William Ayers, who in his younger years tried to orchestrate the mass murder of American servicemen and their dates at a dance, and who later helped start the political career of the current President of the U.S. (by being "a guy from the neighborhood" of course). So we're assuming Rubio is ok with Falwell, and steve uhr's ok with Ayers. Or, I dunno, maybe we could instead just not "assume" things like that, especially in bad faith? Weird, I know.

Rusty said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

"Opt not to participate."

Name one example.

(Should have been a question)

I neither care, nor do I wish to know your sexual orientation. However if you insist on making it my business, then don't complain if I share my opinion of you behavior.

J. Farmer said...

@Diamondhead:

"But since it's an ideology with a billion potential adherents living all over the globe, you sound naive."

I am reluctant to go down this path since it's not related to the OP, and I have said plenty about it in other posts. But I will say that ISIS is not an ideology. And there is minuscule support for it in places like Egypt or Saudi Arabia. That said, the ideology that most informs groups like ISIS, radical salafism, is a product of Saudi Arabia, a country drenched in diplomatic support and military largesse from the US>

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

"However if you insist on making it my business, then don't complain if I share my opinion of you behavior."

I never complained about you sharing your opinion of my behavior, and you are quite free to do so. Your opinion of my behavior holds about as much importance to me as the dust on my floor. What does that have to do with anything I have said?

Rusty said...

jimbino said...
Crazy. Neither Jesus, a childfree single guy, nor St Paul, inventor of Christianity and likewise a childfree single guy, had anything positive to say about marriage. Quite the contrary.


Unfortunately "The Word" in its current manifestation was the result of a lot of editing and license centuries after the fact. So take it with a grain of salt.

Rusty said...

J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:

"However if you insist on making it my business, then don't complain if I share my opinion of you behavior."

I never complained about you sharing your opinion of my behavior, and you are quite free to do so. Your opinion of my behavior holds about as much importance to me as the dust on my floor. What does that have to do with anything I have said?

I was speaking generally.
I wished to point out that today one is powerless not to have to participate in the queering of our culture.
I am saddened that I have lost your good opinion of me.

J. Farmer said...

@Mark:

"(1) They are unable to not sell wedding rings to same-sex couples, and
(2) They are unable to sell wedding rings to same-sex couples."

I assume there is a typographical error here somewhere. Otherwise, I don't understand.

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

"I was speaking generally.
I wished to point out that today one is powerless not to have to participate in the queering of our culture.
I am saddened that I have lost your good opinion of me."

You didn't lose it. You never had it. But I never had a bad opinion of you, either. I don't know you, so I have no opinion of you generally one way or the other. I am talking about one particular issue, and I imagine that there are a number of issues where you and I would be strongly in agreement.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@sparrow

and John 2 where Jesus attends a wedding and performs his first public miracle, various verses in Proverbs, Ephesians 5:22-33, Deuteronomy 24:5, and 1 Corinthians 7:1-16, which is the one that is used to claim Paul isn't down with marriage, but advises married couples to not refrain from sex to often.

MikeR said...

' "Do you imagine that all American Christians think the same way?"
No, which is exactly my point.'
Then your point is absurd. They have no business following their religion, because someone else has a different idea of what it says.

"Business owners have been legally barred from discriminating against race for decades. How have you been able to tolerate living in such an intolerant society for so long?" As I said. You and vast numbers of others are eager to pigeonhole me as a bigot. And you pretend to yourself that I'm not supposed to mind? You mouth words of respect for religious belief, but you are quite ready to equate me with a racist from the 1950s South.
Whatever. You-all have taken over the country, and made it over in your image, and I can't stop you. And you have zero ability or inclination to make any attempt to understand how someone might feel about it, because they're such awful people.

Gabriel said...

@J. Farmer:"(1) They are unable to not sell wedding rings to same-sex couples, and
(2) They are unable to sell wedding rings to same-sex couples."

I assume there is a typographical error here somewhere. Otherwise, I don't understand.


The reference is to the Canadian jeweler who made custom rings for an SSM marriage. He made the rings, but the couple discovered that he opposed SSM, and they wanted a refund. He initially refused and but later capitulated after the couple took it to social media and he received threats.

PackerBronco said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Mark:

"(1) They are unable to not sell wedding rings to same-sex couples, and
(2) They are unable to sell wedding rings to same-sex couples."

I assume there is a typographical error here somewhere. Otherwise, I don't understand.

5/27/15, 3:06 PM


You have to read the thread from the last few days in which a jeweler who disapproved of SSM was intimidated into returning a deposit on work he had down for a gay couple. So if he had refused to do the work in the first place he would have been harassed/sued and having done the work he was still harassed and lost the business and the deposit.

MikeR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lydia said...

The media have been having a field day with Christians for quite a while now, and the BBC has been one of the best at re-branding them as bigoted, uncaring, etc. Good current example is its popular Last Tango in Halifax series, which features a lovely bit of in-your-face anti-Christian dialogue in one episode right after a grandmother learns that her teenage grandson is about to become a father and his girlfriend's parents are shocked and upset.

Here's what the grandma says: "Still, you'd not think they'd turn their back on her, would you? Perhaps they're Christians."

The person she says that to simply looks at her and says he's got to get home to feed the livestock. See, so commonplace is such stuff that it's just throw-away line material now.

Diamondhead said...

J Farmer, you don't see how the marginalization from society of the types of people who traditionally have been disproportionately willing to make personal sacrifices for this country's freedoms might be related to how long that society can last against enemies that demand a response more powerful than Twitter hashtags?

J. Farmer said...

@MikeR:

"You and vast numbers of others are eager to pigeonhole me as a bigot. "

I never called you a bigot or insinuated anything about you personally. I am quite capable of getting along with people who have a different point of view than me. You are than one who has responded hostilely to virtually everything I said. My point is that business owners are legally barred from discriminating on the basis of race. Why do you think about such an imposition? I oppose it. I believe business owners have the right to discriminate racially. And I have said that many times. So your notion that I am calling you a "racist from the 1950s South" by making that point is laughable. Get over your victim complex.

Gabriel said...

@J Farmer: If the jeweler had refused to make the rings because he opposed SSM, then he would have fallen afoul of Canada's anti-discrimination laws, so he was "unable to not sell" the rings. He was "unable to sell" them because the couple refused the rings and demanded a refund, and this was enforced by social media threats.

J. Farmer said...

@Gabriel/PackerBono:

"You have to read the thread from the last few days in which a jeweler who disapproved of SSM was intimidated into returning a deposit on work he had down for a gay couple. "

Ah, my apologies and thank you for the clarification. I saw Ann's post about it but did not follow the story too closely. I don't care about Canada.

MikeR said...

"Get over your victim complex." Zero empathy. As I said.

PackerBronco said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...
Business owners have been legally barred from discriminating against race for decades. How have you been able to tolerate living in such an intolerant society for so long?


Because there's a difference between discriminating against people and choosing not to offer a particular business service.

Would you really argue that a person who's business focuses exclusively on wedding planning for Orthdox Jewish Weddings is equivalent to a card-carrying member of the KKK?

J. Farmer said...

@DiamondHead:

"J Farmer, you don't see how the marginalization from society of the types of people who traditionally have been disproportionately willing to make personal sacrifices for this country's freedoms might be related to how long that society can last against enemies that demand a response more powerful than Twitter hashtags?"

If I believed such an enemy existed, then I might be more inclined to your point of view. But I have consistently believed that the threat against our country from radical Islamism has always been greatly overblown. A special forces operation against bin laden and his group in southeastern Afghanistan and a few incursions into Pakistan would have been plenty of necessary response to take care of Al Qaeda. Assuming primary responsibility for the security and stability of two fractious, tribalistic societies was always a criminally stupid enterprise in my opinion.

John henry said...

Amen, brother.

If anyone doubts that, look at the case of the jeweler the other day and the comments here.

Anything less than a public expression that SSM is the best thing since sliced bread gets one called a hater.

John Henry

Gabriel said...

@J. Farmer:. I don't care about Canada.

I normally don't either, but given the similarity in legal systems and culture, much of what's there finds its way here and vice-versa, especially when a sitting Supreme Court Justice has said that international law has a great deal of bearing on how she interprets the Constitution.

It's harder to reject the slippery slope argument when you can see a bunch of people all the way down at the bottom ahead of you.

J. Farmer said...

@MikeR:

"Zero empathy. As I said."

Except I have said over and over again that I don't agree with what has happened to those business owners, and I oppose the laws that they were affected by. What more would you like me to do?

@PackerBronco:

"Because there's a difference between discriminating against people and choosing not to offer a particular business service."

So a bakery owner should be free to refuse to sell their cakes to blacks, then? I would support such a proposition, but they would run foul of the law.

J. Farmer said...

@John:

"Anything less than a public expression that SSM is the best thing since sliced bread gets one called a hater."

But being called a hater has nothing to do with the law or with one's rights. You don't have a right to not be called a hater. Charles Murray is one of my favorite public policy writers, and that way that man's reputation and point of view have been besmirched and attacked is downright scandalous. I empathize with him, but I don't believe that he has suffered any loss of his liberty or that the law should offer him any recompense.

Etienne said...

Jason said...You also can't contract your way to the tax-free transfer of assets at death to a spouse and gain the unlimited estate tax exemption. Sure, this is unusual. You also can't contract your way into the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion on a personal residence. You can't contract your way into spousal social security benefits in the event of widowhood.

Blah, blah, blah...

See, this is what I am talking about. If you give prizes, then everyone is eligible. You can't start throwing money at hetero's, and then not have the homo's upset.

Get rid of that crap. It has nothing to do with marriage. It is a tax subsidy. It doesn't create itself, it is printed money from Congress. It is based on the Chinese loans.

Every dollar propping up marriage, is a dollar not being used to import raw material for manufacture.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Diamonhead

" I'd give the secular left about...thirty years of decadence before it unravels."

I don't think it will take nearly that long. We are already being urged to not upset Muslims by insulting the Prophet. And criticism of Islam has been declared "gross" by no less a personage than Ben Affleck. The secular left will abandon its LGBT allies in a heartbeat once they sense the wind turning. They will urge them to keep it on "down low" in order to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities.

Cause multiculturalism! :>)

Achilles said...

MadisonMan said...

"The "guardians of thought" (an apt phrase) are not -- at present -- the Government. It's easy to ignore them. Chances that the Government will become the Guardian of Thought is pretty slim, and I think that's really what this whole thread is about.

If someone thinks poorly of me because of what I believe to be true, I really do not care.

I've often said that Gays should not care what others think of them -- that applies to Christians too."

The guardians of thought are the government. Obama and the activist left and the MSM are operating on the same set of orders.

The problem with this thread is that everyone on it wants the government to be the guardians of thought. They just want the government to enforce their beliefs.

Get the government OUT of marriage if you want to save it. Go to church. Build your community. Stop thinking the government is the best way to keep gay people from getting married.

Browndog said...

So a bakery owner should be free to refuse to sell their cakes to blacks, then? I would support such a proposition, but they would run foul of the law.

So a Priest should be free to refuse to marry a gay couple, then? I would support such a proposition, but they would run foul of the law.

Laws have always been etched in stone....even when they change.

Diamondhead said...

Yes, my position is predicated on the idea that the people on the secular left who will be calling the shots don't believe radical Islam is a thing or that to the extent we have a problem it's because we invaded Iraq.

David said...

Telling it like it is.

What he is describing is probably the extreme not the mainstream at this point, but the extreme ideas can enter the mainstream pretty fast.

The more of Rubio I see, the better I like him.

Likely he will be on the Republican ticket, either Pres. or VP (unless Jeb gets the nomination).

J. Farmer said...

@Browndog:

"So a Priest should be free to refuse to marry a gay couple, then? I would support such a proposition, but they would run foul of the law."

What law would they run foul of?

J. Farmer said...

@Diamondhead:

"Yes, my position is predicated on the idea that the people on the secular left who will be calling the shots don't believe radical Islam is a thing or that to the extent we have a problem it's because we invaded Iraq."

There are plenty of people on the religious right who do not believe it is as big a problem as you. See virtually the entire staff of The American Conservative, for example.

PackerBronco said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...


"Because there's a difference between discriminating against people and choosing not to offer a particular business service."

So a bakery owner should be free to refuse to sell their cakes to blacks, then? I would support such a proposition, but they would run foul of the law.



???? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I mean that in all charity. Because if I write " there's a difference between discriminating against people and choosing not to offer a particular business service" and you write back words to the effect of "so, it's okay to discriminate against blacks?", I have to wonder whether you're willing to have a serious discussion.

I would contrast it this way: Say a gay couple comes into a bakery and says to the baker, "We would like to buy this cake on your counter" and the baker says "I don't sell to gays." THAT would be discriminating against a person.

On the other hand, say the gay couple comes into a bakery and says to the baker, "We'd like to hire you to work at our wedding" and he says "I don't do gay weddings". THAT would be not discriminating against a person but against a particular type of service. The baker might be very willing to sell a premade cake, in fact, in the particular case that is under discussion the baker was willing to make such a accommodation. It was his involvement in the wedding service itself, not the customers, that he objected to.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I mean, the secular left certainly didn't spend much effort protecting girls in England from the depredations of Muslims. Don't want to be accused of being a racist after all.

That would be bad! What's a few young girls when considered against being considered a racist?

steve uhr said...

Hoodlum -- So you think that Falwell's belief system is not included in "mainstream Christian thought" as that term is used by (but not defined by) Rubio?

What about Cruz -- who announced his candidacy at Falwell's Liberty Baptist University I recall.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@PackerBronco:

Draw up whatever scenario you want, but replace the gay couple with a black or interracial couple and make the baker's refusal to participate based on their personal desire not to be involved in a black or interracial marriage. That baker would be violating an anti-discrimination law. And as I have said many times already, I support the baker and oppose the law. I believe that a businessman can refuse to provide services to anybody for any reason. How about you?

MikeR said...

"Except I have said over and over again that I don't agree with what has happened to those business owners, and I oppose the laws that they were affected by. What more would you like me to do?" I'm supposed to appreciate your Constitutional concern for the inalienable rights of despicable people? You in your wonderful probity support Nazis marching in Skokie, etc. Of course, there will be others who are less generous, but that's how a free society works, right?

Thanks, but that doesn't count as empathy. Maybe think a little about what it's like to live in a society where what you consider right, where what everyone you grew up with considered right, is now considered evil. Where some of them, not all, are willing to give you your constitutional right to be what is despicable in their eyes. But none are willing to say, That religion is one that this country was founded on, and it's not unreasonable to give respect to people who follow it. And it's not unreasonable to respect people who didn't change what they think their religion says just because others in the society did. Then you'll have empathy.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Of course those girls were the wrong sort, really. It isn't as if they were going to get into Cambridge or Oxford anyway.

Break a few eggs and all that.

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...

"A special forces operation against bin laden and his group in southeastern Afghanistan and a few incursions into Pakistan would have been plenty of necessary response to take care of Al Qaeda."

You had a double helping of stupid for breakfast today.

First off special forces wouldn't carry out that type of mission. It would be JSOC. Second they couldn't do it without the intel developed from other operations. Third you don't just helicopter into a country and helicopter out. They don't have that kind of range. Fourth there is a term called freedom to move and maneuver. You don't get that with 45 guys in a few helicopters.

There are no easy answers to this. People are going to have to die. Lots of them. Period. You want to pretend it is different. That is stupid and disrespectful to those who sacrificed to keep your whiny ass safe. If you want to pretend this do it in a country we didn't defend.

I tend to agree that nation building isn't the right answer. But thinking you can ignore these people is what led to 9/11. They will not stop. One thing they do have is determination and will.

J. Farmer said...

@MikeR:

"Maybe think a little about what it's like to live in a society where what you consider right, where what everyone you grew up with considered right, is now considered evil."

First of all, as a gay man, I do live in a society where a lot of people think I am a sick abomination. When I go onto pro-immigration blogs and advocate immigration restrictionism, I am called an evil xenophobe. When I go on sites like real urban talk and advocate white separatism, I am called an evil racist. I am quite familiar with what its like to have points of view that are far outside the mainstream, that are frequently misconstrued, and are labeled as evil and hateful. Nonetheless, I have confident in my points of view and am willing to argue them anytime, anywhere, against any one. I don't need society's stamp of approval to feel good about myself.

PackerBronco said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...
I believe that a businessman can refuse to provide services to anybody for any reason. How about you?


I think there are gray areas. For example an EMT or doctor should not be able to refuse to treatment to someone based on race or creed or sexual orientation. So that's one end of the spectrum where I would not give someone that kind of discretion. The priest who doesn't want to minister at a SSM is at the other end of spectrum. Those are completely clear. Somewhere between those two extremes is where, for me, the issue can get difficult and murky.

J. Farmer said...

@achilles:

"That is stupid and disrespectful to those who sacrificed to keep your whiny ass safe."

Oh fuck off with this, really. My life has never been threatened by Islamic radicals, and I don't have to suck up to the military as a result. The US could easily have launched military operations against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan without having to attack the government in Kabul. Only then did the Taliban become something we had to worry about. And the notion that wide scale military operations in more than half a dozen countries will keep a dozen guys from flying to the US, entering legally, and then planning a terrorist attack is stupidly absurd.

J. Farmer said...

@PackerBronco:

"Somewhere between those two extremes is where, for me, the issue can get difficult and murky."

I totally agree with you. And no solution will please everyone. But I don't think the resolution will be the end of free speech and religious liberty in this country. That's a point of view I labeled alarmist and which set off this entire back and forth.

Achilles said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...
"I mean, the secular left certainly didn't spend much effort protecting girls in England from the depredations of Muslims. Don't want to be accused of being a racist after all.

That would be bad! What's a few young girls when considered against being considered a racist?"

The problem is the secular left is a spitting image of Islamism. Secularism or evolution is just as much of a religion at this point as Christianity or Islam. The core of Islam and Secularism is they both worship centralized economic and cultural decision making.

It is the Christians on this thread seem to have forgotten that this country was founded on small government big church. They now want one of the foundations of our society, i.e. marriage, defined and enforced by government monopoly on force. This is obviously a really poor plan.

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...
@achilles:

"That is stupid and disrespectful to those who sacrificed to keep your whiny ass safe."

"Oh fuck off with this, really. My life has never been threatened by Islamic radicals, and I don't have to suck up to the military as a result. "

Don't worry. The feeling is mutual. We hate you too.

Quaestor said...

What is the end-game for World War II? When are we going to bring the troops home from Japan and Germany?

Does anyone suppose Coupe will ever get this 21st century thing? It doesn't look that way, does it?

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

I don't hate the military or anybody who has a different point of view than me on the war on terror. But if you're doing it for such noble reasons, perhaps you'd like to brush that massive chip off your shoulder.

MikeR said...

"I don't need society's stamp of approval to feel good about myself." Well then, I guess we're back to the zero empathy stuff. I'll leave it there.

J. Farmer said...

@MikeR:

"Well then, I guess we're back to the zero empathy stuff. I'll leave it there."

Sure. I support SSM and I oppose anti-discrimination laws. If you need to pathologize me to make sense of that, go right ahead. I just spent Memorial Day weekend in East Tennessee surrounded by people who oppose SSM. Oddly enough, none of them felt silenced or unable to express their point of view to me. And strangely, I never once demanded that they display empathy for my point of view.

Anonymous said...

J. Farmer said...
Blah blah blah. The national security deep state is a far greater threat to individual liberty than SSM, but Rubio and his coterie are wildly in favor of it.

**************

I challenge you to tell us how "the national security deep state" has ever affected you or anyone you know personally, leading to social ostracism, criminal charges or the like, as opposed to the nation-wide campaigns to not just marginalize, but destroy people of faith who simply stand up for their principles.

Proglodytes seek to destroy civil society and to replace it with the kind of totalitarian state you say you're against.

Diamondhead said...


"There are plenty of people on the religious right who do not believe it is as big a problem as you. See virtually the entire staff of The American Conservative, for example."

True, but they most definitely will not be "calling the shots." On another point, I don't think that anyone can say with complete confidence that his life has never been threatened by {fill in the blank}. But that does feel a bit off topic. All I mean to say is: I'm gay. If I want a little old Christian lady to bake me a cake, the secular left is my best bet. If I want someone to risk their life to protect my life, I'll take the Christian right.

Lem said...

I take it it's too late now, to hire Bill Clinton as a consultant in defense of his own Defense of Marriage Act?

I don't know that many people knew he was so available... his wife being the top diplomat and all.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

"However, some fundamentalist Christian teaching can be kooky and/or stupid in all sorts of ways."

And therefore ?

What is your next statement.?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 304   Newer› Newest»