Tag: Same-sex marriage

The Left uses issues to push their twisted agendas

The Left has a long history of latching on to worthy issues, ending slavery, ending segregation, raising awareness to stop sexual harassment, unfair labor practices, etc. to push for radical changes in our nation.The issues I listed above are a few examples. The Left used those issues to destroy state sovereignty, create a perpetual racial divide in America, which the Left exploits for electoral victories. they used them to create unions that have morphed into Left wing anti-Capitalist thugs. And they have created work environments where so many rules exist employees walk on virtual minefields of political correctness where any joke that offends, no matter how innocent could cost you your job.

I could also talk about how the Left has bastardized “zero-tolerance” policies in schools to create the insanity of kids being punished for have aspirin, or drawing a picture of a soldier. The Left has done similar damage to freedom of speech and worship. Where their unquenchable thirst for “tolerance” and “inclusion” have created things like a war on Christmas, and all public displays of religion, and speech codes on college campuses.

The Left cried for an income tax, that was, initially one percent. Yes, one percent! Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are also great examples of how the Left uses issues to instill more Socialism into our nation. No matter how noble, or worthwhile an issue is, once the Left latches onto it, it begins to, as Dennis Prager says, to  metastasize, and the results can be seen in every issue the Left has championed.

Why is this? Many reasons could be listed. The inherent greed and thirst for power that afflicts the Left are two reasons. The Left’s disregard for Individualism, and natural rights is another reason. I bring these up because there is another issue now, the issue of Gay marriage. Whether or not you agree with allowing Gay’s to marry, you must admit that the Gay activists, who are Leftists. are using this issue to further change our country.

Allowing Gay’s to marry bothers me not. But, this issue will be used, and in fact IS being used to both radically change how we define marriage. It is being used to force not just tolerance for Homosexuals, but to force businesses like wedding photographers, and bakeries to do their business with Gay couples wanting to marry. That is not about liberty, that is about the Left forcing their will onto everyone. Again, the Left’s appetite for power knows no bounds. Evidence of this can be found at American Power, where Donald Douglas links to a piece at Front Page magazine by Daniel Greenfield

From Daniel Greenfield, at FrontPage Magazine:

And yes. Turning gay marriage into a thing paves the way for legalizing polygamy. As everyone with a brain predicted. Polygamy, unlike gay marriage, was actually a thing. It has thousands of years of history behind it. So this was bound to happen.

If we’re not going to have any standards for marriage except “People in a relationship of some kind” then there’s no reason not to recognize polygamy. Or any of the crazier stuff coming down the pike. And that was why the left pushed the gay marriage scam to begin with.

Can’t say we didn’t warn you.

Continue reading

This is the problem with the Left, they can never be trusted to not use every issue to “reform” America “reeducate” our children, or to “redefine” American traditions and culture

Since when did supporting Gay marriage amount to bullying private businesses?

I have said before I have no real issue with Gay marriage, it should be left to the states. But, I recognize that many of those pushing for Gay marriage do not want “equality”. They want to force their lifestyle, and more specifically complete acceptance of that lifestyle down everyone else’s throats. That includes bullying businesses that choose not to provide services to Gay weddings or receptions.

A Colorado judge says a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs, a ruling that a civil rights group hailed as a victory for gay rights.

Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled Friday that Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, will face fines if he continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy wedding cakes.

“The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage,” Spencer wrote.

Last year, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. The couple had planned to marry in Massachusetts and hold a reception in Colorado.

Phillips told the men that he could not bake their cake because of his religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage. He offered to make them any other baked item, but not a wedding cake. The couple immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

“Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration,” Mullins said in a statement. “No one should fear being turned away from a public business because of who they are.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado hailed the ruling and said it serves as a warning.

“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” ACLU staff attorney Amanda Goad said in a statement. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owners to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”

The very notion that a business cannot deny service to “prospective” costumers is asinine. This is the problem with so-called civil rights laws many times. The intention is noble, but Leftist activists and Statists use these laws to trample the rights of business owners. 

 

Rights? You want rights? Only if the Left approves you Homophobic Homphobes!

At times it seems that America has lost its mind, or at least that the concept of “rights” as our Founders understood and defined them is slipping away. RS McCain reports that the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that everyone in New Mexico must do anything that Gay couples looking to get married say because human rights you Homphobe!

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

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

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

Just how they reached such a fundamentally flawed decision is frankly, inexplicable. Can the government now FORCE a business to provides goods or services against their will? Apparently the Leftists on that court think so. It is the price of citizenship apparently!

On Thursday, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that religious wedding photographers could be forced to photograph same-sex weddings. “When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the [New Mexico Human Rights Act, or NMHRA] in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,” the court ruled unanimously.

The court said that Elaine Huguenin, the photographer, had discriminated against gay customers for not photographing their weddings, even though she had said she would be happy to take their pictures in different contexts. The court also refused any differentiation whatsoever between homosexual and heterosexual conduct under the law, despite the fact that same-sex marriage is not licensed in the state of New Mexico. Justice Edward Chavez wrote, “The difficulty in distinguishing between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation discrimination is that people may base their judgment about an individual’s sexual orientation on the individual’s conduct. To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA.” In other words, orientation and conduct are so intertwined that to discriminate against activity would be to discriminate against the person — an odd line of logic, given that it would then follow that discriminating against religious activity would constitute discrimination on the basis of religion, making the court’s logic self-defeating.

Justice Richard Bosson wrote, in concurrence, that the Huguenins are “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.” He concluded, “The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.” That “compromise,” he wrote, “is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.”

Talk about making it up as you go along! And note the word “tolerance”. How odd that the Gay couples must have, as in must have or else, “tolerance” but what of the “tolerance” for the wedding photographer? I guess some tolerance is more equal than others? Since when the Leftist definition of tolerance become part of our Constitution? I suppose, as McCain puts it, our moral superiors are to decide our every action now

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

The language of “rights” is not about freedom, but rather power.

As I have said before, Gay marriage is a legitimate issue to debate, and, I think for states to decide. But the Gay activists and other Leftists will not let that happen. They are using this issue, as they have used many others, not to liberate, or to achieve equality of opportunity, but to create their version of what America ought to be. And understand me when I tell you that in their version of America, there will be no rights, only Leftist Totalitarianism! the Left’s thirst for power, TOTAL power, can never be slaked.

 

Gay couple seeks to force churches into hosting gay weddings

So sad, another quest for “tolerance” “acceptance” “equality” is hijacked by the Left and used as a tool to force their views onto others. Protein Wisdom has the story

Wealthy gay dad, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, says he and his civil partner Tony will go to court to force churches to host gay weddings. He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because “I am still not getting what I want”. A Government Bill legalising gay marriage passed Parliament recently but it included measures to protect churches from being forced to perform same-sex weddings. Mr Drewitt-Barlow said: “The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church. “It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us.” He added: “It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away. “As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want. 

That last line says it all. He is not getting his way, so he will throw a tantrum. Where in the world does this whiner think he gets a right to be “recognized”? This is the reservation I have with Gay marriage. I do not give a flip about who someone sleeps with, or wants to be with, that is their choice. But, it is not about that for the activists is it? Instead it is about forcing everyone to do what they want them to, or else. This guy is a bully, as are most activists. A bully obsessed with his personal crusade against some imagined oppression. And he will end that oppression no matter who he has to oppress. Get the irony? 

By the way, if you think this cannot happen in America, think again. Ask the bakeries who refused to make cakes for Gay weddings. Ask this florist in Washington.  How about wedding photographers who will not do Gay weddings?That is the Left though isn’t it? Rights, are secondary to feelings. Hurt someone’s feelings, lose your rights to do business with whom you choose. That is what this is all about. Liberal activism is about one thing, using the shield of mantle of “equality” to destroy anyone who dares disagrees with them. It is not equality these activists seek, it is dominance.

Allow me to give these activists an example of how freedom works. A church in North Carolina is refusing to do heterosexual weddings.

The Green Street United Methodist Church in Winston-Salem, N.C., is taking a stand for marriage equality by refusing to conduct marriages for heterosexual couples until United Methodist polices are changed to allow pastors to officiate at marriages for same-sex couples as well.

According to the Winston-Salem Journal, the church’s 18-member leadership council is instead “asking pastors to conduct relationship blessings rather than marriage ceremonies in the sanctuary.”

“On the matter of gay marriage, the church sees injustice in the legal position of state government and the theological position of our denomination,” the church’s spokespeople said in a statement. “North Carolina prohibits same-sex marriage and all the rights and privileges marriage brings. The leadership council has asked that their ministers join others who refuse to sign any state marriage licenses until this right is granted to same-sex couples.”

Guess what? That is their right! Again, rights trump feelings, at least they do in a sane society, and any couple that sought to force this church to do straight weddings would be wrong. Any straight couple that was refused a wedding cake, or flowers for the wedding would be wrong to sue those businesses. Businesses have EVER RIGHT to refuse NOT to sell or provide a service to someone. And, AGAIN if that hurts someone little feelings, guess what, rights trump feelings!

Daniel Greenfield has some good thoughts

This comes from the UK, but sooner or later the same European madness will end up here as well. Obama already demonstrated total contempt for freedom of religion with the mandate. And there is no doubt that worse is coming.

Exactly, the Left’s thirst for complete power is unquenchable. Nothing but complete control of everything people can say, do, and think is ever going to sate the Left Wing Statists.

 

The real problem with the Gay marriage issue

I have said before that the issue of Gay marriage should be a state by state decision, and that those state decisions ought to be respected by both sides. And, in theory, such a state of affairs would work out well. Ah, but you see, the driving forces behind the Gay marriage push, do not want to live and let live. They will never be satisfied with true equality, their definition of equality being far removed from the actual definition, they will use this issue to force others to bow to them. Donald Douglas declares that the war on religion, yes ALL religion, not just Christianity, is under way, and links to this piece at All the Right Snark

As Ben Shapiro wrote today at Breitbart, this ruling by the Supreme Court has opened the door to the IRS revoking tax-exempt status to any church that would refuse to permit two homosexuals to hold their “wedding” within its walls.

Don’t think that will happen?

Think again.

As it is, homosexual couples are suing bakeries, florists and other businesses for refusing to provide them with the trappings of their upcoming nuptials.

You don’t think homosexual couples won’t pursue lawsuits against churches for refusing to “marry” them?

Really?

Come on.

We’re living in Obama’s America — where in the name of “fairness” it’s open season on anyone you don’t like.

And if you think that the “Take that bitches” crowd will be respectful of those who disagree on religious grounds with homosexuals “marrying,” then, think again.

The United States Supreme Court didn’t nullify an unconstitutional law yesterday. They nullified the will of the people. The nullified the Separation of Powers. They nullified the religious freedom in this country.

Five unelected individuals in a nation of over three hundred million just paved the way for state-approved HATRED against anyone who recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Five unelected individuals believe that opposition to homosexual “marriage” is motivated by frothing-at-the-mouth hatred. Therefore, supporters of homosexual “marriage” can go to town!!

That lays it out pretty well. As I said, I would be fine with live and let live, but the Gay marriage activists are not OK with that. They despise religion, again ALL religion, and will not stop until everyone is forced to support gay marriage. This is not about equality, or rights. What of the rights of the florist, caterer, or photographer to say no to doing a Gay wedding? And yes, eventually, churches and other houses of worship will be targeted if they say no to having a gay wedding in their sanctuary.

So, it is with regret that I say to those Gays and Lesbians who really JUST want equality, and who do not wish to force anything on any business or church, that they have allowed haters and totalitarians to take over their cause. It is sad because, I have nothing against Gay people, frankly, you could scarcely find anyone who cares less about what people do in their bedrooms than me. But, I cannot abide activists destroying the religious freedoms, and the rights of businesses. If you want equality then great, but if you want to steamroll freedom of thought, then  I do not say no, I say HELL NO!

 

The sad truth about the Equality Pimps. They do not want equality, they want special considerations

Equality is such an easy ideal to embrace, it really is. I am fine with Gay marriage for instance, personally, I think it ought to be a state by state issue, with the people of the states making that decision. But, Gay marriage, like “equality” is not the issue with Gay activists. Gay activists, like all activists are people who have become obsessed with making everyone else live as the activist sees fit. It is not good enough for a Gay activist to allow different states to have different laws. NO, the activist must have all the states bend to their desires or else. If you are wondering, I have a natural distrust of anyone who calls themselves an activist. They set my BS meter off frankly. 

All of that brings me back to the Equality Pimps. Take what Stacy McCain has been blogging about lately for example. An 18-year -old girl, had sexual encounters with another girl, age 14. 14 is below the age of consent, so this 18-year-old Lesbian is finding out, as many boys over the age of 18 have found out, that actions, if they are sexual in nature with minors, have consequences. Sounds fair right? Sounds like equality to me. But, nit to the Gay activist types, who are trying to recreate the civil rights movement. I will let Stacy pick it up here

 

You know how the “Free Kate” crowd say they have no agenda beyond “fairness” and “equality”? There is reason to doubt:

If you get caught banging a 14-year-old, @MonWithMac has lots of tearful sympathy pic.twitter.com/mFi8mosm39 Only if you’re lesbian, though.

BL2Mj_PCcAEsWm9
Again, this is being spun as a case of, wait for it, discrimination. But, if these girls were boys, they would still be in trouble. This is how EQUALITY works. You get treated equally, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
But it is not really equality that is the end game here is it?

It’s difficult to describe my reaction to Kristin Ireland’s tearful “Lifetime movie” sympathy for Paige in Pennsylvania, jailed for being an 18-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old girl.

According to Ireland, this is a story about “railroading and “discrimination,” as if 18-year-old guys in Pennsylvania were routinely banging 14-year-olds without any fear of prosecution.

I think not, ma’am.

And I think Kristin Ireland wouldn’t be boo-hooing if this was a teenage boy doing time for statutory rape. No, her sympathy is reserved entirely for her fellow lesbians, and so therefore either:

  1. We must create a special Gay Jailbait Loophole to prevent the prosecution of “consensual” gay sex with 14-year-olds;
    or
  2. We must effectively end all prosecution for such crimes, hetero or homo, because equal application of the law would occasionally result in some 18-year-old lesbians going to jail for dating ninth-graders, and this would make Kristin Ireland cry.

As I said, I am all for equality, but the activists here? They are about themselves.

Bill Quick’s announcement

The Daily Pundit is a great blog, and Bill Quick is an asset to the Right. But, Bill has become disillusioned with the Social Conservatives. I understand his frustration, I have been rubbed the wrong way by many of them myself. His issue with them seems to be my issue with them. Too often they wish to talk of small government, until something offends them on TV, and then they turn into Statist starter kits.

Frankly, I disagree with Bill on one thing. I do not think most Conservatives are wired that way, even Social Conservatives, but, the Rick Santorum’s of the GOP are a problem. Sorry but what people do in their bedrooms is their business, no matter how disgusting you or I might find it. We are a Christian nation, with a secular government, which is how it ought to be. Too often Social Conservatives blur that distinction.

And of course some Libertarians go too far as well. What I long to see is for Libertarians and Conservatives to come together on some core principles. Small government, strong support for Constitutional rule, low taxes, low regulation, and less government in our personal lives. We cannot let an issue like Gay marriage split us apart. I can see both sides of that argument. It is to me a state by state decision, but something must be done to protect states, and churches, and businesses than recognize traditional marriage from the zealots who wish to use this issue to radically change America through lawsuits and thuggish intimidation.

Sadly, the Gay activists are not looking for equality. They are looking to use the issue to attack people of faith. For me it is like this. I do not care if you marry your Gay lover. I do care if you try to force churches and businesses into accepting your lifestyle. To me, liberty is the most important thing, nothing matters more. And yes, that includes our liberty to discriminate if we choose.

Bill says he might quit visiting certain blogs. I really hope that does not include this one.

 

Reince Priebus: You know who is a model Republican? Huckabee

Vomit inducing statement of the day for me anyway

RNC Chair Reince Priebus told reporters today that former governor Mike Huckabee would be an example of a “model” Republican in his eyes.

The Corner reported:

Earlier today, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus pushed back at critics who have questioned his continued support for Senator Rob Portman, the Ohio Republican who came out in support of gay marriage last week.

“When someone asks me ‘Are you going to cut off funding for Rob Portman?’ I think it’s just ridiculous,” Priebus told a group of reporters Friday during a briefing at National Review’s Washington, D.C., office. “He’s a good Republican. I think it’s also normal and decent to still support a person that you agree with on 99 percent of the issues.”

But Priebus says his support of Portman doesn’t signal a policy shift within the party’s platform. “Yes, we’re still a pro-life party. Yes, we still defend our platform on marriage,” he said. He emphasized, however, that Republicans must also sound “reasonable” to voters who disagree.

Priebus cited former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas as an example of someone who could be “a model for a lot of people in our party” in terms of discussing issues like marriage and abortion. “I always tell people: Listen to Governor Mike Huckabee,” he said. “I don’t know anyone that talks about them any better.”

Good Grief! The only way we could have done worse in the last two elections would have been if Huck-a-phony was the nominee

 

Oh good grief, here we go again with the Gays at CPAC controversy

Donald Douglas has a piece, and video of Cliff Kincaid, who argues that there is no such thing as a Gay Conservative. You can go read the piece, and the links, the video of Kincaid is here

Sorry to Kincaid, who I really am not too familiar with, I know, shocking that someone might not know such a “legend”, but, what can I say. In the video, Kincaid makes his arguments, some of which I agree with, but, some of it is BS, again, sorry, I am not fond of beating around the bush. Yes, I agree, I want the Boy Scouts to be able to control who joins and who does not. They are a private group, and in America the right of a group to have its standards should be fundamental. Yes, there are Gay activists who are pushing hard for Leftist statutes, and to silence any speech they disagree with. Yes, we ought to fight against those tactics and activists.

Kincaid whines along with the fellow interviewing him, never heard of him either, in the video because some Conservatives are criticizing his piece on Twitchy, Michelle Malkin’s site that covers who is tweeting what. They sort of accuse Malkin of “bowing to pressure” and wonder how, oh how could a Malkin site ever dare allow criticism of Kincaid. Well, genius, Twitchy covers who is tweeting what, and from reading the tweets listed a lot of Conservatives disagree with you, I know, how dare they! They are probably all Gay cross dressers who wear real fur to Tea Party rallies, and cling to their guns.

My fault with Kincaid is that whatever legitimate points he has are lost when he says there is no such thing as a Gay Conservative. REALLY? You might want to tell this guy that because he damn sure acts like a Conservative, but, again, what do I know? Sorry Mr. Kincaid, but if someone is pro 2nd amendment, pro-life, for smaller government, lower taxes. fiscal sanity, and votes for Conservatives, they are CONSERVATIVE! If they hold those values they are CONSERVATIVE! Yes, you can be Gay, or an Atheist, or Left-handed or even a midget wrestler and still be Conservative Mr. Kincaid. See, I do not understand Homosexuality. I don’t. I mean how can a guy watch that Salma Hayek dance in that vampire movie and not have thoughts about, well, you know. I do not get that. I also do not know if Gay people are born Gay, or choose to be Gay, or become Gay from watching too many cartoons. I do not know, and I do not really give a flying damn. What they are is not my business, nor is it yours sir. 

As to Gay marriage, I would say let the states decide. Yes, Mr. Kincaid, that is Federalism, either you believe in it or not pick a side or shut up. I would also say let the federal government mandate that no states, nor Gay activists may sue other states to force that state to adopt or recognize Gay marriage. Or maybe the very best thing is to get the government out of marriage, I have never believed that taxes ought to be used to reward or punish certain behaviors. Really why should your marital status have any effect on your tax rate?

What I DO care about is this. People like you, who think they can judge someone’s Conservatism based on one aspect of their life agitate me. You agitate me because you make us all look like idiots. People who wish to have certain moral standards that every Conservative MUST AGREE ON really agitate me. Sorry Mr. Kincaid, but Conservatism is not a religion, although many Christians are Conservative in their political ideals. Sorry Mr. Kincaid, but you have a phobia, or a fetish, or something going on there. As a final point I wonder what other issues Mr. Kincaid would dismiss someone from being a Conservative over? Maybe my Daley Babe posts disqualifies me? Maybe all the work Ed and I put into this blog do not count because we like attractive women? Maybe I should check with Mr. Kincaid, who, apparently is the sole arbiter of who is and is not Conservative? Or maybe I should just chalk up Kincaid to being an ass hat? Yep, option B works for me.

The Left’s war on freedom

I think we all have made choices about where to eat, stay, shop, etc haven’t we? Sometimes those decisions are financial, or sometimes maybe it is about location, and yep, sometimes, that decision might be based on poor service, or what we think is poor quality. For instance, there are four chains of steakhouses around me, no matter the names, and I refuse to go to two of them because their food is subpar, another I will go to for a drink after work, the beer is ice-cold, the service is good, but I only eat the few things that are good there. The other chain, Texas Roadhouse, I love, the food, and service rock, the atmosphere is good, and it does not have that chain restaurant feel that I loathe. It is head and shoulders above the others. Clearly I have made choices. Seems fair doesn’t it? So what does any of my dining choices have to do with freedom and Lesbian marriage?

Well, it seems that some folks are not satisfied with choosing NOT to do business with certain businesses. They prefer to try to force businesses to do business with them. This strikes me as strange. There are businesses I refuse to go to, because I or some family member has been treated in a shabby fashion. I do not wish to sue these businesses because they hurt my feelings, I simply stop doing trade with them. Hey if you do not want to sell me something, fine, someone else will, seems fair doesn’t it?

Well, increasingly, we are seeing Gay couples, rather than taking their business elsewhere, turn to lawsuits. We have seen bakeries, photographers, and now businesses that host weddings, threatened with lawsuits, or actually sued, because they refuse to do businesses with Gay couples. Isn’t it the right of a business to refuse service? It certainly ought to be, but, this simple truth seems to escape some folks

Two New York women who say they were turned away from a potential wedding site because they are lesbians have filed a discrimination complaint.

Advocates say the complaint filed with the state Division of Human Rights is among the first of its kind since New York legalized same-sex weddings last year.

Melisa Erwin and Jennie McCarthy, of Albany, say they filed the complaint Oct. 11 after Liberty Ridge Farm told them they could not use the site for their wedding next summer.

“When we asked why [the owners told us], ‘That’s what my husband and I decided. We’ve been married a long time and it’s great you’re getting married and all, but you can’t do it here,’”McCarthy told WNYT-TV.

The farm has had a growing presence of weddings on its premises. This year, alone, 15 nuptials were booked. But with gay marriage being so new in New York State — and with this being one of the first cases of alleged discrimination – there’s no telling how the legalities will play out.

Despite critique, owner Robert Gifford is adamant about not hosting gay marriages at Liberty Ridge.

“I think it’s our right to choose who we market to, like any business,” he said in an interview with WNYT last week. ”We are a family business and we just feel we ought to stay down the family path.”

We often hear how those darned Christians are forcing their religion on others, yet, in these cases it seems it is Homosexual activists that are trying to use force of law. Again, this reminds me Atheists who want to join the Boy Scouts, but want the Scouts to completely change THEIR pledge, which mentions God, before they join. Talk about an entitled mentality! Again, pretty simple, if you REALLY want to join the Scouts, then YOU accept THEIR rules. If you really believe in freedom, then do not attempt to force a business into catering to you. Find somewhere else to get married, or buy a cake, or to get photographs made. 

Huge backlash against Chick-Fil-A? Only in the mind of the media

Smitty posted a video of CNN anchor Kyra Phillips,  who I have a massive crush on despite her Liberal bias. trying to create a massive backlash over Chick-Fil-A’s position against gay marriage. 

As I watched the video, I had three thoughts. First thought Kyra Phillips is a sexy woman. Second thought- What in the Hell is up with her guests hair? She looks like a character from a Tim Burton movie. And my third thought was this. No, Kyra, there is no firestorm over this. No one cares frankly. Chick-Fil-A has very good food, very good service, and people will eat there no matter what the company thinks about Gay marriage. The fact is, most people have no clue what Chick-Fil-A’s position is, and those that do, just want a chicken sandwich, extra pickles and a side of mayo please!

Look, someone did a study and found out what they should have known to start with

Some studies are simply unneeded it seems to me. Take this study that Chris Wysocki is blogging about. It would seem rather obvious that kids raised in traditional homes, that is homes with a mother and a father would do better than kids, in other types of homes. 

Children who grow up in a stable household with a mother and a father generally turn out better than kids who don’t. Hardly a controversial statement, right?

Wrong. Because it challenges homosexual orthodoxy, and therefore it must be discredited. Never mind that the research is statistically sound and has been rigorously and objectively peer-reviewed. It’s anti-gay, and thus de facto evidence of a right-wing plot.

“I know children of gay parents and they’re perfectly well-adjusted!” seems to be a common refrain.(Obviously they’re not talking about the little boys Frank Lombard and his homosexual partner adopted though.) And I know the child of a lesbian couple who’s a total mess. Nevermind the heterosexual families which couldn’t be mistaken for The Brady Bunch.

So what. Anecdotes aren’t particularly relevent. And they’re not useful for promulgating public policy. Just because you can drive home after drinking two bottles of wine doesn’t necessarily mean everyone can.

As Chris notes, not EVERY child in a two-parent home will do well, some parents suck! And some kids raised by Gay parents, or single parents, or maybe even by wolves, will turn out great! There are exceptions to every rule. Well except for the rule that there are exceptions to every rule, there are no exceptions to that one. So, I suppose the saying out to go, there are exceptions to every rule but one, but I digress.

The fact is that nature, not me, nature provides a certain formula for the human species. Man + Woman=Kids and Family. And who am I, or you to argue with nature? Now, personally, I have no great issue with Gay marriage, sorry, I just don’t, it ought to be up to the individual states, with federal law protecting those states choices. Gay adoptions? Well, I think the FIRST choice ought to be a married couple, again, if you think that is not the best option, take it up with nature. But, kids need families, and love, and if a married couple is not found, I have no issue with a committed Gay couple adopting, or a single person who has the means adopting. I do draw the line at wolves however. Here is a little known, and even less discussed family secret. I have a cousin who was raised by wolves, she turned out OK, but still likes to howl and eat raw meat during full moons. The good news is she is a great watchdog though, so there are advantages.

Heartache! First Gay President not Gay enough for Barney Frank’s Big Gay wedding

Apparently, Barney has issues with protection?

Although Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) earlier this month said he is “pleased” with President Obama’s decision to publicly support same-sex marriage, in a new interview the congressman revealed the president will not be on the guest list when Frank marries his longtime partner this summer. 

Official photographic portrait of US President...
Gay, but not Gay enough for Barney!

“If he and Michelle wanted to come, I would be delighted and honored to have him, but he will bring the Secret Service,” Frank said in an interview that will air Sunday as part of C-SPAN’s “Newsmaker” series. “I would be flattered to have the president do that, [but] it would ruin the party to have the Secret Service. I’m not critical of them, but they can go take their layered protection of the president somewhere else. Not to my party.”

Can there ever be a tolerant discussion with the Left?

And by tolerant I simply mean a conversation that does not involve the Conservative being demonized? I mean a conversation where, depending on the topic, the Conservative is not called either a racist, Homophobe, sexist, Islamaphobe, bigot, redneck, terrorist, Nazi, Fascist, or accused of  not flossing between meals.

Such attacks make it impossible to have any rational discussion. The fact is, that sadly, Leftism not only does not welcome thoughtful debate, it absolutely makes it an unreachable goal. Basically, the Left seeks to silence all debate on any topic. Stacy McCain has a post concerning the debate over defining marriage that does a nice job explaining the problem.

Any conservative who has ever tried to have a rational discussion about what progressives call “marriage equality” understands the problem: The very fact of your opposition to this radical policy becomes the basis for attacks on your motives and character.

Never mind that you are defending 5,000 years of civilization, while your antagonist is a deranged fanatic demanding that a fundamental social institution be altered (some would say, abolished) to conform to a theoretical abstraction of “equality.”

No, it is you — standing on the side of settled custom and common sense — who will inevitably be accused of “hate” you do not feel and diagnosed as suffering from an irrational “phobia.”

The fact that your accuser (volunteering also as an amateur psychologist) is demonstrably a fool, unfit to judge the morality and mental health of others, ought to serve as adequate evidence that any “debate” is a futile waste of time and effort. One might as well debate heroin with a junkie as to debate gay rights with Andrew Sullivan or Dan Savage.

They don’t want to debate, they want to lecture, and their preferred method of “argument” is to silence critics. So when conservatives post a video critical of same-sex marriage, what happens?

Did you try to watch that video against gay marriage that we posted yesterday?
You can’t. Now.
If you try, you’ll instead see this: “This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy prohibiting hate speech.”
So much for the free expression of ideas. . . . .
[T]here is an element of gay fascism behind the whole gay marriage movement.
The fact of the matter is that these gay rights extremists believe in censorship. They will attempt to remove from public discourse anything that calls into question the morality of their behavior.

Such tactics ought to cause concern. If these are the means, what are the ends? What does it say about a cause, that its advocates endeavor to silence opponents as practicing “hate speech”?

Ah yes, the censors of the Left, silencing opposing views any way they can. Personally, I support civil unions, I think it best to leave marriage as it is, I mean 5,000 years of defining it that way might just mean there is something to it. But, I also think that if a states voters choose to define marriage differently, they have that right, even if I disagree with that choice. To me, that seems pretty damned tolerant, but to the Left? HA! I would be defined as a Homophobic monster who wants to deny Gay people equality. There is no room, or hope for debate with such tyrants. Stacy is right, there is no talking to some people.

Can you spot the hypocrisy?

OK, I will give you a story, and you see if you can spot the hypocrisy Here we go

The owner of The Grove, Rick Caruso, tweeted that iconic boxing great and Philippines Congressman Manny Pacquiao would not be allowed “on the premises” thanks to Pacquiao’s outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage. “Boxer Manny Pacquiao is not welcome @TheGroveLA,” he tweeted. “@TheGroveLA is a gathering place for all Angelenos, not a place for intolerance.” Pacquiao was supposed to do an interview today with “Extra” at The Grove.

Did you spot that kids? Yep, I bet you did! The Grove’s owner has no room for intolerance, so, he is banning someone who has a different view-point! I wonder if their own hypocrisy ever slaps these Lefties in the face? But, I doubt it would do any good anyway. As I say, Liberalism is an ideology of convenience, not consistency. And if you disagree, well then you will not be included in the Liberal inclusion party, which is welcome to everyone, except those who do not march to the Liberal drumbeat!

Imagine what Chris Matthews would say if a Conservative told Black pastors ” I hope you evolve”

Matthews, along with the entire cast of clowns at MSNBS would erupt in outrageous outrage, they would be screaming RAAAAACISM at the top of their lungs. But, I guess since Chris Matthews said it, it is OK?

Hardball anchor Chris Matthews, who routinely smears his political opponents as racist, on Monday lectured an African American minister who opposes gay marriage, “I hope you evolve.” The host patronizingly added, “I’m just teasing.

Oh goodness, MSNBS is the Tree Orchard of Low Hanging Blogging Fruit!~

SHOCKER! MSNBS resident idiot Chris Crazy Legs Matthews links opponents of Gay Marriage to supporters of slavery

Good Freaking Grief! 

Chris Matthews during an edition of Hardball i...
And then, I had another Obamagasm in my legs!

Minutes after Barack Obama came out for gay marriage, Wednesday, Chris Matthews appeared on MSNBC to compare opponents of such unions to “wolves” and to link them to supporters of slavery. Warning of political danger to the President, Matthews spewed, “The dens are opening. The gates are opening of wolves coming out for this, the Karl Roves.”

After describing liberalism as the force that brought all social change to America, the Hardball anchor warned about the armies that feed off “resentment.” Matthews lectured, “That army has been out there during Jim Crow. It was out there during abolition, during suffrage. There’s always an army that feeds on change and feeds against it.” 

Exit question. Is Matthews on drugs? Or does he NEED meds?

You know, if that Stacy McCain is not careful…..

Someone might call him “insensitive” which would mean, of course, that he is right!

What is pathetic, as I say, is that everybody knows Obama could not have won even the Iowa caucus in 2008 if he had been campaigning as openly pro-gay-marriage — that is to say, clearly to the left of Hillary Clinton on this issue.

In order to enhance his “viability,” the media bit their tongues and looked the other way while Obama engaged in a flimflam charade of moderation. He would have carried on that dishonest scam as long as necessary to win the general election, except that his big-money gay donors threatened to cut him off. And what his media idolators now will celebrate as another “gutsy call” never would have happened otherwise!

Well, now that you put it that way

Rick Santorum, debating some snot-nosed college brats on Gay marriage had this line

“if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people”

OK, in that case, I will marry Salma Hayek, KateBeckinsale, and Halle Berry. I am kidding of course, but seriously Santorum is right, marriage, once re-defined is bound to be re-defined over and over and, well you get the point. Personally, I doubt there will ever be a constitutional amendment defining marriage. I think too many of us just do not care if Gay people get married. If it were up to me it would be a state by state call. Of course, we all can see the problems with that can’t we? The lawsuits against those states NOT defining marriage the politically correct way would be filed by the ACLU, Gay rights activists, and others who want to force their ways upon the states.

We could go the route of allowing civil unions, but again, the activists would not be sated by that. Like most activists, they are control freaks who are really about forcing their will upon everyone else. So, what is the answer? Hell if I know folks, Hell if I know.

If you think Gay marriage is reasonable then, be reasonable about it

Two of Sesame Street's most famous characters:...
Image via Wikipedia

Aleister thinks that Gay activists overreached when they tried to bring their agenda to Sesame Street

I support gay marriage but I think gay marriage activists overreached and damaged their cause with the campaign to have Sesame Street’s Ernie and Bert get married.

As a member of Generation X, I grew up with Ernie and Bert and always viewed them more as a comedy team than anything else. Gay marriage activists went too far by insisting they’re a gay couple who should be married.

Even the liberal Sesame Workshop, formerly known as the Children’s Television Workshop wasn’t into the idea…

Sesame Workshop, which produces the long-running children’s series, seemed to be throwing water on any marital plans.

“Bert and Ernie are good friends,” the company declared in a statement. “They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves.”

Isn’t that last part the point? If you’re to the left of a show on PBS, shouldn’t you rethink your position?

If it is true that the point of Ernie and Bert is to teach children that “people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves.” Then the need to portray them as a gay couple is as useful as remembering Oscar Wilde as a boob man.

The main concern should be the target audience. When I was 6 years old, I loved Ernie and Bert, not because of their politics or their sex. I just thought they were funny and frankly, isn’t that all a 6 year old should care about?

Absolutely! This is the only problem I see with Gay marriage. I believe that most Gay people who want to marry are sincere, and are NOT looking to force anything on anybody. They are, indeed like most people. Let them live their lives and leave them alone and they are just fine.

Then, there are the “activists”. Sometimes, I think activist is becoming as ugly a title as politician is. I wonder if the activists, in this case Gay activists, even really care about progress, or making things better, or righting wrongs. I am starting to think that to the activist, their activism is all about them, and their over-inflated egos. They want things a certain way, because they know best, and by God, unless they are an Atheist activist of course, they are going to shove their agenda down our throats. Which is why I tend to have a distaste for the control freaks posing as caring activists. Whether they are trying to re-define marriage, or force their prohibitionist nonsense on everyone else, or trying to ban smoking in restaurants, or trying to police what I watch on TV, I have no use for them.

Such over the top behavior, and isn’t trying to screw up Sesame Street for kids screwed up, is despicable frankly, and such antics are why I am becoming more and more wary of and turned off by, any “activist”, even if they support something I support.