From Courtney Kirchoff of Louder with Crowder:
To use Obama’s oft used phrase, “Let me be clear” this is tyrannical. We have the executive telling STATE schools to allow transgender people to use whatever bathroom they deem appropriate for how they’re feeling that day. And not JUST bathrooms, but locker rooms, where boys and girls strip down and get naked. Your president, ladies and gentleman, has just issued a war on women.
Yes, I said it. The left, in an attempt to be all “inclusive” has just said women don’t matter. Our feelings of security and safety do not matter. Our privacy does not matter. Our gender, the left says, is merely a societal construct. This issue right here, transgenders in bathrooms, and transgenders being supported cart blanche, is ultimate proof modern feminism is a farce. It is a failure.
If you consider yourself a feminist and support this kind of lunacy, you no longer have my ear nor my sympathy.
If you are an American and do not see the tyranny of a President putting forth a "guideline" or edict with threat of removing federal funding from schools, you need to get educated on why this nation exists. Laws are created by the legislative branch, not the executive. Funding is controlled by the legislative branch, not the executive. The President is in breach of the Constitution and way out of line.
BREAKING: NRA's Wayne LaPierre responds to President Obama's gun control push in Chicago.Posted by National Rifle Association on Tuesday, October 27, 2015
"When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90 percent of the markets that he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia," Fiorina said to the Wall Street Journal. "But I don't hear him being upset about that."
Ousted HP CEO Carly Fiorina calls Apple's Tim Cook a hypocrite for stance on Indiana law
Boom. The Middle Eastern countries are known for killing gays. This is everyday practice for them. Yet, Mr. Cook continues to do business in these countries without a thing to say about their clearcut intolerance. Crazy hypocrisy.
Ian Tuttle at National Review’s Corner blog discovered that Memories Pizza has come under attack on Google Maps of all places. A search for pizza parlors in the Walkerton shows Memories Pizza, but if you click on the image, gay propaganda pops up, and under reviews of the pizza parlor a few hundred of them, they are attacks on the tiny business.
One says, “This business believes in hate.”
Another says, “I commend you for your ‘we hate gays’ confession. It is not every day that that a business is willing to alienate 60% of their customer base who support gay marriage.”
Yet another says, “Memories Pizza owner are bigots.”
And another, “Bigoted owners=hateful employees=terrible service= plenty of other pizza places to choose from…ignore this place.”
Yelp is not any better. One guys writes, “My wife/cousin and I went hoping to see some vintage kkk memorabilia and check out their 3rd Reich themed menus but were disappointed to find that their hate is only directed at gays!”
Another simply said, “You suck. And you’re probably going to go under.”
A guy from Houston said, “I was totally going to get this place to cater my gay wedding, but since Crystal and her incestuous family don’t support the fact that I’ve chosen to have sex with men instead of the goats they breed with, it looks like I’m going to have to go with Dominoes.”
So intense were the threatening phone calls, emails, and Tweets, that the owner simply closed the shop, for now, until the liberal tolerance blows over.
Yesterday I published an article on a pizza shop in Indiana that was interviewed about the new RFRA law. Today the business has been shut down due to threatening phone calls, emails, and tweets, along with slanderous posts on Yelp and Google. Because #tolerance.
Wow. These people must be complete scumbags that have never read the Bible in their— Wait.
“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” says Crystal O'Connor of Memories Pizza.
Oh, and more:
The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.
They said they wouldn’t cater a gay wedding, not that they would deny food as a whole to gay people. That is a big distinction! One is discrimination against a person and one is a type of event they don’t provide their services to. I’m sure the same restaurant doesn’t provide catering to a porn convention. Or a strip club. That would be fine and they wouldn’t be called bigots. But because they don’t cater gay weddings, they are bigots. Yeah, makes sense. Hashtag tolerance.
Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person’s exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
This is the law that was passed in Indiana last week. Take a minute and read it over.
Now look at the response to it in the media. Look at all the people going ape-shit crazy over this.
Religious freedom = the right to discriminate against gays!
Wow. Just wow. And none are sharing why this law came to be.
Last month I published an article titled A Case of New Tolerance and Ignorance. In it, I quote The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English on the definition of tolerance:
“showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”
And then I shared the definition that most people today believe to mean tolerance:
“showing willingness to accept opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”
A subtle difference, but a significant one. We have shifted the term from meaning that one allows the existence of differing opinions and behavior to meaning that one accepts differing opinions or behavior.
Along with this shift, the word “bigot,” which is directly tied in definition to the word “tolerance,” has also been changed. So instead of a bigot being a person not allowing alternative views and lifestyles— like the Muslims that are throwing gays off rooftops— a bigot is instead a person that doesn’t accept and embrace the gay lifestyle.
Defining the terms is always important in a debate.
This is a huge change. While Christians have always been considered to be tolerant, we are now being singled out as the most intolerant. Even though Muslims are throwing gays off rooftops. Muslims are throwing gays off rooftops and the media is practically ignoring them, but a bakery chooses not to provide their service for a gay wedding and they are swarmed with media attention calling them the worst things allowed in civilized society.
Now, you are a smart person. How do I know this? Because you’ve held your cool to this point in this article. “[L]et every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.” We should really live by that verse more. Even if you are not a believer in Jesus, doesn’t it just make sense. The American media in the last couple decades have become quick to speak, quick to anger, and very seldom do they wish to hear opposing views. A wise person listens first. A wise person responds with calculated words.
Even if you do not agree with me. Even if you adamantly disagree with me. Don’t you really want us to be closer to that original definition of tolerance than the latter? Forcing a person to agree with you by lawsuit proves nothing. It’s like nuking another country. You haven’t proven who’s right, but who’s left. Accept that other opinions exist and that this is a good thing. If everyone agreed on everything, I don’t think life would be much fun. Imagine that the only restaurant around is Taco Bell. We can agree to disagree. I’m okay with this. Are you?
America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business. 1
I must ask, Mr. Cook, does Apple discriminate in any way? Or have you narrowed your definition of discrimination to fit the needs of your view? Last I checked, Apple Stores have an age limit of 18 to hiring employees.2 Apple doesn’t allow certain common practices in their Asian factories3, such as hiring young people and working long hours. Apple, at the launch of many products, restricts the number of purchases per person and sometimes has avoided sales to obvious foreigners because of the resale markets.
There are many forms of discrimination. Mr. Cook is right on this. But not all forms are bad. In fact, many forms are really good and help grow business. While not hiring 16 year olds prevents many from getting a job at an excellent employer, it also allows Apple to start their wage rates at a much higher number, far above minimum wage. While not allowing foreigners to buy their products in bulk might rub some wrong, it allows for those that want to buy their product from the business the chance to do so.
Businesses discriminate in many ways and must to survive.
That said, there are some forms of discrimination that are clearly wrong. Not hiring someone because of the color of their skin: wrong. Not serving someone because they are gay: wrong. But that isn’t what these religious freedom laws are seeking to allow. The law passed in Indiana is to allow religious conviction to play a role in providing services. Could it be used in a malicious way? Maybe, as many laws could. But the problem is the many bakeries and photographers that have been sued out of business because of refusing to provide certain services, namely gay weddings.
This is what seems to be difficult for many to understand. As a web developer, I cannot in good faith take a lot of different jobs. I left my last job because of the sexual harassment of a female coworker and the lack of response of my managers to it. I almost left the job before that because my boss was considering taking on a website for a strip club. Would I take on a project from a gay client? That isn’t the question to ask for me. It depends on the type of project more than the orientation of the client.
Anyone in the creative business has faced these issues. If you haven’t yet, you will. We must choose what clients we wish to take on.
But the media is saying that this could be used by a Christian restaurant owner to deny service to a gay person. Could it? I doubt it. The law states that action “may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion.”4 A restaurant providing food for a gay person does not “burden” a Christian. In fact, it’s what Jesus would have done.5 Does making a cake “burden” a Christian baker? Yes, because they are participating in something they consider wrong. 6
There are many things that Apple considers wrong that they discriminate against. Look at how selective they are on their factories and the restrictions they put on their business decisions. The things that Apple opposes in these factories are standard practice in these cultures. Most other tech companies don’t require the same rules be met.
For the Christian, it is the same. Many of the lawsuits coming against bakers are coming from customers that have been coming to the bakery for years, if not decades. These bakers haven’t discriminated against their clients unilaterally. They have time and again served these homosexuals without issue. But the bakers say they don’t make cakes for this one event and then they get sued. They are not discriminating against the homosexual, but the event. Just like many bakeries do not do weddings, these bakeries do not do this type of event.
Ultimately, it is a business choice. As Mr. Cook says, “America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business.” If it is bad for business, those businesses wouldn’t get clientele. They would be shunned by the community. But instead of that being good enough, some homosexuals have taken it upon themselves to sue them for tens of thousands of dollars. Because they won’t make a cake. Where I grew up, that was called a tantrum. And just like the lady that sued McDonald’s for serving hot coffee, the courts are giving them what they want. So now the pendulum is swinging the other direction and protection is being added to prevent this from happening to more businesses. If you don’t like how I run my business, take your business elsewhere.