Hypocrite Liberals Silent on Muslims Murder of Gays While Christian Cakes Raise Their Fury

Here is a fact: liberals and militant gays hate Christians more than they hate actual, real oppression of gays. This isn’t hyperbole, it is a foregone conclusion in light of the jihad that gays have launched for Christian bakeries while at the same time utterly ignoring the near daily murdering of gays in the Muslim world.

Take the newest outrage, for instance. In ISIS controlled territories Islamists are going undercover as gays in order to identify gays to be murdered later. The story from International Business Times

“ISIS is carrying out sting operations,” the news read, “in which jihadists pose as gay men. There have been instances, where families have even paid ransoms to prevent ISIS from stoning the arrested gay men, said Abu Mohammad of RBSS.”

This isn’t the first news of gays being slaughtered in Muslim countries, of course. ISIS has also been apprehending what they claim are gay men and throwing them to their deaths from tall buildings.

But it isn’t just nominal Islamist “terrorists” murdering gays because they are gay. Iran has been doing this for decades, now.

So have the Saudis, and various Islamist controlled African nations.

In fact, back in 2007 you might recall the amazing bit of hubris from former Iranian “President” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who boldly insisted to an audience at Columbia University that there were no gay people in Iran and after he was laughed at, asked to be shown them–whereupon he would have just had them arrested and murdered.

Gays have been in mortal danger of their lives for decades in Muslim countries. But what has been the response from the militant gays in America and the west? Practically nonexistent, that’s what.

Instead, gays get their militancy against Christians in the USA who won’t bake a damned cake.

So, what we have learned is that not wanting to bake a cake is worse than hanging gays, stoning gays, murdering gays, beheading gays, and throwing them off tall buildings.

The facts seem to be that since some Christians–and I stress, only some Christians–may not be 100 percent accommodating to gays, for militant gays that is by far worse than actual oppression and even murder of their fellows.

The inescapable conclusion is that gays hate Christians who won’t bake cakes more than they hate Muslims who murder gays.

It really is just that simple.

I guess it is a matter of “priorities.”

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
  • sarahconnor2

    What they seem to be working towards on the left is saying if you don’t vote Democrat, you are a hater and must be punished. That’s what I predict for 2016. Funny how they don’t go after black Christian baker, Conservative Jewish, and Muslim businesses about this.

    • jim_m

      They are already there

  • rondonaghe

    Calling the isolated cases “Jihad” where gay couples have objected to treatment at a few bakeries, and even the court cases that follow is hyperbole on steroids. Really? Foregone conclusion? Does this author really expect anyone to believe that liberals and gays hate Christians or that they give Muslims a pass for stoning gays to death, once they have thrown them off buildings? Really? Calling something a fact does not necessarily make it so; calling something a foregone conclusion requires either careful observation or jumping to conclusions.

    Does not this author know of the many “liberal” news organizations that are hyper-attuned to the plight of LGBTs in foreign countries? “Gay Asylum Seekers Need Our Help” by Julie Bindel, the Guardian; “Seeking Home: The lives of gay and transgender asylum seekers” the Washington Post. These are just two such articles. There are many more. But what happens when those seeking asylum make it to a gay-friendly country, or at least a country where they hope they will be safe? Some are returned to surely be killed. It might be that gays and lesbians keep up with the news of those in other countries who face far more dangerous, life-threatening events, like the Russian gangs who lure gays into traps. Was there not an outcry of LGBT athletes and others calling for a boycott of the Olympics in Russia and other such venues? Should not the author acknowledge the “crowd response” to these instances, rather than just cherry picking ways to show that liberals and gays are ignoring such horrendous gay abuse?

    And as for gays hating Christians more than they hate Muslims…Christians above all else should be able to tell the difference between loving the Christian and hating the discrimination that Christians engage in, here and the Muslims engage in abroad.

    • jim_m

      If you think that the attacks on Christians are mere coincidence and are not related to the general ideological antipathy that most gays and ALL leftists have toward Christians you are delusional. These are not isolated incidents because they are all connected by an ideology that brands Christianity, and western European culture in general, as an evil to be eradicated. Leftists will make common cause with anyone to do that even if it means allowing islamists to destroy western civilization.

      • Wild_Willie

        Again, another gay apologist @rondonaghe:disqus retells the old and very tired lie that Christians hate gays or are bigots when in reality Christians have to and love to love and obey God. It is God who says homosexuals are an abomination. My suggestion? Take it up with God. We Christians love sinners but hate the sin. The so called ‘intellectual class’ can’t seem to understand that distinction. They are either very dumb or purposeful liars. ww

        • Walter_Cronanty

          The intellectual class hates the idea that there is a God which is above their adopted god, government. When government is your god, then you do anything necessary to win control of government, for once you control government, you control what is “sin.” Once you control “sin,” then you pass laws that absolve you of all sin – you become “born again” as it were, as pure as the driven snow. That’s why progs will do anything to gain control of government, for in their eyes, when you control government, you are god.

        • Brucehenry

          Here ya go Wet Willie

      • rondonaghe

        You do realize, don’t you that many gays and most leftists are also Christian? The majority of people in this country identify as Christian, and just like good patriotic American right-wingers, liberals and gays adhere to their religion. It’s not really up to you to determine who is a real Christian and who is not.

        • Wild_Willie

          The only thing Christians have to guide us is the Word of God. We sin but repent of the sin. You can’t live in sin and have a relationship with God. It just doesn’t make sense. The bible gives many saying about what really comes down to talking out of both sides of your mouth. It is very easy to fool people and justify sin but you can’t fool God. Never could, never will. ww

        • Commander_Chico

          Gays are almost the only people I know who go to church.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    C’mon Warner, what’s stoning or throwing someone off the top of tall building when compared to the damages suffered when two lesbians couldn’t get a wedding cake baked by two Christians? Why, because the bakers wouldn’t participate in what is a mockery of what they believe is a sacred union between a man and a woman, these little snowflakes suffered ““acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” “felt mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” “pale and sick at home after work,” “resumption of smoking habit,” “shock” “stunned,” “surprise,” “uncertainty,” “weight gain” and “worry.”
    Of course, the loving couple have a judgment against the erstwhile bakers for $135,000 as compensation for their “worry” and “resumption of smoking habit.”

    Do the Muslims have to pay for the funeral expenses of those in the gay/lesbian community they murder?

    http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/24/state-says-bakers-should-pay-135000-for-refusing-to-bake-cake-for-same-sex-wedding/

    • jim_m

      Seriously, We should just start stoning gays. The left would put up less of a fuss.

  • Commander_Chico

    This is only, like, your fifth post on this topic, right, Warner?

    Let’s add the fact that liberals also complain about police brutality in America while Muslims are torturing people in Afghanistan, and feminists complain about the “wage gap” while Muslims don’t let women drive in Saudi Arabia, and conservatives complain about business regulation while Muslims don’t even allow the sale of alcohol in some places.

    Could be an all-purpose response for any complaint about life in America: “But how can you complain about that, when you never said anything about what Muslims did in Whackyakystan? Yeah, what about that?”

    It certainly supports the neocon line that we have to send the Army, Marine Corps, CIA, and billions of dollars to fix every problem in the Muslim world before we work on any problems in the USA.

    http://www.avsforum.com/photopost/data/2239080/d/d6/d6255859_32238-Beating-Dead-Horse-gif-7zfM.gif

    • jim_m

      Except that none of those arguments are being made you idiot.

      • Commander_Chico

        Nobody complains about police brutality, the “wage gap,” or business regulation in America?

        Try to follow along. I know it’s a somewhat subtle and complex point. I presume a IQ 100+ reader when I write.

        • jim_m

          No, imbecile. No one is arguing that you cannot complain about issue A because there are issue B and C that haven’t been addressed. That is a lefty argument, that we cannot oppose any evil because we cannot oppose every evil.

          We are arguing that you oppose the small and easy to address wrongs and deliberately ignore monstrous atrocities

          • Commander_Chico

            There’s nothing Americans can do about policies in those countries, other than useless sanctions, or bombing and invading. Bombing and invading tends to work the other way, as we found in Iraq, where more gays, Christians and even “emos” got tortured and killed.

            One reason why people generally address easy issues is that they can be resolved.

            Of course, what neocons want is some version of this on Iran (but not Saudi Arabia, of course)

            https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/5d/2a/fd/5d2afdbf5a3b4d132352b95b7b1d5f7e.jpg

          • jim_m

            I see. Because you feel that the things we can do are ineffective, we should pretend the problem doesn’t exist.

          • Wild_Willie

            Your 100+ IQ is lacking. I suggest take the test again. If you can’t understand the fact that ONE topic is at hand which we discuss (that means talk about) until another post/topic comes up. ww

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Chico, I’ll buy your argument when a gay couple goes into a Muslim bakery in Dearborn and orders a wedding cake, is refused, and then takes on the Muslim community – unlike this video, which is just making a point:

      http://www.westernjournalism.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-muslim-bakery/

  • Brucehenry

    Yeah, and I never saw any conservatives complaining about the mistreatment of gays in Muslim countries either, until they discovered what they imagine is a “gotcha” to beat liberals over the head with.

    Gay rights groups and marriage equality advocates in the US can do little to influence events in Iran but they CAN press for change in Indiana, genius.

    • jim_m

      We never held ourselves out as defenders of gay rights like you have. But then your claims to believe in basic human rights were never anything more than a bunch of bullshit anyway.

      And how typical of you to say that “I can’t effect any change so I will do nothing”. It’s always your excuse for remaining silent in the face of monstrous abuses of human rights.

      • Brucehenry

        By logic like yours and Warner’s, we should give no charity to the poor in the US because poor people in Bangladesh are so much poorer. We shouldn’t enforce labor standards in Pennsylvania because Pakistani t-shirt factories are sweatshops. We shouldn’t decry killings by police like in the Freddie Gray case because police in Jordan kill suspects all the time.

        That’s not how the world works, and your imaginary gotchas are just that — imaginary.

        • jim_m

          Wrong. By our logic we should help the poor in both places. What we decry is your paying attention to the minor problem and deliberately ignoring the major one.

          In fact you spend more effort explaining why you should ignore the major problem than you spend trying to fix it.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Please explain how the “left” has ignored Christians being killed.

            What haven’t they done that gives you that impression.

            It certainly isn’t hard to find reporting on such incidents. Is the reporting not shrill enough?

            So what is the problem?

    • Commander_Chico

      Yeah but Jim and other nitwits are all for bombing and invading Iran. For the gays.

      • jim_m

        I have said repeatedly that I oppose obama murdering our troops in any action because he doesn’t intend to win.

      • Retired military

        I am for the bombing. Just not for the invading part. No rebuilding either. I personally think that any country that supports terrorism or threatens the US should feel the wrath of the US. Bomb their infrastructure until the people get tired of the crap they are enduring because their “leaders” are shouting “death to America”. Once they replace their leaders stop the bombing but dont do the nation building crap. Once people have to build the stuff up themselves without help then they will be twice as unlikely to let folks in charge put it in danger by pissing off the wrong people.

        • jim_m

          Meh, the only bombing that has ever lead a nation to surrender and accept regime change has bee Hiroshi and Nagasaki. All the Battle of Britain did was stiffen the resolve of the UK.
          Targeted bombing against military targets would be good. And I would want an administration that would seriously consider under what circumstances they would use nuclear weapons. Not that I advocate a first strike, but I would like a government that would consider them in a second strike. Currently, I do not believe we have such a government.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Why is it that you want to compel a person to participate in an activity that is against their sincerely held religious beliefs? Why must a Christian, or Muslim, or Orthodox Jew, be forced to take part in a mockery of what they believe is a sacred rite, the joining of a man and a woman?
      And, as we discussed in an earlier post, Indiana’s RFRA law is little different from the Fed RFRA and other states’ RFRAs.

      • Brucehenry

        It’s little different NOW, but it has been changed since it was first enacted, and now the hubbub has died down.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Rhetorical question with an obvious answer of “No!”

    “So, if a homosexual hotelier must apologize for allowing Senator Cruz to hire his facilities for a campaign event, doesn’t this mean, inter alia, that the homosexual community accepts the idea that a businessman can refuse to provide facilities or goods or services to people or events with which he morally or ethically disagrees?”

    http://www.journal14.com/2015/04/27/for-the-left-whats-sauce-for-the-goose-is-never-ever-sauce-for-the-gander/

    • Brucehenry

      That’s right the owners of these hotels were raising funds for Cruz, and some gays thought their properties should be boycotted. American as apple pie.

      • jim_m

        The point is that the left believes that people belonging to certain minority groups do not have the right to dissent on political issues. This is an example of that belief.

        • Brucehenry

          No, they have the right to express their views, and if expressing those views leads to opprobrium from certain groups, that’s how life is.

          In the case of the gay hoteliers, they cater to a largely gay clientele, and they were RAISING MONEY FOR TED FUCKING CRUZ. Even if the hoteliers themselves had not been gay, a boycott by the largely gay clientele of any business that gives money to Ted Cruz is hardly unexpected. If Lady Gaga suddenly came out against marriage equality I bet there’d be calls to quit buying her music, don’t you?

          And apparently, conservatives feel that if you’re white you must support “gun rights” and invading Iraq, judging by the reaction to the Dixie Chicks and Tim McGraw, according to your logic.

          You are such a buffoon.

          • jim_m

            Yes, they have a right to express their views. And we have the right to point out that their claims of toleration are bullshit. We also have the right to point out how diversity to the left is only skin deep and does not include the idea of diversity of thought and that if a minority steps off the plantation they will be condemned in the harshed of manners.

          • Brucehenry

            “Diversity of thought” that’s hilarious coming from you. Hey, have you ever heard the term “RINO”? What does it mean? I’ve heard some kinda mean stuff said about those guys, whatever THEY are.

          • jim_m

            Really? You can’t draw a distinction between not voting for a candidate and declaring that people don’t have a right to earn a living based on their ideas? WTF Bruce? How much of a fascist do you want to show yourself to be?

          • Brucehenry

            You said “they will be condemned in the harshest of terms.” I’ve heard some pretty harsh stuff said right here on Wizbang about these here “RINOs.”

            And and I must have missed it when you condemned the shunning, shaming, and ostracizing of Tim McGraw when he did the Sandy Hook event.

            Oh, you DIDN’T condemn it? Is that because you don’t get to decide what people say and how they feel when someone they thought was on “their side” turns out not to be? Or is it because you thought McGraw SHOULD be shamed, shunned, and ostracized? Did you hear what they were saying on Twitter and Facebook about McGraw? What the haters were calling his wife? Did you join the mob yourself or just watch slobbering?

            I have a boss who will only buy Toyotas or Fords for the fleet of vehicles at work. That’s because he doesn’t want to give money to “Obama Motors” — GM. Is he to be condemned as some kind of hater, or is he exercising his right to spend his (and the company’s) money with people whose politics he thinks align with his?

          • jim_m

            Did I say that Tim McGraw should not earn a Lou vibg? Nope. I didn’t even condemn him. And how dare you condemn me for not speaking out about anything when your standard defense of your file nice on all outrages against basic civil rights is that someone else will speak up so you don’t have to. Don’t ask anyone to be doing more than you are willing to do.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I do say that but YOU say one should “speak out” whenever one sees injustice. And it seems to me you said SOMETHING about McGraw just the other day. Didn’t see you defend him and his right to earn a living.

            But since you have been invited to comment on McGraw, what do you think about “the right” just stone saying fuck it when it comes to diversity of thought, lol? McGraw stepped off the Smith & Wesson Plantation and must be shamed, shunned, and ostracized by these Thought Police on “the right,” is that what what you were fixing to say?

            EDIT: But actually my point in bringing up McGraw was not to ask about you but to illustrate that “the right” does this same thing that you think is so terrible when “the left” does it.

          • jim_m

            I did not see anyone say that he should be boycotted or that he should be silenced. I have seen that about the people that invited Ted Cruz to speak. I see that you support silencing those people.

            McGraw is entitled to his opinion. People are entitled to criticize him for it. You think that criticism is the same as boycoting. You are an ignorant, dishonest ass.

          • Brucehenry

            Because you didn’t see it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, moron. There were indeed calls for a boycott of McGraw, his record label, his wife, etc. There was criticism, and then there were calls for him and his product — his music — to be shunned. Just as there were bonfires of Dixie Chicks albums 11 years ago and the banning of Dixie Chicks songs on Clear Channel radio stations.

            The point is people have the right to use their economic muscle to influence political events, or do you disagree?

          • jim_m

            So you are making undocumented claims about what people said off of this board and then blaming those on this board for saying them. You’re nuts.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not blaming anybody on this board for saying them. I’m just telling you that the phenomenon of boycotts, Twitter-shaming, and ostracism isn’t confined to those on “the left.”

          • Brucehenry

            It was years ago now, but a conservative Christian group tried to organize a boycott of Disney because it offered insurance coverage for same-sex dependent partners of their employees. More recently, the “One Million Moms” group wanted a boycott of Cover Girl — or was it JC Penney? — because they were using Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson. You’re an idiot if you think that only liberals use boycott threats and ostracism as a political weapon.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        According to the NYT, it wasn’t a fundraiser: “The event was a “fireside chat” for about a dozen people, but was not a fund-raiser.”

        http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/26/gay-businessman-who-hosted-cruz-event-apologizes/?_r=1

        • Brucehenry

          Funds were raised, I’ll bet.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Uh oh, are you getting all conspiratorial – not believing the NYT?

          • Brucehenry

            What do you think those dozen people chatted about by the fireside?

            If the gay community is pissed because they’ve been spending money for years at these guys’ hotels and these guys turn around and host a Ted Cruz event — whether or not it was a fundraiser it was an event aimed at securing the presidency for Ted Fucking Cruz — who can blame them?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yep, nothing gets the Gaystapo in gear quite like people talking amongst themselves, especially when one of them has the gall to follow traditional thought that people like Hillary and Obama agreed with [oops, lied about] until two years ago. Can’t have that.

          • Brucehenry

            It always disappoints me when a smart guy like you uses these buzzwords from Talk Radio, like “Gaystapo.”

            I guess I could start a buzzword about the crowd who wants to “silence” Tim McGraw. How about “Gunstapo”?

            Anyway, did you miss the point? The hotels these guys own cater to a gay clientele. The gay community have made these guys rich. It appears these guys are supporting Cruz, an avowed enemy of the right to marriage equality. Why SHOULDN’T the gay community flex its muscle and get these rich men to reconsider their support for Cruz?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I use Gaystapo because that’s what they are – well organized, well finanaced, ruthless, unscrupulous, politically savvy and remorseless – Look at what they do to bakers and florists – forced to participate in a mockery of what they consider a sacred ritual + reeducation camp [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/]

            another bakery closed [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/02/sweet-cakes-by-melissa-closed-_n_3856184.html]

            70-year-old grandmother Baronelle Stutzman who was forced out of business – and once her plight was publicized, what did the gay community do? “The law allows for penalties of up to $2,000 per violation — and Waggoner [attorney for Stutzman] said the flower shop has been inundated with requests to provide flowers to gay weddings. Each one of those requests would be a violation, she said.”
            http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/19/why-does-government-consider-this-grandmother-public-enemy-no-1/

            What about Brendan Eich, a two-fer for your side. The IRS leaked a copy of the tax return of the National Organization for Marriage to a “gay advocacy group,” which then pressured Mozilla to get rid of Eich.
            I’m sure there are more – oh yeah, the pizza shop in Indiana.
            I use the term Gaystapo because it is well earned.

          • Brucehenry

            I’ve said that I’ve come around to the view that bakers and florists and the like should somehow be accommodated in law to allow them to decline to participate in ceremonies that make them uncomfortable, but not everybody on my side agrees with me.

            But suppose these bakers had refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple, and claimed that their sincerely held religious belief compelled them? Do you think any court would — or SHOULD — buy that? And let’s be honest and admit that it’s not a far-fetched scenario.

            EDIT: Waddaya bet there’s more to the baker story than Todd “Hack” Starnes is telling?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            It’s not a far-fetched scenario and I would probably agree with your view.
            It’s also not a far-fetched scenario that a member of the Westboro Baptist Church would refuse service of every kind to a gay person. I would probably opt for capital punishment against the member of the Westboro Church. It’s a good thing I will never be a judge.

          • Scalia

            Hi, Bruce. My apologies for stepping into your conversation with Walter (I may be doing more of that below). I think the hypothetical you offer is somewhat inexact. The baker/photographer controversy did not arise from said proprietors’ refusal to provide services for gays; they arose from their refusal to participate in functions contrary to their faith.

            Recall the example I gave of a black proprietor who refuses to photograph a known Klansman. You would presumabely support said Klansman’s right to sue for public accommodation, but if I understand your comments correctly, you would also support said proprietor’s right to refuse to provide a photo journal of a Klan rally, no?

            Therein lies a critical distinction. A proprietor should not deny service to a divorced couple who want innocuous pictures taken, but s/he should not be compelled to photo their wedding.

            That’s my personal take. My legal take you already know.

          • Brucehenry

            My hypothetical was of a baker, who holds a religion-based view against “race-mixing,” refusing to bake a cake for an interracial wedding.

            I have said I’ve come around, more or less, to your way of thinking on this (the right of bakers and florists et al to refuse to participate) I’m just in this discussion for the sake of argument and to learn more about Walter’s thinking.

          • Scalia

            First, thank you very much for remembering our agreement. I really appreciate it. Second, I agree that being a posterior orifice is not protected. 🙂

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I just about slipped up and went the other way. Didn’t know if you are opposed to all “Anglo-Saxon” terms or just the F-bomb.

          • Scalia

            I pretty much try to keep it “clean” across the board. I called somebody a dingbat on another thread. That’s about as severe as I get. 🙂

          • Brucehenry

            I saw that. Pretty scary.

          • Brucehenry

            How about the One Million Moms group (which calls itself a Christian organization) that wants to “silence” Ellen DeGeneres and get her fired from her Penney’s gig? Are they part of the “Godstapo”?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I don’t think they’re quite as well organized or financed. I see Ellen all the time on TV.

          • Brucehenry

            Ya don’t see her on JC Penney’s commercials any more.

            Anyway, the point is that Twitter campaigns, lawsuits, and boycotts are not confined to those on “the left.” And I don’t know any kind of “stapo” more well-financed and well-organized than the NRA. The NOM has, or had, quite a bit of clout, too, until history passed them by.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Ellen was not put out of business.

          • Brucehenry

            And neither was the Dixie Chicks but the campaign against them cost them several million dollars.Their career was never the same again. The reaction to McGraw will cost him many fans and record sales. And if you don’t think those “Million Moms” would LIKE to put Ellen out of business I suggest you are mistaken.

            BTW it’s kind of Jim-like to believe in the existence of an “organized, well-financed” conspiracy of queers that exists to “silence” all the opponents of the “gay agenda.”

            “Protocols Of the Elders of Fire Island,” I guess?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            “Conspiracy” connotes something done in secret. There is no conspiracy. It’s a well-oiled, well-publicized machine that uses the state to compel business owners to participate in a mockery of their religious beliefs. Seems to be more fascist the conspiratorial.

          • Brucehenry

            You haven’t addressed my hypothetical — suppose a religiously motivated florist or baker refuses to render services for an interracial wedding — or simply one between, say, a Jew and a Catholic? Should they be lauded for standing up for their religious freedom, or condemned for discrimination? Do you think they would, or should, prevail in any litigation?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            See, below, in reply to your comment which raised the hypothetical.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes but in all seriousness do you think they should prevail? And if so, why? And if not, why not?

            AND if not, why should they then prevail in the SSW case?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            OK, I’ll take your request seriously. You’re asking very tough legal questions, and they were tough decades ago when I was teaching First Amendment Law [I liked neither RLUIPA nor RFRA at that time, my views have changed somewhat with time].

            The question you’re asking, it seems to me, is: “Would compelling an Aryan Nation/KKK/NAZI party member to provide goods and/or services [EDIT to an inter-racial wedding] be a violation of RFRA?”

            First, note that the person’s belief doesn’t have to be a “religious” belief – any sort of moral or ethical code that operates in a person’s life as a traditional religion would operate would suffice [much of this answer is from memory of cases I taught years ago, so if you choose to challenge, go ahead]. Thus, an atheist can have, in effect, a “religious” belief.

            Second, the courts are not supposed to rule on the “reasonableness” of the belief. See, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and cases cited therein.

            Third, the Federal RFRA was amended so as to incorporate RLUIPA’s definition of exercise of religion [note, both RLUIPA and RFRA were enacted by Congress in response to Supreme Court decisions, one by Scalia, that provided LESS protection for religious exercise]. RLUIPA defines exercise of religion more broadly than traditional First Amendment jurisprudence. As stated in Hobby Lobby: “In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” This is one of the reasons I was not in favor of RLUIPA and/or RFRA.
            Finally, race has, in modern US law, been the third rail of categories upon which discrimination is based – that is, it’s a no-no. For example, you can “discriminate” against people in the income tax code by reason of income; ie., more income = higher rate. You can’t discriminate in the tax code on the basis of race.
            Given all of the above, we get to the nub of your question. A member of the Aryan Nation and/or KKK and/or NAZI party, based on his system of “religious” beliefs, refuses to provide goods or services for an inter-racial marriage – how would the Court rule? I don’t have a clue – but I think that the Court would dance around on the head of that legal pin and somehow rule that compelling the person to provide services to the inter-racial wedding would NOT violate RFRA – that’s just my gut reaction. I think that discrimination based on race [14th Amendment violation] would trump a violation of RFRA – but it’s up to the legal geniuses writing the Supreme Court briefs and the Supreme Court law clerks to come up with the rationale for the ruling. Or, the Court could be stuck dancing around with whether the person’s decision was based on a sincerely held religious belief. Or, they could just ignore the law and make something up.
            Old legal adage: Bad facts make bad law.

          • Brucehenry

            So now you’ve told me what you think the SC might do. But I also asked you if YOU thought my hypothetical litigants SHOULD prevail; if so, why; and if NOT then why should those opposed to providing services to a SSW prevail?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            No, I don’t think they should prevail. Under RFRA, a state can “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion if the substantial burden serves a compelling governmental interest and if the substantial burden is the least restrictive method of serving the compelling governmental interest.
            Preventing racial discrimination is a compelling governmental interest and compelling the provision of goods and/or services to an inter-racial marriage is the least restrictive method of serving that interest [my shorthand above was 14th Amendment violation trumps RFRA violation].
            If you want my gut reaction, discrimination based on race cannot be a sincerely held religious belief – of course that gut reaction is based on my own beliefs and not in keeping with current jurisprudence.
            Clearly, Biblical teaching, both in the Old and New Testaments, finds homosexuality to be a sin. To consecrate that sin in a marriage ceremony is to make a mockery of that Biblical teaching. Forcing someone to participate in this mockery of their beliefs is simply wrong.

          • Brucehenry

            So if someone holds a sincere religious belief you agree with, that person’s sincere religious belief should be protected, but if that belief is one you find repugnant, then no. Good to know.

            Some people might say preventing discrimination based not only on race but on sexual orientation is a compelling government interest, since government should protect ALL its citizens from discrimination.

            We already have laws and precedents restricting some religious freedoms. You don’t have the right to endanger your child, for example, if that child needs chemotherapy and you don’t believe in it, or if your religion admonishes you to beat him for misbehavior. Some Africans and some Muslims in America sincerely believe in female genital mutilation but we don’t allow it.

            The fact that some folks’ reading of the Bible finds that it clearly finds homosexuality a sin is immaterial, or should be. The Bible clearly forbids remarriage after divorce, as I read it, and as the Catholic Church teaches, but we don’t make remarriage after divorce illegal in the US.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You couldn’t be more obtuse. The subject we’re discussing is whether the state can compel someone to participate in a SSW. You asked me what I believed should happen re: an inter-racial marriage. I told you in detail why that is a difficult question given what I believe is the status of the law, but that I thought the Supremes would find that racial discrimination cannot be countenanced.
            Not satisfied, you asked my personal beliefs, which I gave you, and which I fully explained were my beliefs, not the law. If I were a judge, I would follow the law, as I would be sworn to do. I take it that you find that unsatisfactory.
            Of course there are religious beliefs that I find repugnant. If your religion believes in human sacrifice, too bad. Drawing that line and/or making that distinction in one’s personal beliefs, however, becomes more difficult when the action being discussed becomes more and more benign. Being an oh-so-nuanced prog, I thought you would know that.
            Trying to equate compelling one person to participate in something he believes makes a mockery of what he believes is different than telling someone, no, you can’t mutilate your daughter’s genitalia. The same-sex couple can certainly find another baker or florist, and even if they can’t, the ceremony will still go on – your daughter will have a tough time finding unmutilated genitalia.
            The state forbidding someone from harming/murdering someone else is completely different from compelling someone to participate in an action which is against their religious beliefs, especially when his participation is not necessary.
            And your statement re: remarriage not being illegal even though forbidden by the Catholic church is a non-sequitur. Given the context of our discussion, the natural question would be: Do you believe that the state should compel the priest to perform the ceremony? Apparently, you do.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I apologize if I’m being obtuse, it’s not deliberately so.

            I understand those are your personal beliefs but I’m asking about your logic. You say that in your opinion discrimination based on race CANNOT BE a “sincerely held religious belief,” yet you are aware that there are thousands if not tens of thousands of Americans who might tell you it IS to them.

            Well, suppose I was to tell you that in my opinion discrimination based on sexual orientation “cannot be a sincerely held religious belief?” And offered as evidence precisely what you have offered — nothing?

            I was under the impression, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the government/plaintiff is forbidden to question the sincerity of a claimant’s religious belief. Which is what makes these darn RFRA laws so tricky.

            I certainly get that the examples I offered above were poor ones, involving physical harm, so sorry about that, that was ME being illogical.

            The natural question re: remarriage after divorce is not should the state compel the priest, but whether a Catholic baker can be compelled to bake a cake for a divorced/ remarrying couple if they walk into his shop, which is open for business to the general public, and order one. I think he CAN be compelled and WOULD be compelled, don’t you? Perhaps he even SHOULD be compelled? What do you think?

            And before you say this couple can go find a non-Catholic baker, think about this — if a realtor refuses to sell a house to, say, an interracial couple, (or for that matter a couple who has remarried after divorce) the courts don’t tell the couple not to worry about it just go find a non-bigoted realtor. (OOOOOPS I mean a realtor who ain’t quite so sincerely religious.) Why would a baker be entitled to discriminate but a realtor isn’t?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            As I’ve said previously, ordinary commerce is not the same as participating in what many consider a sacred rite – a wedding ceremony. I don’t think selling a house is a sacred rite – just as I don’t think a baker is performing a sacred rite when he sells a gay guy a morning donut when he stops by the bakery. Thus, under RFRA, there would be no “substantial burden on the exercise of religion” in compelling the realtor/baker to provide his ordinary services.
            While tip-toeing around the concept of “sincerely held religious belief,” it is not a verboten subject. For example in the context of employment law, if a long time employee suddenly states that he can no longer comply with work rules prohibiting facial hair, the employer can legitimately inquire about this new “sincerely held religious belief.”
            In a somewhat recent case, a court ruled that a seller of mariuana did not have a sincerely held religious belief that marijuana was sacred and/or a sacrament [by the way, google marijuana and RFRA – we are nothing if not a cleverly litigious society]:

            “After taking extensive evidence, the district court denied the motion to dismiss. It held, as a matter of law, that the Quaintances’ professed beliefs are not religious butsecular. In addition and in any event, the district court found, as a matter of fact, that the Quaintances don’t sincerely hold the religious beliefs they claim to hold, but instead seek to use the cover of religion to pursue secular drug trafficking activities.”

            United States v. Quaintance (CA10)
            If someone were to tell me that providing goods or services to an inter-racial couple’s wedding was somehow against their sincerely held religious beliefs, they would have a long row to hoe, both in persuading me and, I believe, any court of law presided over by a sane judge.

          • Brucehenry

            OK on the realtor, apparently another inapt analogy, but what about a strict Catholic baker who refuses to bake a cake for a couple who are divorced and are re-marrying. If such a couple walks into his shop which is open to the public and orders a wedding cake, can he be sanctioned if he refuses to participate in what, to him, is adultery?

            Because as far as I know, even though millions agree that remarriage after divorce is a sin, the law recognizes the legality both of their respective divorces AND their impending marriage. Can they be denied service in this guys shop because he doesn’t approve of their action and doesn’t wish to “participate” by baking a cake?

            Can he be compelled to do business with this couple? Would the courts agree or disagree with him, in your opinion? And, in your opinion, SHOULD he be compelled to bake a cake for this “adulterous” couple?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            The auspices under which a gay couple can sue the Christian baker is some sort of state law that you cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of race, blah, blah, blah, and sexual orientation. I know of no law that includes “marital status” in its laundry list of discrimination no-nos. Thus, assuming there isn’t a law prohibiting such discrimination, then there wouldn’t be a case in the first place for a baker not providing a wedding cake for their nuptials.
            Also, the couple would have to announce that this was their, or his or hers, second marriage. Most people don’t do that. I’m sure a helluva lot of gays make that announcement when they go to what the suspect is a Christian baker.
            Finally, I’m Baptist [I claim them more than they claim me, I’m afraid]. Assuming you repent of your sin, and do not continue to sin, your sin is forgiven – see, Apostle Paul who persecuted followers of Christ prior to his conversion. I have been divorced and remarried, for 27 years. I did not seek a priest or pastor to do my ceremony – merely a Justice of the Peace. Since I have repented my sin and do not continue to sin [at least adultery, I won’t go into whether, like Jimmy Carter, I’ve lusted in my heart], I’m in good shape. Thus, unless the baker was Catholic, which I wouldn’t knowingly put in that position, I would not be stepping on any Baptist’s, or most Protestant sects’, toes.
            The New Testament is a wonderful book. You should read it some time.

          • Brucehenry

            My second point is the larger one. The cartoon makes it pretty well.

            You question the sincerity of the religious beliefs of my hypothetical racist-religious-baker. I question the sincerity of the religious beliefs of some of the people claiming butthurt about “religious freedom.” For at least some of them, their religion is nothing but a pretext for prejudice.

            That said, I still think Scalia and you were right to persuade me that there should be an accommodation made for these wedding-industry folks. I’ve really been arguing here for the sake of argument.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Your cartoon is so very off the mark – but you wouldn’t understand.
            You did a good job of arguing – it’s not an easy judgment call to make. I have gay friends – I’d probably bake the cake out of friendship. But I can understand why many would find the idea of participating in the ceremony as abhorrently against their sincerely held religious beliefs.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m sure it IS off the mark for many. But it’s dead on for many, too.

          • Brucehenry

            BTW I quote my favorite philosopher/theologian Karl Childers who said, and in this regard speaks for me:

            “I learnt to read some in the nervous hospital. I read the Bible quite a bit. I don’t understand all of it, but I reckon I understand a good deal of it.”

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Your favorite philosopher/theologian seems like a sad, pathetic man. Wish he would have understood more.

          • Brucehenry

            Sling Blade, 1995

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yeah, went on line and read some of the dialogue. From what I read, he seemed sad and pathetic.

          • Brucehenry

            Some of these are jokes.

            BTW “Sling Blade” is absolutely my favorite movie of all time, with fantastic performances by every actor in it. Billy Bob Thornton wrote, directed, and stars in it, and is magnificent. Dwight Yoakam is one of the best movie bullies I’ve ever seen. It’s a heartbreaker yet has lots of humor and pathos. It’s on Netflix streaming, if you’ve never seen it you’re missing out.

  • JWH

    Have you tried sending accounts like this to liberal media outlets, or sharing them with liberal friends, without rancor, rather than passing them around in conservative circles and proclaiming that liberals don’t care about the issue?

  • JWH

    Human Rights Watch has rather closely scrutinized and reported on ISIS human-rights abuses … and HRW is a pretty damn liberal organization.

  • JWH

    There’s very little that an American can do to stop brutalization of gays overseas. But a number of American attorneys and advocates — often liberals — work on behalf of gay individuals who have fled to America to escape brutal anti-gay policies in their home countries. I would hardly call this silence in the face of brutality abroad. It’s important advocacy work — just work that’s not necessarily visible to Warner.

    • Brucehenry

      The fact is liberals are NOT “silent” about the murder and mistreatment of gays in Muslim countries and never have been.And conservatives have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to tolerance of gay rights, so it’s hilarious to hear this pious bullshit from Warner here.

      However, conservatives HAVE been pretty freaking silent about the death penalty for gays in Uganda, WHAT’S UP WITH THAT HUHH??? And indeed conservative evangelicals from the US have been instrumental in the oppression of gays there and throughout West Africa. Haven’t seen any charges of hypocrisy from Warner about that.

  • WHO’S THE BUSTER

    We have all read, in numerous publications, about the atrocities against gays in other countries. What exactly has the left failed to do that has drawn your ire?

    I am pretty sure they are against such activities, much like all, well, most, Americans.

    So what’s the problem?

    • Brucehenry

      This is similar to the right’s insistence that we shouldn’t be upset about police killing young black unarmed men because what about black-on-black violence, huh? HUH?

      Except that there actually IS a problem with black-on-black violence. There is no problem with liberals being “silent” about oppression of gays in Muslim countries. Warner just made that up. It’s what some people call a “lie.”

      • jim_m

        No. Because you don’t care when black officers kill innocent white people because your bigots. And no, you don’t give a damn about the insanely high rate of homicide in the black community. As long as blacks are killing blacks you are happy and content.

        • Brucehenry

          You know for a couple of days there you were absent from this board, and an adult discussion was had. Scalia and Walter — you know, conservatives who are ACTUALLY smart and not pompous, delusional windbags — made some excellent points and a nice, civil time was enjoyed by all concerned.

          Then you reappear with this buffoonish, accusatory, ridiculous nonsense and spoil things. What a clown you are. What a pathetic paranoid ignorant fool you show yourself to be.

          Wizbang is a better blog when you’re not on it. Grow the hell up.

          • jim_m

            I have civilized conversation with other people. You have been invited to leave previously. I suggest that you take that advice.

            I suggest that you are bent because the accusation hits too close to the mark.

          • Brucehenry

            Which other people? LOL.

    • Scalia

      First, WTH can speak for himself, but since he hasn’t replied, I’ll throw in my take. Second, I don’t question that liberals are opposed to the murder of gays in other countries. If what they say about equality and bigotry reflects their true feelings, then it makes sense that they’d be upset by the systematic murder of any group.

      Though I acknowledge that those murders have been reported (how else would we have heard about them?), I must wonder aloud why the Left’s reaction hasn’t been as “shrill” as the reaction we get from groups over support for Proposition 8 (in CA) or a pizza parlor proprietor who supports Indiana’s religious exemption law.

      Recall the intense media storm over Apartheid. From your other comments, you’re old enough to remember the practically nonstop drumbeat of reporting until South Africa finally dumped it. Pressure came from the political world, the business world and the media. People were outraged by the system and the brutality of Apartheid, and they rejoiced when it was finally scrapped.

      Given today’s 24/7/365 communications network, it would be very easy for liberal politicians, businesses and media outlets to coordinate a firestorm of protest and pressure against nations who make homosexuality a capital crime. If that sounds offensive, I certainly don’t mean it to be. It just strikes me as very odd to see people practically foaming at the mouth over a baker’s refusal to celebrate a gay wedding when gays are being thrown off buildings and hanged in other countries.

      The Apartheid precedent demonstrates that change can be affected outside one’s borders and nullifies the “I affect change where I can” excuse. I think you will agree that systematic murder is worse than a system of discrimination and segregation. So, where is the corresponding outrage? Whether or not conservatives are hypocritical by pointing that out does not affect the legitimacy of the question.

      Is this a question coming from conservatives only? Of course not. Ever hear of Michael Lucas (of Lucas Entertainment and is gay)? Read his Where is the Outrage for Gays Killed by Isis?.

      You ask, “So, what the problem”? Since you appear disinclined to believe us, ask Michael Lucas.

      • Brucehenry

        There wasn’t much international outrage over South African apartheid in 1948. It was only after many victories had been won in the domestic struggle for civil rights that the issue of apartheid abroad became much of a cause celebre here. I remember it peaking in the 80s and early 90s.

        One of the reasons US presidents wanted the civil rights movement to succeed in America is because our own version of apartheid in the US South made us look like hypocrites when we spoke of human rights abroad.

        You have to start somewhere.

        • Scalia

          Yes, I realize that it took time for the anti-Apartheid movement to gain traction, but with the Cold War in full swing and with our own intense, systematic racial struggles, I wouldn’t have expected anything substantive. That’s not the case now.

          Moreover, we’ve never had anything analogous to what’s going on in Iran and other places. As bad as it may have been for gays here, being gay was never a capital crime. The Left [edit–in the West] is certainly not perceived as being anti-gay, so it makes no sense to me why there isn’t more “screeching.”

          • Brucehenry

            No WE’VE never has anything analogous to what’s going on in Iran, but barbaric, draconian punishment for homosexuality is not new there. Practically no one, conservative OR liberal, said much about it until there was a gay rights movement in Western countries.

            The fact is, liberals have been writing about and protesting the treatment of gays in Muslim countries (and in Christian countries like Uganda) for quite some time. Warner’s claim that they have been “silent” is a specious one. There has been quite a bit of “screeching” since at least the 80s. You may be right that the level of outrage has not reached “apartheid levels” yet but once most of the gay rights movements goals have been achieved domestically I bet it will intensify.

          • Brucehenry

            No we’ve never had anything analogous to what’s going on in Iran and elsewhere but the barbaric,draconian mistreatment of gays in the Muslim world is not new, and practically no one, conservative OR liberal, said much about it until there was a successful gay rights movement in the West.

            The fact is that liberals have NOT been “silent” about the mistreatment of gays in Muslim countries. They’ve been writing about it and protesting it since at least the 1980s, so Warner’s claim that they don’t care about the issue is specious. You may be right that the level of outrage has not reached that of the anti-apartheid movement of the 80s, but as you and I agree there wasn’t much to THAT movement either, here in the West, until our own civil rights goals had been, to a large extent, achieved.

            Now that the gay rights movement is achieving many of its goals, I expect to see the outrage about abuses abroad start to intensify.

          • Scalia

            They’ve been writing about it and protesting it since at least the 1980s…Now that the gay rights movement is achieving many of its goals, I expect to see the outrage about abuses abroad start to intensify.

            So, liberals have been writing about and protesting the treatment of gays abroad for about 30 years, and people get twisted over bakeries and pizza parlors? Bruce, I admit my longstanding conservatism may be giving me a jaundiced view of the situation, but I cannot help but scratch my head over that one.

            You acknowledge that our situation is not analogous, and you acknowledge that the intensity of protest may not be what it should, but how is that even possible given the situation on the ground? Lucas protests not the ignorant, but those who know what is going on yet remain strangely subdued (while simultaneously getting worked up over Indiana). What is going on in the mind of a person who will threaten a pizzeria while knowing that gays are being thrown to their deaths off high buildings (and stoned to death if they survive)? I can’t wrap my mind around that. I would think that one would want to stop the killing before closing down grandma’s floral shop.

            In my mind, it’s a legitimate question. Lucas suggests it may be the political situation with Muslims, and he may be right. I don’t know. I just find the whole situation very puzzling.

          • Brucehenry

            I confess I haven’t read the Lucas link, I was addressing the apartheid comparison. I’ll read it soon.

          • Brucehenry

            OK now I’ve read it.

            It seems to me you jump to the conclusion this guy is a liberal because he’s gay. I think he falls victim here to Warner-speak. “It is considered brave to bash the pope or a cardinal, but when anyone does the same of Muslim clerics, that critic is called a racist, an Islamophobe, or prejudiced.”

            Ummm, no. No one defends a Muslim cleric who sentences gays to death for “sodomy,” or attacks their critics.

            “Yet radical Muslims seem to get a pass.” From whom? As I said, plenty is being written about the subject, as you can tell if you do some googling.

            That said, he makes some good points about the comparisons of Robertson and Lubavitcher Rebbe to radical Muslims who call for actual violence and murder. The differences are stark, obviously.

            But I don’t see what’s so puzzling about working for change in Indiana when there is little one can do about the outrages in Syria. Hell, our government, using our tax dollars and our sons and daughters, is BOMBING the ISIS nuts who are killing gays in Iraq, What do you think we should do further?

          • Scalia

            This morning I edited my reply to Buster and stated that I jumped the gun on assuming that Lucas was a liberal, so you are correct.

            I don’t mind political activism at home. I think activists can work on both fronts. The question I raise is a question of emphasis. I applaud taking the war to ISIS. My objection has been over the underwhelming response of the media and many gay activists to the murders of gays abroad. In my mind, one would work overtime to stop the murders before anything else. Activists should protest newspaper and television stations for their apparent lack of focus and lobby their representatives to do something legally (sanctions, whatever) to put pressure on nations like Iran.

            Anyway, I see we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on the emphasis issue. Thanks for the chat. The best to you, Bruce.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes to you too. Just one more point.

            Should folks who oppose the death penalty in NC quit lobbying their legislators until they can somehow stop or reduce the numbers of people being executed in China?

          • Scalia

            No, they shouldn’t stop. And if gays were being murdered here by official policy, we should try to stop it any way we could.

  • LRRP

    Don’t be fooled by the Left’s rhetoric. The “progressives” don’t really “care” about gays, the environment, the poor, or the “downtrodden minorities”. These are just tools to use (and abuse) in the acquisition of power.

    Above all, the Left hates Christians and Jews. Islam teaches hatred of Christians and Jews.

    Ergo, the Left and Islam find common ground.

    Ignore the rhetoric and keep these principles in mind, and everything the Left does makes sense.