Supreme Court declines to intervene in NM photographer’s SSM objection

posted at 10:41 am on April 7, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Can an artist be forced to perform for a ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs? In New Mexico, they can if they are engaging in commercial enterprise — and the Supreme Court apparently agrees. The justices denied certiorari for Elane Huguenin in her attempt to overturn the state Supreme Court decision finding her guilty of illegal discrimination:

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up an appeal from a photographer who refused to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony.

The court’s action leaves a lower court ruling in place, finding that the photographer violated a state anti-discrimination law.

Though the photographer, Elane Huguenin of Albuquerque, refused to photograph the ceremony on religious grounds, her appeal was based on a claim that her right of free expression as a creative artist allowed her to reject a client if the assignment would compel her to express an idea she opposes.

The issue in Elane Photography v Willock hinges on New Mexico’s public accommodation law, which keeps businesses from engaging in discrimination based on protected statuses. The state court ruled that the individual right of free speech and association did not transfer to their commercial business — even if it was just the event in question (a “commitment” ceremony, as New Mexico did not allow for same-sex marriage at the time) and not specifically the customers’ orientation. In fact, Vanessa Willock’s successful argument to the court emphasized that customers pay to have their own message expressed no matter what the event is, not the company’s.

That means that any businesses in the wedding industry must service any kind of wedding or commitment ceremony, even with the RFRA in place at the federal level. Unlike bakers objecting to servicing such events, though, photographers have to attend the entire event in order to fulfill their commercial obligations. The only option for Elane Photography in this case to keep with their religious practices in that regard would be to contract with another photographer to perform the work — which would be a reasonable accommodation, perhaps, but that won’t be much comfort for bakers and florists.

As I recall, it only takes four justices to vote to grant certiorari in appeals, and Elane Photography couldn’t get that with its claim of corporate speech protection under the First Amendment. Gabriel Malor warns people not to read too much into this, though:

We’ll see. It does say something about the limits of corporate-speech protection, though.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

America was founded on religious freedom. When it goes, you will hear talk of Texas seceding and other red states joining them.

monalisa on April 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM

No state is going to secede.

The first Europeans to come to these lands in the 17th century did so mainly to escape religious persecution. Just sayin’.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Also: in my days in newspaper management, I always instructed the Ad departments to NEVER EVER EVER give a reason for declining an ad. Our standards were none of the clients’ business.

Why? If we refused an ad because of taste, or truthfulness, or because we suspect fraud, we can be sued. BUT if the rep just tells you, “We choose not to accept this ad at this time,” and answers your “but, why?” with “We choose not to accept this ad at this time,” again, as often as you ask, you have no basis to sue.

In business, giving a reason for declining any job is just asking for trouble.

Adjoran on April 7, 2014 at 4:57 PM

You.

NotCoach on April 7, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Verbaluce is demonstrating why pedophilia and incest are acceptable to the Obama Party, as we see from their supporters Woody Allen and Roman Polanski; they believe that anything that gives them sexual pleasure is good and must be allowed, and that anyone who disagrees is a “-phobe” and “hater”.

The Obama Party’s rhetoric works on the immoral. Obama preaches hate, covetousness, greed, envy and jealousy, and promises gluttony and promiscuity. The Obama Party is filthy and rotten, nothing but promiscuous and selfish individuals who steal from others and who scream and cry when faced with the obvious consequences of their decisions.

northdallasthirty on April 7, 2014 at 4:58 PM

northdallasthirty on April 7, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Well you have to wonder if (perhaps “in-born”) negative expressions of preference are not equal to positive expressions of preference?

Perhaps, I did not “choose not to be gay” but it is instead a combination of a genetic repulsion to buggery. Since attraction is argued not to be rational, how is it any worse that repulsion is not rational?

However, were we to want another generation after this one, intercourse between the sexes would almost be a mandatory, rational decision.

One is a rational social good, the other, by definition, uncontrollable Leviathonic determinant and expression of behavior.

If we have a right to our “preferences” how can I not have a right to my revulsion? Which is a preference with a negative vector.

Axeman on April 7, 2014 at 5:21 PM

This has to be the worst court ever. Its a disaster. If conservatives are looking for relief they are screwed one way or the other. If its liberals, you can gaurantee that things will go their way. I’m beginning to think that its all pre-determined. Its not about the Constitution any more except where it advantages the progressives.

I guess we can confidently predict now that Hobby Lobby is doomed. There is virtually no limit to the power of the state to compel unless that state has a conservative position, then its all about the poor put upon little guy.

Texene on April 7, 2014 at 5:21 PM

so in otherwords, don’t tell the customer you don’t agree with what they’re doing, do the event and give them a crappy product.

so it’s a lose-lose situation. smart…

jetch on April 7, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Of the two cases, I thought that the photographer case was the stronger. I don’t find gay marriage ceremonies at all offensive, but shouldn’t a commercial vendor be able to refuse certain assignments. For instance, taking pictures for a wild bachelor/ bachelorette party that involves nudity.

Illinidiva on April 7, 2014 at 5:25 PM

Here is the big question for Christians. The only way for there to be domestic tranquility is for Christians to compromise their faith. Are you willing to compromise your faith in order to save America?

antifederalist on April 7, 2014 at 2:35 PM

If I have to compromise my faith, America is already dead.

captnjoe on April 7, 2014 at 5:29 PM

The first Europeans to come to these lands in the 17th century did so mainly to escape religious persecution. Just sayin’.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Finally the truth slips out from the butt sects crowd. And it clearly shows why we are all so annoyed with this fake witch hunt crap.

It’s the imposition of the Religion of Homo upon our society without consent. We are ordered to accept the religion without any question or challenge. If we do not, were are deemed to be heretics.

Take your temple worship practices and GFY. Leave us normies out of it.

platypus on April 7, 2014 at 5:40 PM

Mozilla can fire who they want because it’s a private
company . But the little private photographer in Taos
has to take pictures at a gaystapo ” wedding ” .
BTW the ” wedding ” was of the head of the woman’s
studies at UNM Taos campus .

Lucano on April 7, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Finally the truth slips out from the butt sects crowd. And it clearly shows why we are all so annoyed with this fake witch hunt crap.

It’s the imposition of the Religion of Homo upon our society without consent. We are ordered to accept the religion without any question or challenge. If we do not, were are deemed to be heretics.

Take your temple worship practices and GFY. Leave us normies out of it.

platypus on April 7, 2014 at 5:40 PM

wth are you even babbling about now?

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Liberals knew years ago that most times they would never get public support for many of their ideas… so they came up with a plan, stock the courts with left leaning judges who would always side with them.

This way you can FORCE people to do such things because after all, its the law.

watertown on April 7, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Of the two cases, I thought that the photographer case was the stronger. I don’t find gay marriage ceremonies at all offensive, but shouldn’t a commercial vendor be able to refuse certain assignments. For instance, taking pictures for a wild bachelor/ bachelorette party that involves nudity.

Illinidiva on April 7, 2014 at 5:25 PM

She had bad lawyers. They should have filed under freedom of religion not compelled speech.

monalisa on April 7, 2014 at 6:08 PM

“Fascism will return to the United States not as right wing ideology, but almost as a quasi-leftist ideology.

The content of left-wing fascism is heavily based on an elitist vision of the world. At every level of society, it juxtaposes its minoritarianism against majoritarianism. It may take libertarian or authoritarian forms, but it always defends its leadership vision over any populist vision. Some examples are the hip versus the square, the gay versus the straight, the individualistic free soul versus the family-oriented slave, those who believe in the cult of direct action versus the fools who participate in the political process, those who practise nonviolence over those who assert willfulness and violence as measures of human strength and courage, those who have strong affiliations with cults and cultism over the traditional non-believer (a marked departure from the anti-theological vision of most forms of leftist and socialist behaviour), those who argue the case for deviance over mainline participation in the working class or in segments of class society, those who choose underground organisations in preference to established voluntary organisations and, ultimately, those who choose some type of deracinated behaviour over class behaviour and participation.

Historically, communists, like fascists, have had an uncomfortable attraction to both elitism and populism. The theory of vanguards acting in the name of the true interests of the masses presupposes a higher science of society (or in the case of fascism, a biology of society) beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. The superstructure of science, like culture generally, becomes a realm in which elites act in the name of the public. What happens to the notion of the people determining their own history in their own way? Here populism, or pseudo-populism, steps in to fuse formerly antagonistic trends. In some mysterious, inexplicable manner, these mass forces must be shaped or molded. Under communism, in sharp contrast to fascism, the stratification elements in the national culture are deemed unique or uniquely worth salvaging. But, in the anti-ideological climate of the “new world,” people (class) and fold (race) blend, becoming the raw materials for fashioning the new society.

Left-wing fascism does not so much as overcome this dilemma of elitism and populism as it seeks to harness both under the rubric of a movement. Having its roots in the 1960s, left-wing fascism views the loose movement, the foco, the force, as expanding the élan and the communist vanguard. It permits a theory of politics without the encumbrance of parties. It allows, even encourages, a culture of elitism and crackpot technocracy while extolling the virtues of a presumed inarticulate mass suffering under inscrutable false consciousness. The mystification and debasement of language displaces the search for clarity of expression and analysis, enabling a minuscule elite to harness the everyday discontent of ordinary living to a grand mission. Left-wing fascism becomes a theory of fault, locating the question of personal failure everywhere and always in an imperial conspiracy of wealth, power or status.

Fascism requires a focal point of hatred behind which to unify. Thus, when fascists advocate anti-Semitism, they are simply using a tactic, one not opposed by communism. It becomes a modality of affixing the climate of a post-Nazi holocaust, a post-Stalinist Gulag, and the monopoly of petroleum wealth by forces historically antagonistic to Jewish ambitions. The new left-wing fascist segments, weak within the nation, can draw great strength from “world forces” deemed favourable to their cause. The unitary character of anti-Semitism draws fascist and communist elements together in a new social climate. Anti-Semitism is essential motor of left-wing fascism. The grand illusion of seeing communism and fascism as polarised opposites (the latter being evil with a few redeeming virtues, the former being good with a few historical blemishes) is the sort of liberal collapse that reduces analysis to nostalgia — an abiding faith in the unique mission of a communist left that has long ago lost its universal claims to a higher society. This catalogue of polarities, this litany of beliefs, adds up to a lifestyle of left-wing fascism.”

- Irving Louis Horowitz, radical left-wing sociologist, The Decomposition of Sociology, 1929 – 2012) was a radical, left-wing sociologist, Fulbright lecturer, author of more than 25 books and articles, and a Professor of Sociology at Rutgers University

Now, replace anti-Semitism with SSM, climate change, ‘diversity and tolerance’ as defined by a certain few.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 6:09 PM

When it goes, you will hear talk of Texas seceding and other red states joining them.

monalisa on April 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM

A lot of people are already talking about it.

A lot.

Rebar on April 7, 2014 at 6:13 PM

No state is going to secede.

The first Europeans to come to these lands in the 17th century did so mainly to escape religious persecution. Just sayin’.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Your making my point. America was founded on religious freedom.

monalisa on April 7, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Involuntary servitude. Violation of freedom of religion.

This does not look good for Hobby Lobby.

unclesmrgol on April 7, 2014 at 6:34 PM

I just started reading this thread. But:

My point is, the vast majority of gays don’t approve of, or participate in, anything like platy’s link. Nor do the vast majority of straights do things like having sex at a bus stop or in a church. So it’s rather idiotic to throw out blanket accusations.

Get it?

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Jetboy, do you think the majority of gays don’t approve of what happened to the Mozilla guy? I would like it if that were true. Please answer.

Alana on April 7, 2014 at 6:37 PM

My point is, the vast majority of gays don’t approve of, or participate in, anything like platy’s link. Nor do the vast majority of straights do things like having sex at a bus stop or in a church. So it’s rather idiotic to throw out blanket accusations.
Get it?
JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 12:39 PM

What percentage of male homosexuals are in monogamous, same-sex relationships, as opposed to endlessly looking for new sexual partners?

I really think a lot of the organized effort for gay marriage is more about spite and power than it is about a widespread, genuine desire among gays to get “married.”

bluegill on April 7, 2014 at 6:47 PM

No. An atheist should be able to refuse service to. I shouldn’t be enslaved by anyone else. I should always be allowed to chose who I work for. Lincoln tried to give me that freedom, but liberals have reversed Lincoln.

blink on April 7, 2014 at 6:52 PM

I agree with your point but an atheist didn’t bring the case. In this case, the reason they didn’t want to provide service was a religious one. If you read the transcript of the case the focus was all about what service they would offer to a heterosexual couple versus a homosexual couple. If she had said “my religion does not permit me to take part in your ceremony” they would have won this case.

monalisa on April 7, 2014 at 7:13 PM

It’s pretty obvious that the rights of homosexuals outweigh the rights of Christians now. So sad to say that but it’s true.

sadsushi on April 7, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Jetboy, do you think the majority of gays don’t approve of what happened to the Mozilla guy? I would like it if that were true. Please answer.

Alana on April 7, 2014 at 6:37 PM

The majority of gays probably do approve of Eich resigning. Not all gays tho, myself included. But what does that have to do with some raunchy, idiotic street fair? Do you think most gays approve of something like that?

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 7:24 PM

While I’d prefer the laws supported Christians’ right to not do business that goes against their beliefs, the practical solution is pretty simple. “When’s the big day? Let me check our calendar. I’m so sorry, we’re booked that day.” ‘

hopeful on April 7, 2014 at 7:34 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY

America is going right into the dustbin of history. :(

Theophile on April 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM

What percentage of male homosexuals are in monogamous, same-sex relationships, as opposed to endlessly looking for new sexual partners?

I don’t know the actual numbers…these sort of polls are notorius for being inaccurate based on the samplings they rely on. You can read more HERE.

I really think a lot of the organized effort for gay marriage is more about spite and power than it is about a widespread, genuine desire among gays to get “married.”

bluegill on April 7, 2014 at 6:47 PM

That may be true for some gays and the militant gay organizations. But certainly not all. Again, I don’t know the exact numbers…it’s nearly impossible to get any accurate accounting of these sort of things. Heterosexual monogamy can vary all over the charts as well.

As I’ve said repeatedly, the militant gays on the liberal Left tick me off HUGE, more than they tick you off, believe me. What I don’t like is for myself and other gays like me (and most gay commenters here at HotAir) to be lumped in with the loud and vocal gay idiots on a regular basis. Depending on the commenter, that sort of thing may or may not be intentional…but I always feel the need to address that issue when I see it.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM

No. An atheist should be able to refuse service to. I shouldn’t be enslaved by anyone else. I should always be allowed to chose who I work for. Lincoln tried to give me that freedom, but liberals have reversed Lincoln.

blink on April 7, 2014 at 6:52 PM

The Democrats have been fighting against freedom and Lincoln and for slavery for the last 170 years. They still are.

Theophile on April 7, 2014 at 7:46 PM

No state is going to se..c..ede.

The first Europeans to come to these lands in the 17th century did so mainly to escape religious persecution. Just sayin’.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 4:53 PM

In the formal sense, I don’t know. But this isn’t one country. It probably never has been, but the fissures are more pronounced than probably ever before. And there are more fissures than there were on the eve of the Civil War. It isn’t one country, it’s probably at least 5 or 6.

Anyway, JetBoy, weren’t you one of those who were saying a year or so ago that these things weren’t going to happen? That it was all anti-SSM or homophobic fearmongering? “Pffffft, no church is ever going to be forced to….no photographer or caterer will ever be forced to blahblahblah…” And here we are.

ddrintn on April 7, 2014 at 7:54 PM

God, that’s depressing. But, if I had to guess, I would say that the four reasonable judges know which way Kennedy will vote, and don’t want homosexual superiority established as a SCOUS precedent for all time.

Count to 10 on April 7, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Do you think most gays approve of something like that?

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Considering that every gay pride parade I’ve ever been to involves ass-less chaps and all manner of “pride-inducing” debauchery… yes.

spmat on April 7, 2014 at 8:19 PM

The first Europeans to come to these lands in the 17th century did so mainly to escape religious persecution. Just sayin’. JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 4:53 PM

And now, ironically, the gaystapo has taken the place of the crown and is persecuting Christians that won’t toe the line.

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Anyway, JetBoy, weren’t you one of those who were saying a year or so ago that these things weren’t going to happen?

ddrintn on April 7, 2014 at 7:54 PM

Doesn’t matter what JetBoy thinks or wants or believes. He wants to live his life and be left alone, like any other rational, decent person.

We’re living in a world that is caught up in an analogue of the late 19th/early 20th century pietist fervor. The rational is definitely not the normal any more, people. We live in a world replete with nascent fascism, willfully ignorant of its own wildly destructive self-righteousness.

spmat on April 7, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Personally, I don’t see how it would be sinful to write “Congratulations Kyle and Trevor” on the top of a cake (actually having to attend the “rite” is more problematic). But neither of these things is the point. Individuals should have the right to decline providing services if it goes against their values. Happy Nomad on April 7, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Those things are so the point.

“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” -St. Paul, Eph. 5:11

Akzed on April 7, 2014 at 8:32 PM

In the formal sense, I don’t know. But this isn’t one country. It probably never has been, but the fissures are more pronounced than probably ever before. And there are more fissures than there were on the eve of the Civil War. It isn’t one country, it’s probably at least 5 or 6.

It’s still one country…filled with people from all different walks of life. It’s impossible to please everyone, all the time. There’s no other nation in the history of human civilization with as much diversity, and the vast scope of that diversity. There’s going to be clashes of opinion, culture, sex, religion, politics…everything you can possibly imagine.

Anyway, JetBoy, weren’t you one of those who were saying a year or so ago that these things weren’t going to happen? That it was all anti-SSM or homophobic fearmongering? “Pffffft, no church is ever going to be forced to….no photographer or caterer will ever be forced to blahblahblah…” And here we are.

ddrintn on April 7, 2014 at 7:54 PM

What things weren’t going to happen? Gay marriage doesn’t cause lawsuits…that would happen if some photog or baker declined any same-sex couple for a commitment ceremony or a civil union. And I’ve always said the gay couples who sue for that kind of nonsense should move on, and find someone else to bake or take pics.

Heck, I’m still waiting for the predicted mass exodus of heterosexuals from the US military, and how it would become a third-rate fighting force. And I do not use the term “homophobic” very often or very lightly. AS far as I’m aware, churches haven’t been forced to perform or recognize gay marriage either…unless I miss one.

I don’t believe I said no photog/baker etc would be forced to render services, either. Moronic lawsuits like the baker/photog are going to happen regardless, just like the seemingly endless dopey litigation all over the spectrum.

btw, how many similar lawsuits have been successful concerning the same thing? I really don’t know, but am curious. Also, I did say a business in the public business arena isn’t a church or a religion, or operating under authority of any particular faith. But again, the lawsuits brought up against these businesses are pathetic wastes of time.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Considering that every gay pride parade I’ve ever been to involves ass-less chaps and all manner of “pride-inducing” debauchery… yes.

spmat on April 7, 2014 at 8:19 PM

How many gay pride parades have you been to?

I’ve been to exactly two. One in Wash. DC when I fist came out…another in NYC with my boyfriend at the time, a few months after moving back to this area from the DC area. I haven’t been to one since, they’re not really my style.

And for the record, even tho I’d surely look stunning in arseless chaps or anything else, I’ve never worn, owned, or so much as thought of wearing them.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Why? If we refused an ad because of taste, or truthfulness, or because we suspect fraud, we can be sued. BUT if the rep just tells you, “We choose not to accept this ad at this time,” and answers your “but, why?” with “We choose not to accept this ad at this time,” again, as often as you ask, you have no basis to sue.

Adjoran on April 7, 2014 at 4:57 PM

In today’s world, doing as you state will simply result in being sued anyway, and they will claim why they think is the reason, demand and show history that you accepted other ads of similar nature but for the reason they claim you declined, get you on the stand in front of a sympathetic judge, where you will either tell the truth and sink yourself, or you will lie and they won’t believe you anyway, and the sympathetic judge will find against you and add some contempt/perjury on top, just to make an example of you, you homophobe/racist/whatever.

Welcome to the New World.

Midas on April 7, 2014 at 9:00 PM

The Supreme Court, by FAILING TO ACT to reign in their out of control subordinate courts is only HASTENING ITS OWN DEMISE.

It’s in the same way that Obama is knocking blocks out of HIS OWN FOUNDATION of power by undermining the Rule of Law, that the courts and Obama are going to knock out one too many and the Jenga House of their whole existence crumbles to the ground.

IE: the more Obama flouts the law, the more he weakens respect for it, the more HE WEAKENS RESPECT FOR HIS OWN AUTHORITY. There will come a point people stop obeying, stop paying their taxes…

The more the courts race out of control the more they invite the States and People to flip the Judiciary the bird and hurl dung at them on their “exalted” thrones.

ConstantineXI on April 7, 2014 at 9:09 PM

What I don’t like is for myself and other gays like me (and most gay commenters here at HotAir) to be lumped in with the loud and vocal gay idiots on a regular basis. Depending on the commenter, that sort of thing may or may not be intentional…but I always feel the need to address that issue when I see it.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM

These comments always confuse me. I am always compelled to ask then, what does it matter? What do you matter? Not in the human worth sense; but politically matter? To be sure, you are still one of the few from your community I read here that I can’t say I have no respect for. I’m sure you don’t believe that and it doesn’t matter, but I would never wish ill will on you and honestly hope for all the best for your life. If you look back and honestly remembered earlier discussions here on Hot Air, we once agreed on the issue of same-sex marriage. It was the identical view. You, Cindy Munford and I all discussed and agreed one evening that civil unions were a right for you and your partners. That it was fair and necessary for equal protection under the law. You and I used to have the identical opinion on same sex marriage. As I said the other day, I wasn’t my opinion that changed. But somehow, I and many like me became the bad guy even though your opinion was what changed. In one particular discussion, you just went through the revolution in your mind that anything short of calling it a marriage wouldn’t be acceptable.

I’ve tried to use the fact that you do indeed have very denominational beliefs that we as Protestants simply accept as Catholic sanctus, as my basic argument with you as a person of faith who advocates for SSM. As a fellow believer in Christ, I would never question your churches right to hold the distinction. The response is almost always, “Oh, there he goes again with the Communion.” And I think, yes … exactly … the Communion. A religious belief you regard dearly that I respect. But you will not respect the shared belief that our common Bible describes “marriage” as being between a man and a woman. I can’t make that point any other way and just marvel that you don’t see the distinction and irony as I do. Atheists, I get them. They dismiss the Bible. They dismiss the notion of Bible defined anything and they sure as heck don’t believe your faith turns wine to the literal blood of Christ before every Communion. It’s our shared beliefs that we now pick and choose what to regard seriously, that is the hard pill to swallow.

But when I say, what do you matter, it is in the sense of what is gained by trying to convince an entire political party to bend to the will of a minuscule minority of the smallest political voting block in this country. A group that is almost exclusively progressively oriented. The gay community participation in pro-choice demonstrations is probably the best example. That block will never be ours to even siphon a few votes from. And that’s fine. We are diametrically different in beliefs. But we as Conservatives are constantly being asked to either hold our beliefs to ourselves or outright change our beliefs in order to try to garner those very few votes of the very, very few. You admit in so many words you have little in common except your orientation with the gay community. It means I have even less in common with them. Why do I need to change anything to suit them? My silence is an affirmation in what they believe and what they strive to accomplish. That is not me. In fact, I am not the same person that I was in those first discussions of civil unions from so long ago. I, like many here, feel a bit foolish in that we were convinced we were supporting a reasonable position only to have goal posts constantly moved on us. And with trying to even identify where that new line was, any hesitation in compliance of opinion with some new metric or nuance in belief earned a speedy accusation of homophobia. These comments are not all about you. But even as gays on Hot Air say the more reasonable heterosexuals here are slow to correct invectives leveled at gays, I cannot remember one time when called a homophobe or worse, a gay commenter tell the person they was over the top. That is much like your silence in the larger sense.

Probably too much typed to say something very simple. But I didn’t get to this point easily and it’s not easily explained. But it is an undeniable fact there is little I support in the desires of your community anymore. Do any of us have a prayer of slowing down the movement? Not even a small chance. You are too rich, too engrained in the pop culture movement and too powerful. That and people are just afraid to have their lives ruined.

I don’t honestly think you do support this firing. You may oppose some other things as you say as well. I just think you rationalize your inaction.

hawkdriver on April 7, 2014 at 9:16 PM

How many gay pride parades have you been to?

As many as you, and I’ve seen more than that by report and through imagery. They aren’t festivals of family values, never have been, especially in the 80s and 90s.

I haven’t been to one since, they’re not really my style.

Nor mine. I wonder why that is. I’m not “proud” of being white, right-handed or given to fits of annoyance at people taking too long at Subway.

And for the record, even tho I’d surely look stunning in arseless chaps or anything else

I’m sure you would. Could and should, however.

AS far as I’m aware, churches haven’t been forced to perform or recognize gay marriage either…unless I miss one.

The point is that folks here don’t believe that you give a rat’s ass whether or not one actually is, or will be, forced.

Do you?

Given the years of reading your comments, I believe you do care. At the very least in a pro forma sense, perhaps more. Why else would you want to align yourself with this community? Why else would you be commenting in this thread?

spmat on April 7, 2014 at 9:16 PM

So what happens to “No shirt, no shoes, no service,”
at a “dining” location (on the beach)?

What if my “religion” frowns upon shoes?

More to the point, I think we need to differentiate between in-house service providers (like restaurants) and those that require services off-site at other locations.

Forcing a photography to come to ANY wedding to take photos for any reason is plain stupid and wrong.

If I stop you from entering my store because you are gay that is wrong.

But making me attend your gay wedding is just as wrong.

Even if I am invited as a professional photographer.

Sherman1864 on April 7, 2014 at 9:45 PM

so how long will it take before it becomes discriminatory to price products or services at levels that certain people can not afford?

smitty41 on April 7, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Welcome to Venezuela.

AesopFan on April 7, 2014 at 9:58 PM

The majority of gays probably do approve of Eich resigning. Not all gays tho, myself included. But what does that have to do with some raunchy, idiotic street fair? Do you think most gays approve of something like that?

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Approve of Eich resigning, or approve of him being FORCED to resign? They are two different things, and the distinction is not a small one.

These are things we warned you and your fellow SSM supporters were going to happen. You laughed at us and called it a slippery slope fallacy. It wasn’t a fallacy, now was it? I can’t help but believe you’re inwardly cheering this, all of this, despite your protestations that you aren’t. Then again, you’re lying to YOURSELF in many ways, in regard to what your religion, that you claim to follow, teaches about homosexuality, so you will never see the truth of this.

We are going to lose our religious freedom over this. Do you care, or don’t you? I suspect it’s the latter, but I also suspect that you don’t even know yourself. As long as you can continue to pat yourself on the back and tell yourself your sin is okay, you don’t much care about anything. It’s always “all about you.”

Doesn’t matter what JetBoy thinks or wants or believes. He wants to live his life and be left alone, like any other rational, decent person.

spmat on April 7, 2014 at 8:29 PM

I’m grateful to see a few homosexuals on this site, who DO want to be left alone to live their lives, and who can articulate their objections to this forcing of the APPROVAL of homosexuality on society at the expense of religious freedom. JetBoy isn’t one of them. He’s a poser.

JannyMae on April 7, 2014 at 10:17 PM

hawkdriver on April 7, 2014 at 9:16 PM

I do have to run for the night, but I will respond to this in the morning. So please check back here then. Just want you to know I’ve read it.

Cheers,

JB

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 10:41 PM

Male “marriage” discriminates against women and female “marriage” discriminates against men. Elane Photography can argue that they didn’t want to discriminate against sex in the public institution of marriage. No business should be forced to discriminate against gender in marriage.

Support pro-gender marriage. Because gender matters to everyone, including gays and their children and their grandchildren…

MominVermont on April 7, 2014 at 10:44 PM

I guess I’m not done venting. The last thing I expected was for the Supreme Court to decide that there was NO question worth their time in the Elane case.

And with that this court has all but destroyed conservatism in the sense that conservatism means the right to say no or to set limits. They have made it settled law that individual citizens and their representatives have no right to say no to anything that another individual or the government wants to do. All that is needed is the argument that some party or another must do something or must have something and any restrictions or limit on that demand are ruled unlawful. The right of anyone to resist or opt out must now always take a back seat to the right of others to compel.

Many people have seen this day coming for quite a while. The liberal/progressives have been teaching the lion share or our judges and lawyers for more than a century now. They have monopolized the law schools. They have written all the textbooks. Now their students dominate our institutions. But what is shocking is how quickly it came. In the blink of an eye it’s over. I thought that we still had time to slow or reverse the project. But it’s their world now and we only have such rights as they decide to give to us. We have no natural rights left. No rights anymore which are inalienable. We are now wholly dependent on whatever wind is blowing. The only rule now is if someone wants it then they get it and everyone else better get used to it.

There is just one case left to clear up. I think the Court took the Hobby Lobby case just to go through the proper motions. They couldn’t just reject the religious freedom argument out of hand so they allowed the case to go forward for show. After that we had better get on with burning the Constitution and replacing it with the phrase “Anything goes as long as you have a good lawyer”

Texene on April 7, 2014 at 10:53 PM

Companies discriminating against individuals (even CEOs) for privately being against same-sex marriage: good.
Individuals discriminating against events that directly support same-sex marriage: bad.

I’m in Canada, and I can live with same-sex marriages being a reality; but it’s the plain double standard on display that is so offensive.

LancerDL on April 7, 2014 at 11:12 PM

The majority of gays probably do approve of Eich resigning. Not all gays tho, myself included. But what does that have to do with some raunchy, idiotic street fair? Do you think most gays approve of something like that?

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 7:24 PM

No, I don’t think the majority would be caught dead at such a thing. But I did think that perhaps the majority approved of the ousting of Eich.

Unfortunately, you think they probably do, too. I was hoping you’d think they didn’t.

Personally, I’m much less upset by those street fairs (which is to say, not at all) than I am about the dangerous and horrible things indicated by the Eich affair.

Alana on April 7, 2014 at 11:12 PM

And to Dave, much earlier, who asked what they get out of it: I asked a gay friend of mine (a receiver) and he said it had to do with the prostate gland. I don’t know, but I would guess for the other half, maybe the tightness?

Alana on April 7, 2014 at 11:23 PM

I’m an atheist, but if America can only be saved by forcing people of [Christian*] faith to change and submit to the beliefs (or lack thereof) of others, then it isn’t worth saving.

Whatever is saved won’t be America.

Besides, I am pretty sure that Christians are more concerned with their souls and the afterlife than they are with whether kowtowing will ‘save America.’

Resist We Much on April 7, 2014 at 4:12 PM

America is a practice, not a principle. (TM)

*My amendment (from the context) and footnote, because this is why the issue of Islamic Law in Western nations is a sticky wicket. Muslims claim that they are being “suppressed” if they can’t practice their full shari’a, but the “civil” parts of that law code are inseparable from the “religious” parts, and the whole contains elements completely antithetic to the American principles of freedom and democracy, which is not true of Christianity as a dogma.

So, paradoxically, America can only be saved by forcing people of [Islamic] faith to change and submit to the beliefs (or lack thereof) of others if their influence on law and society looks like it will become sufficiently large to pose a threat to the other influential factions (Christians or otherwise, Conservative or Leftist).
(I was going to write “numbers”, but the influence of the LGBT activists is vastly greater than their actual number, and the same is currently true for Muslims in the West.)

However, if the LGTBs thinks Muslims will be the easy marks Christians have been, they will be sorely disabused of that notion.

AesopFan on April 7, 2014 at 11:43 PM

Anyway, JetBoy, weren’t you one of those who were saying a year or so ago that these things weren’t going to happen? That it was all anti-SSM or homophobic fearmongering? “Pffffft, no church is ever going to be forced to….no photographer or caterer will ever be forced to blahblahblah…” And here we are.

ddrintn on April 7, 2014 at 7:54 PM

What things weren’t going to happen? Gay marriage doesn’t cause lawsuits…that would happen if some photog or baker declined any same-sex couple for a commitment ceremony or a civil union.

But it didn’t. It happened due to SSM. Saying that gay marriage doesn’t cause lawsuits is technically accurate, but completely irrelevant.

And I’ve always said the gay couples who sue for that kind of nonsense should move on, and find someone else to bake or take pics.

So why don’t they? Maybe you should listen to the people who told you that same sex marriage is all about using government force against people. That’s why they’re trying to get the government to redefine marriage in the first place. Only government has a monopoly on force.

Heck, I’m still waiting for the predicted mass exodus of heterosexuals from the US military, and how it would become a third-rate fighting force.

Sexual assaults in the military have skyrocketed for some strange reason since the repeal of DADT. Most of the victims of sexual assault are men, even though almost every assault is performed by a man. Now, you would think that 3% of the population would not be performing over half of the sexual assaults, but there it is.

Chaplains are already being told that they are not to speak against homosexuality in the military because it is contrary to what is now considered good order and respect for military members. And they are told if they have a problem following that, then they should ask their ‘endorsing organizations’ — i.e. churches — to withdraw their endorsements so the chaplains can resign.

You’re not going to see a ‘mass exodus’ because people sign up for set terms of enlistment. This necessarily means their exits will be staggered as they reach the ends of their enlistment terms.

But what we are seeing already confirms that the military is being harmed by the DADT repeal.

And the experience of chaplains in the military confirms that our government puts rules about ‘discrimination’ above the freedom of religion that is actually guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

And I do not use the term “homophobic” very often or very lightly. AS far as I’m aware, churches haven’t been forced to perform or recognize gay marriage either…unless I miss one.

That will come later. But Catholic organizations have already been forced to stop helping to offer adoptions unless they help place children in homosexual households. A Methodist church was already punished for refusing to rent a pavilion to a couple of gays who wanted a marriage ceremony.

Yes, a church. But their loss of religious freedom was justified by the claim that renting the pavilion was ‘in the public sphere’ rather than a core mission of their church.

And that’s exactly how it will start. Churches having church services will probably be left alone, at least for a while. But any church ministry that involves interaction with the public — which is virtually the definition of ministry — will be considered to fall under every other non-discrimination law that applies to any business, and the fact that it’s a church will make zero difference.

I don’t believe I said no photog/baker etc would be forced to render services, either. Moronic lawsuits like the baker/photog are going to happen regardless, just like the seemingly endless dopey litigation all over the spectrum.

You can’t dismiss those as ‘just more wacky lawsuits.’ The whole point of pushing the SSM issue is to enable exactly these kinds of lawsuits. After all, if the government has declared that two men are legally married, then it must be discrimination for anyone to not accept that, right?

Although it really doesn’t even matter whether churches are directly forced or not — although that is very obviously coming.

The fact of the matter is this: the freedom of religion is no more given to churches than the freedom of speech is given to newspapers. Everyone has an individual right to the free exercise of religion. To force Hobby Lobby to provide abortifacients is violating their freedom of religion just as much as if they were a church.

A photographer has the right to refuse to take pictures at a wedding, whether the photographer is an individual, or a pastor of a church, or the owner of a business.

btw, how many similar lawsuits have been successful concerning the same thing? I really don’t know, but am curious. Also, I did say a business in the public business arena isn’t a church or a religion, or operating under authority of any particular faith.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s a church or a religion or an individual artist or a business. The Constitutional rights are the same.

But again, the lawsuits brought up against these businesses are pathetic wastes of time.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 8:40 PM

A waste of time? They’re the point of the exercise: to punish ‘bigots’ who don’t accept homosexuality, or who refuse to accept that homosexuality is equivalent to normal sexuality.

Since they’re accomplishing exactly what they hoped for, they could hardly be called ‘a waste of time.’

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 8, 2014 at 1:58 AM

so in otherwords, don’t tell the customer you don’t agree with what they’re doing, do the event and give them a crappy product.

so it’s a lose-lose situation. smart…

jetch on April 7, 2014 at 5:24 PM

Keep your calendar booked with “other” work and happily send the customers you don’t want elsewhere.

dogsoldier on April 8, 2014 at 5:11 AM

It’s pretty obvious that the rights of homosexuals outweigh the rights of Christians now. So sad to say that but it’s true.

sadsushi on April 7, 2014 at 7:23 PM

They did not argue their case on the basis of religious objection. They need to do that, AND have other things to do on any possible day they will be working. Get a day timer and fill it out for the whole year. Get a five year and fill it out.

Like Saturday all day Audubon nature reserve photography. Hoping to photograph pine siskins. Or something along those lines. If you’re a baker.

And then keep your mouth shut, or the Gaystapo will come after you. Welcome to 1929.

dogsoldier on April 8, 2014 at 5:21 AM

Sorry I never finished the line started “If you’re a baker.” Need more coffee.

dogsoldier on April 8, 2014 at 5:22 AM

So basically the SCOTUS has just endorsed slavery. Because that is what it really is.

bgibbs1000 on April 8, 2014 at 6:56 AM

If the govt can make you buy something and it’s called a tax, then they can also make you provide/sell a service. Now would that be called fascism or slavery?

Kissmygrits on April 8, 2014 at 9:05 AM

So basically the SCOTUS has just endorsed slavery. Because that is what it really is.

bgibbs1000 on April 8, 2014 at 6:56 AM

With sodomites as the slave-owners.

David Blue on April 8, 2014 at 9:26 AM

It boils down to this. As a photographer shooting an event how can I provide my best artistic effort when it involves having to shoot two men kissing?
The act disgusts me and it would show in my work. Why would they want me to shoot their wedding??

FireBlogger on April 8, 2014 at 10:54 AM

With sodomites as the slave-owners.

David Blue on April 8, 2014 at 9:26 AM

You make it sound like gays are bad people. They’re nice people. Our indentured servitude will be a nice thing.

Axeman on April 8, 2014 at 11:19 AM

As I’ve said repeatedly, the militant gays on the liberal Left tick me off HUGE, more than they tick you off, believe me. What I don’t like is for myself and other gays like me (and most gay commenters here at HotAir) to be lumped in with the loud and vocal gay idiots on a regular basis. Depending on the commenter, that sort of thing may or may not be intentional…but I always feel the need to address that issue when I see it.

JetBoy on April 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM

That’s odd.

Not a single commenter here has ever lumped ME in with the loud and vocal gay idiots.

Probably because I spend my time attacking the loud and vocal gay idiots instead of screaming at Christians and conservatives.

That is because the fundamental argument of the so-called “gay rights” movement is that government grants rights — and it does so at the expense of every single one of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights that are explicitly stated to be beyond government intervention or manipulation.

The lunacy of the gay-sex marriage movement is shown in its argument that gay-sex marriage is ordered by the Constitution when gay-sex marriage supporters overwhelmingly don’t believe firearms ownership, freedom of speech, or public profession of religious belief have any Constitutional basis.

Furthermore, since gay-sex marriage organizations wantonly break the law, as we saw from the release of the NOM donor list, what that makes clear is that gay-sex marriage supporters are nothing but amoral criminals and liars who will do and say anything to get what they want, regardless of how illegal it is.

northdallasthirty on April 8, 2014 at 11:24 AM

To force Hobby Lobby to provide abortifacients is violating their freedom of religion just as much as if they were a church.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 8, 2014 at 1:58 AMM

But there’s still that the other sides arguments are so stupid thing going on.

They say that if Hobby Lobby provides what is partially mandated they are “making choices” for your health care. People have “argued” that health insurance is part of compensation, and as they direct part of that compensation they are making “religious decisions” for their employees.

But hold on. Nobody is saying that HL can’t only offer the bronze plan. If your smaller deductible was “compensation” in a silver plan. How can they take that “compensation” away from you? How can they direct their employees, you will pay $5,000 more out of pocket this year. Doesn’t that sound worse than saying I’m not going to pay for your abortifacients?

In addition, as one of the judges offered, HL could just pay the mandate and dump their employees. So not only could they refuse this “compensation”, but they could then burden their employees to pya it all out of their own pockets–whatever the savings in risk pooling Obamacare may ever see–there can’t be enough savings to go from a high quality plan that the company mostly pays for and a plan you have to pay for on your own–or perhaps they’ll just have to pay for the privilege of having NO plan!

It’s clear that as “compensation”, you can consider medical benefits more in a category of “employer-directed” compensation. Or benefits.

But we have sophist lawyers these days hoping to get away with any torturous logic that they can so they can “win” and create precedent.

This same type of inversion is being tried in this case where some group of sophists counter that Elaine by not shooting the wedding for specific reasons would be hijacking the the day for her statement. Her statement would be ALL over those pictures she didn’t take!!! And how can you blame the “happy couple” having it shoved in their faces with a daily reminder of the pictures Elaine didn’t take and they didn’t buy because she didn’t take them.

See, I’m supposed to be the guy who has to be instructed by wise atheists on the logical implications of negations, because atheism is simply a lack of a condition of belief. Why is it that secularists are having such a hard time understanding what a lack of something is?

Axeman on April 8, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Is freedom of religion dead in America?

It sends shivers down my spine.

Who will protect churches?

Of course this does continue to prove the prophecies about the last days. Very eerily so. The sins of the last days will be like the sins of Sodom. Check out Isaiah.

This will only get worse. Then for many of us it will get better again.

petunia on April 8, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Axeman on April 8, 2014 at 11:38 AM

And yet atheists proselytize. Funny that. Proselytizing the lack of something.

I saw them proselytizing this very week-end, I attended the LDS General conference in Salt Lake on Saturday… and it was protested by “friendly atheists”

If a “lack of something” compels you to spend a Saturday holding a sign… an yelling at people going to Church, maybe there is something else going on.

petunia on April 8, 2014 at 11:46 AM

And yet atheists proselytize. Funny that. Proselytizing the lack of something.

I saw them proselytizing this very week-end, I attended the LDS General conference in Salt Lake on Saturday… and it was protested by “friendly atheists”

If a “lack of something” compels you to spend a Saturday holding a sign… an yelling at people going to Church, maybe there is something else going on.

petunia on April 8, 2014 at 11:46 AM

That? That’s clean-brain soap. With a brand new shiny brain, you’ll think tons better!!

You clean your colon, why not clean your brain?!

[This does not comprise a claim.]

Axeman on April 8, 2014 at 11:59 AM

hawkdriver on April 7, 2014 at 9:16 PM

OK, here we go. But before I begin, I have to say that’s quite a dramatic change of tone from the normal comments you leave for me. In all honesty it threw me for a loop. My initial thought is to refute some of your personal statements there, but I digress for now, and will merely address the points you brought up. If we can bury the hatchet and move forward with a new-found civility and mutual respect towards each other, I’m perfectly fine with that. And for the record, I’m certainly not suggesting that I’ve always acted civil…I haven’t.

Moving on:

These comments always confuse me. I am always compelled to ask then, what does it matter? What do you matter? Not in the human worth sense; but politically matter? To be sure, you are still one of the few from your community I read here that I can’t say I have no respect for. I’m sure you don’t believe that and it doesn’t matter, but I would never wish ill will on you and honestly hope for all the best for your life.

I matter because I vote. I matter because I get involved in the political process. That’s pretty much the bottom line, and could apply to most of us here.

Let me reiterate as well…I’ve never liked the term “gay community”. There’s really no such thing, and it’s far too broad a notion. I’ve always found the meaning of the rainbow flag to be very hypocritical…the different colors are supposed to represent the diversity of the “gay community”. Of course, it’s far more about conforming to the liberal Left philosophy, and all others GTFO.

If you look back and honestly remembered earlier discussions here on Hot Air, we once agreed on the issue of same-sex marriage. It was the identical view. You, Cindy Munford and I all discussed and agreed one evening that civil unions were a right for you and your partners. That it was fair and necessary for equal protection under the law. You and I used to have the identical opinion on same sex marriage. As I said the other day, I wasn’t my opinion that changed. But somehow, I and many like me became the bad guy even though your opinion was what changed. In one particular discussion, you just went through the revolution in your mind that anything short of calling it a marriage wouldn’t be acceptable.

As far as I can recall, my position on civil unions vs. SSM hasn’t changed. I’m still fine with civil unions, as long as they include the same rights and benefits that comes with marriage…including full faith and credit across the country. And I’m fine with the idea that the state gets out of the marriage business altogether, leaving marriage to religion.

Now, I have brought up that it sounds like “separate but equal” to name it something other than marriage. But really, that’s not the most important thing about this debate. I guess what bothers me about it is my perception of many of those who want to deny same-sex couples the word “marriage” do so because gays will sully the term…while plenty of heterosexuals are damaging the institution of marriage every single day. Again, that’s merely a side issue to the debate.

I’ve tried to use the fact that you do indeed have very denominational beliefs that we as Protestants simply accept as Catholic sanctus, as my basic argument with you as a person of faith who advocates for SSM. As a fellow believer in Christ, I would never question your churches right to hold the distinction. The response is almost always, “Oh, there he goes again with the Communion.” And I think, yes … exactly … the Communion. A religious belief you regard dearly that I respect. But you will not respect the shared belief that our common Bible describes “marriage” as being between a man and a woman. I can’t make that point any other way and just marvel that you don’t see the distinction and irony as I do. Atheists, I get them. They dismiss the Bible. They dismiss the notion of Bible defined anything and they sure as heck don’t believe your faith turns wine to the literal blood of Christ before every Communion. It’s our shared beliefs that we now pick and choose what to regard seriously, that is the hard pill to swallow.

Again, although I take some issue with some of the things you say there, I’m going to focus on your points. The whole “Catholic vs. Protestant” thing is a moot point in this. When it comes to SSM, I have always been consistent: Gay marriage under the secular state, all religions are exempt from recognizing or performing SSM. Period. Etch it in stone.

But when I say, what do you matter, it is in the sense of what is gained by trying to convince an entire political party to bend to the will of a minuscule minority of the smallest political voting block in this country. A group that is almost exclusively progressively oriented. The gay community participation in pro-choice demonstrations is probably the best example. That block will never be ours to even siphon a few votes from. And that’s fine. We are diametrically different in beliefs. But we as Conservatives are constantly being asked to either hold our beliefs to ourselves or outright change our beliefs in order to try to garner those very few votes of the very, very few.

Again, there’s the term “gay community”…which really is the “Leftist liberal militant gay community” to be more accurate. And sure, most gays are “progressives” and liberal. Believe me, when it comes to my conservative viewpoint, they hear it from me. The most vile and hateful names I’ve ever been called come from them, and not conservatives or Christians.

I’m not asking anyone to change their religious convictions. I don’t believe any church should have to change anything in regards to SSM or anything else. Many gays don’t much care about the religious…I’m not one of them, and it’s not all gays either. As for the percentage of people who are gay, it’s extremely difficult to get anything close to an accurate count. I’ve seen everything from 1% to 30%…both of which I consider patently ridiculous. Going by nothing more than my own personal experiences and “best guess”…I would say gays comprise 8%-10%. But again, that’s simply my own opinion.

You admit in so many words you have little in common except your orientation with the gay community. It means I have even less in common with them. Why do I need to change anything to suit them? My silence is an affirmation in what they believe and what they strive to accomplish. That is not me. In fact, I am not the same person that I was in those first discussions of civil unions from so long ago. I, like many here, feel a bit foolish in that we were convinced we were supporting a reasonable position only to have goal posts constantly moved on us.

Honest question: What do you believe you have to change when it comes to gay marriage? I really don’t get it. Gay marriage is legal in a few states…has that adversely affected you in any tangible way?

And with trying to even identify where that new line was, any hesitation in compliance of opinion with some new metric or nuance in belief earned a speedy accusation of homophobia. These comments are not all about you.

I realize that not all negative comments about gays intentionally include me or any of the other conservative gays here at HotAir. I tend to look at the commenter and their past history in making that judgement call. I don’t think I need to mention any names…you surely know of whom I speak. When I confront generalizations, it’s because it really bothers me.

But even as gays on Hot Air say the more reasonable heterosexuals here are slow to correct invectives leveled at gays, I cannot remember one time when called a homophobe or worse, a gay commenter tell the person they was over the top. That is much like your silence in the larger sense.

No one can reply to every single comment. I absolutely have disagreed with both gay and liberal commenters here, and made my opinions known. Many, many times. If you like, when I have more time I will search out as many instances proving this that I can find. Just because I or anyone else doesn’t reply to every instance, doesn’t in any way mean I or we approve. There are certain commenters I consider angry and hateful trolls, and I try my best to simply ignore them. Again, that doesn’t mean by ignoring them that I approve of what they say…it’s quite the opposite. And for sure I’ve seen some real gems levied at gays here and there, where nobody spoke out about them. But that alone doesn’t mean everyone approves of that either.

Probably too much typed to say something very simple. But I didn’t get to this point easily and it’s not easily explained. But it is an undeniable fact there is little I support in the desires of your community anymore. Do any of us have a prayer of slowing down the movement? Not even a small chance. You are too rich, too engrained in the pop culture movement and too powerful. That and people are just afraid to have their lives ruined.

The rabid militant gays certainly do wield some power. Their wrath on you is bad enough…their abject hatred of gays like me is even more vile. I really have to get someone to video me arguing politics with a Leftist gay(s) so you can see for yourself what I deal with. Remember, there are good reasons I don’t do pride parades or anything else like them.

I don’t honestly think you do support this firing. You may oppose some other things as you say as well. I just think you rationalize your inaction.

Well, Eich resigned…but as I said from day one, I have no doubt the powers that be at Mozilla pushed it. And no…I absolutely don’t support his being asked to leave.

And you really don’t have any clue as to my actions or inactions in all this. You know me purely by my comments here at HotAir. And I know you the same limited way. I am in no way “inactive” in fighting the liberal Leftist gays.

I agree with the ol’ saying: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

Cheers. Sorry for the lateness in replying…atm I don’t have the time to really sit and concentrate on a more detailed level. But I hope it clears up things a little.

JB

JetBoy on April 8, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Not a single commenter here has ever lumped ME in with the loud and vocal gay idiots.

northdallasthirty on April 8, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Probably because you’re such an immense loud and vocal gay idiot, you stand out from the crowd all on your own.

JetBoy on April 8, 2014 at 12:02 PM

And yet atheists proselytize. Funny that. Proselytizing the lack of something.

petunia on April 8, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Oh, and they’re probably just trying to get you to take up not collecting stamps.

You know, that’s something, though. I was told that I “didn’t get atheism” (perhaps I was not precisely understanding my state of lack?) because I admitted that I proselytized during my period where I lacked a belief in God or gods. It’s also been accused that I was a mystic , and despite lacking a faith in God or gods, I held that things were unknown and perhaps unknowable.

It’s pretty clear I didn’t scrub my brain hard enough, though.

Axeman on April 8, 2014 at 12:15 PM

On the other hand, wedding photographers can easily refuse whoever they want by simply telling them that they are overbooked or anything along that line…I have a friend who’s a pro photographer (and e very good one at it), incidentally he doesn’t feel comfortable with doing gay weddings either or gay pre-wedding photo shoots, he says that he simply does not feel inspired by them (he’s more of an artist than just your average photo shooter), so he doesn’t do such events, and usually tells them that he’s busy, or overworked, ot needs time off, etc…funny thing, he told me that he doesn’t like some of the straight couples who come and ask him to photograph/videograph their wedding either, as in he doesn’t get a good vibe from their interactions, and since for him it’s important to be inspired when he does the photo shoots (he thinks of it more like a form of art), he refuses them from the start by using excuses such as he’s overbooked during X interval, or or that he does a destination wedding and he would be travelling at that particular time etc. There are many ways to refuse to do photo work for whatever couples, ghey or not, you don’t need to tell them the real reason why you don’t want to do it.

jimver on April 8, 2014 at 5:11 PM

JetBoy on April 8, 2014 at 12:00 PM

JB, the impetus behind the SSM movement is the eradication of Christianity.

When that happens, do you think that a group of less than 3% (probably less than 1%) voters will matter? Compared to the Christian voting block the homosexual lobby is insignificant.

Look at all the totalitarian governments. How do they treat homosexuals?

Here it will be, They first came for the Christians … .

davidk on April 8, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Christian business owners do not want to lie or do shoddy work.

davidk on April 8, 2014 at 6:43 PM

JB, the impetus behind the SSM movement is the eradication of Christianity.

No matter how many times I hear that, it’s still hilarious.

There are certainly gays who don’t care for Christians…and Christians who don’t care for gays. I personally haven’t met any gays that support eradicating Christianity…but I have met a few self-described Christians who believe teh ghey can be eradicated.

When that happens, do you think that a group of less than 3% (probably less than 1%) voters will matter? Compared to the Christian voting block the homosexual lobby is insignificant.

So, by your own number, less than 1% of the population is somehow capable of tearing down Christianity. I was not aware of the immense powers that come with teh ghey.

Look at all the totalitarian governments. How do they treat homosexuals?

Probably the same way you’d want to see gays treated here. Heck, as recent as the early 1970′s…in NYC…gays were being arrested for simply gathering in a bar…which was illegal. Look up Stonewall Riots.

Here it will be, They first came for the Christians … .

davidk on April 8, 2014 at 6:41 PM

First they came for the gays…

See, I can do that too.

JetBoy on April 8, 2014 at 7:58 PM

JB, the impetus behind the SSM movement is the eradication of Christianity.

When that happens, do you think that a group of less than 3% (probably less than 1%) voters will matter? Compared to the Christian voting block the homosexual lobby is insignificant.

Look at all the totalitarian governments. How do they treat homosexuals?

Here it will be, They first came for the Christians … .

davidk on April 8, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Wow.

mazer9 on April 9, 2014 at 10:12 AM

JetBoy,

I was going to reprint one of Hawkdriver’s posts to you because it is so well written and continued the tone for the exchange between the two of you which prompted me to respond, but there are several great posts between the two of you and I would simply encourage anyone who missed it to go back and read them.

You have my profound respect for your thoughtful and high level dialogue with him. The discussion between you on this thread, on this topic, could serve as a how-to for internet posters on all political forums. You both touched this old lady’s heart with your sincerity. Thank you for adding immeasurably to the quality of Hot Air!

Two more quick points. I’m glad you reminded us that there really is no gay “community” as such though it may seem so to outsiders. To non Christians an Evangelical is a Catholic is an Episcopalian and we know that’s way off target! And I didn’t realize that you would take so much nasty criticism from this group either. I’m guessing that Liberals of all stripes tend to get pissy when you stray from the fold at all, huh?

And last but not least, everybody gets it that AKZED is in deep denial right?

Again, kudos man for your dedication to civility.

Nana on April 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM

OK, here we go. But before I begin, I have to say that’s quite a dramatic change of tone from the normal comments you leave for me.

You know what? I stopped here. My tone?

Forget it.

hawkdriver on April 9, 2014 at 4:43 PM

I mean, literally stopped.

hawkdriver on April 9, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Insidious Queers training to destroy America’s churches from the inside.

http://www.reformationproject.org/about

Churches better have an answer for this, because the sodomites goal is scorched earth.

Murphy9 on April 9, 2014 at 5:03 PM

First they came for the gays…

See, I can do that too.

JetBoy on April 8, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Yeah, right. It wasn’t a gay CEO who was forced out. That would’ve resulted in the complainers facing several hate-crime charges, probably.

ddrintn on April 10, 2014 at 9:27 AM

JB, the impetus behind the SSM movement is the eradication of Christianity.

No matter how many times I hear that, it’s still hilarious.

There are certainly gays who don’t care for Christians…and Christians who don’t care for gays. I personally haven’t met any gays that support eradicating Christianity…but I have met a few self-described Christians who believe teh ghey can be eradicated.

JetBoy on April 8, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Well, not specifically Christianity, maybe, but certainly the eradication of any and all opposition. Christianity is just the most prominent at the moment, and unlike Islam its adherents aren’t going around bombing and chopping off heads or stoning or otherwise executing homosexuals. The SSM movement is really only about forced approbation. That is what it has been about all along. There will be no “peace” as long as there is any sizable group saying or even daring to think that homosexuality is “wrong” and “immoral” and runs counter to their religious beliefs.

ddrintn on April 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3