It's Our Own Damn Fault

When the Supreme Court made their ruling on gay marriage, those of us who spoke out against the Court even taking the case - let alone our disagreement with the actual ruling - warned that this type of thing would come.

We said that it wasn't going to stop with owners of private companies being forced to go against their religious beliefs.

We raised the alarm and predicted purely religious organizations would be targeted and smeared for not bowing down to a micro-minority but very vocal subset of society.

"You're crazy!" we were told.

"Homophobes!" we were called.

"Bigots! You just don't want equal rights!" they exclaimed.

We were ridiculed, belittled, excoriated by the Left for raising that alarm. Yet here we are, watching it happen exactly as we said it would.

Religious liberty is enumerated as our very FIRST Right in the Bill of Rights.  It comes before free speech, the right to bear arms, petition the government.

All of them come after the right to practice your religion as you see fit, provided that practice doesn't infringe on another's rights in any way.

The Founders held this right as sacrosanct, perhaps inviolable even, which is understandable given the tyranny they had just fought a long war to be rid of.

What makes this all the worse is that the Georgia law - and here's the really important part - only protected overtly religious organizations, like churches and charities. It had nothing whatsoever to do with private companies or individuals. The scope was limited, targeted for just that reason.

In this day and age, immorality is becoming increasingly acceptable to wider and wider swathes of people who don't seem to care what problems they cause for future generations as long as they get what they want RIGHT NOW and to Hell with anyone else.

I no longer recognize the America I once knew - the America where people had the freedom to do what they wanted, act how they wanted, be who they wanted to be regardless what society wanted and within the framework of the Rule of Law.

The age of the individual is over. The Rule of Law has ended. This "Great Experiment" in self-governance is dying a slow, painful, ignominious death and it's our own damn fault.

The lessons learned by, and from, the Founders have been all but forgotten and for that we should all be ashamed. ~ Hunter

We Won This Round...

Just over $842,000 was raised in a GoFundMe campaign for Memories Pizza in Indiana.

The campaign was started to help the owners offset their losses after a local reporterette asked a HYPOTHETICAL question about catering a gay wedding and the owners started getting death threats, as well as at least one threat of arson and the pizzeria was forced to shut down, at least temporarily. All this from the ever-tolerant Left.

The answer to the hypothetical question was a resounding NO, they would not cater a gay wedding based on their religious beliefs. As the pizzeria has many prominent displays of Christianity in the store, the answer shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.

They never said they didn't welcome or serve gay people in the actual restaurant. In fact, the woman went out of her way to say that they are indeed welcome to eat at the place.

With all the hubbub surrounding Indiana's now-gutted version of the R.F.R.A., and the cries of bigotry aimed at Christians who choose to stand on their religious principles, what's being lost is one very simple truth: there is a world of difference between providing a couple of slices of pizza (or a regular cake, or a photograph) to a gay person who walks into your establishment and contracting to cater, or bake for, or photograph a gay wedding. The former is mostly random, uncontrollable; the latter is not.

To accept and fulfil a contract to provide services for a wedding requires forethought and planning, and not something one does DURING THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. The other IS the normal course of business.

The Declaration of Independence, the document that paved the way for the creation of the greatest nation in history clearly states that man is endowed by our Creator with "certain unalienable rights." The Bill of Rights enumerates those rights.

The very first part of the very first amendment speaks of freedom of religion and the freedom to practice said religion. By definition, part of that religious exercise is the right to NOT participate in something - a gay wedding, for example - that is believed to be against the religion being exercised.

For the government to step in and FORCE a baker, photographer, or a caterer to provide their services for an event that's against the provider's religious beliefs violates the right to freely exercise their religion. What providing that service amounts to a tacit endorsement of that event.

The Left, while clamoring for supposed "equal rights," willfully and deliberately uses misdirection and misinformation to bully people into compliance with their worldview. An example of this is the number of people branding those who donated to the GoFundMe campaign "bigots" and "homophobes," completely overlooking the gay men and women WHO DONATED TO THE CAUSE.

Why is the Left so surprised when people have opinions differing from their collective opinion? Are we all supposed to walk in lockstep with one another? Are we not all capable of independent thought? Of making our own decisions based upon our own beliefs?

This utopia, this "perfect society" the Left seeks - where everyone thinks the same thoughts, eats the same food, drives the same cars - will NEVER exist. There are too many NATURAL variations in and amongst mankind for that to be possible, let alone man's natural inclination to be free, to decide for ourselves what's best for us.

There is definitely a growing support for gay marriage in this country, right or wrong. The Left, however, mistakes SUPPORT of gay marriage for ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in gay marriage. Forcing a business owner into providing services IS forcing an active participation.

And that's just plain wrong. ~ Hunter

It's Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion

I first wrote about the First Amendment a couple of years ago. I detailed how the phrase "separation of Church and State" not only does not exist anywhere in our founding documents, but was taken - out of context and not even quoted correctly - from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Baptist ministers in an attempt to alleviate their fears that the United States government was going to select an "official religion."

 

Given the recent signing into law of a bill in Indiana that, for all intents and purposes, simply says that the government of Indiana will not force a business owner to provide services to an event that conflicts with their religious beliefs, it bears repeating, as some people just don't get it.

 

Everyone walking this planet "discriminates" every day. It's a fact of life.

 

You spend your money at one store over another; you eat at McDonald's over Burger King, you drink beer "A" over beer "B." You use Exxon gas rather than BP. I could go on and on and on, but I hope you get the idea.

 

If you patronize a white-owned business rather than a similar but black-owned business, does that make you a racist? No...

 

If you go to a regular bar and not the local gay bar, does that make you a homophobe? No...

 

As far as I know, not a single case of this so-called discrimination has been an outright refusal of all goods and services to gay people. They've just been refusal to provide goods and services for things that the business owner disagrees with for religious reasons, AS IS THEIR RIGHT under the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment.

 

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, nor was the First Amendment meant to protect government from religion. It's purpose was to protect religion from government, which is what this law was designed to remind you about...

 

But Hunter, wouldn't the ability to "discriminate" based on religious beliefs be forcing someone to participate in your religion? That would only be true if I could force you to spend your money at my business - which I can't do.

 

Let's turn that question around, though. Wouldn't that work the other way? How can freedom of religion (and the free exercise thereof) be considered a freedom if I'm forced to violate my religious beliefs?

 

Nobody is forced to practice any religion in this country. I can't force you to convert to Catholicism, and neither can the government, which is the primary reason for establishment clause of the First Amendment - to keep the government from endorsing or establishing an "official" religion.

 

What it doesn't do is give you the right to prevent me from practicing my religion in every aspect of my life. Your rights end where mine begin, and my rights are just as inviolable as yours.

It is interesting to note, however, that most of the liberals protesting this law remain absolutely silent on muslims throwing gay people off of buildings, beheading them, stoning them, etc.

Let's not mention good ole Hitlery Clintoon tweeting about the law (apparently not noticing the irony in protesting a law that's modeled after the law her husband signed into law at the federal level in 1993).

 

By the way, a person is free to not participate in my religious beliefs by - and here's the important part - doing business somewhere else.

 

See? FREEDOM... ~ Hunter

Guest Post: Anonymous Military Man (And Christian) Reacts To Obama's Natiional Prayer Breakfast Speech....And NAILS IT,,,

A friend, who shall remain anonymous, posted this on his Facebook page, but was ordered to take it down as he is still active duty military and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which makes it essentially illegal to criticize the President of the United States). I think it's brilliant, and deserved to be shared (and since I'm no longer subject to the UCMJ, I can and WILL post it). ~ Hunter

Yesterday, Christianity was attacked by the president of the United States. He falsely accused Christ as the very reason for slavery. He falsely accused the Crusaders (who were liberators) of killing in the name of God. He did this at the National Prayer Breakfast. On a day when multiple religions come together and try to figure out how to come together for a better America. This is not me speaking against my Commander in Chief, this is me speaking against the liberal agenda to demonize Christians and dilute factual history.
 
Martin Luther King was a pastor. The civil rights movement was all based around rights given to man, from God. That all men were created equal in the eyes of God. Slavery has been around for thousands of years and was (is still) in many religions, a normal act. Clearly, America moved forward and equal rights were bestowed (a very dark history in our country that thankfully, came to an end).

There are still many countries where slavery is alive and well. Islam enslaves women still to this day. Children are married to men and raped, all in the name of "Allah". They are sex slaves, and simple slaves of muslim men. The are discarded as meat, and are treated less than dogs, by a culture that sees dogs as unclean animals. As muslims (then under the Ottoman Empire) moved across lands beheading Christians and Jews, the Crusaders came to the rescue and liberated lands from Islam. This is fact.

A clan named "The Kuhners" stopped them in modern day Croatia in a battle that lasted centuries. Again, this is fact.
 
I feel sorry for any man who can stand on a stage (just one day after islam burned a man alive, and is now killing Imams that condemned the burning of a muslim man) and blame christ for deaths that happened more than a thousand years ago. He stood on that stage like a college liberal professor and spun history to meet his agenda. Essentially, he called the Catholic Church (Who ordered the crusades) "Al Qaeda" and "ISIS". 1000 years ago, the sharp end of a sword was the only negotiation piece with murderers. Christianity moved on from murder, Islam has never evolved one minute.
 
Again, I'm not bashing the CiC, I'm upset with his view on my religion. I'm exercising my god given right of freedom of speech, protected by the Constitution of the United States of America to prove a man wrong. This has nothing to do with military order. I would openly debate him on religion, even though I'm ordered to follow his military command.