Bacon as a Hate Crime

LAS VEGAS (AP) — The FBI is offering a $5,000 reward for information that helps them find the person who put raw bacon on the door handles of a Las Vegas mosque.

The FBI said in a statement Wednesday that agents are trying to find the man seen in a surveillance video putting the meat on the entrances of the Masjid-e-Tawheed mosque. Authorities call it a desecration of the Islamic worship center.

The Quran, the holy book of Islam, prohibits Muslims from eating pork, and pigs have been used to taunt or offend Muslims.

Both the FBI and Las Vegas police say they’re investigating the case as a possible hate crime.

Police are trying to figure out who is going around stealing baby Jesus statues from outdoor nativity scenes in various New Jersey towns.

Five churches in four neighboring towns have had their statues stolen in the last two days. Towns include Kearny, North Arlington, Lyndhurst and Clifton. Police are trying to figure out whether the crimes are connected. (ABC13 NJ)

Nor is… WHITE PLAINS – A baby Jesus statue placed in a manger at a White Plains church has yet to be  found after it was discovered stolen on Christmas morning.

Nor….On the night before Christmas, someone reportedly stole the infant Jesus statue from the outdoor Nativity scene at the church, 234 Spring Garden St, Easton Pa.

This is NOT a hate crime because Christians are evil oppressors, right?

But bacon bits on a Mosque is a Hate Crime. Fascinating… 😦

BUT:

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Oregon bakery owners who denied service to a same-sex couple have paid $135,000 in state-ordered damages — after refusing to do so for nearly six months.

The Bureau of Labor and Industries says Aaron Klein, co-owner of the Portland-area bakery, dropped off a check Monday for $136,927.07. That includes accrued interest. Klein also paid $7,000 earlier this month.

Damages were awarded in July for emotional suffering caused by Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which two years ago refused to make a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer. The bakers said their refusal was prompted by religious beliefs.

Is where the Religious People are the Perps because they aren’t Politically Correct! Hmmmm…..

Patheos.com: Even though the fine is now paid, they’re still appealing the decision, somehow claiming that discriminating against gay customers was an injustice to them as Christians. Because being an oppressor is the worst.

Las Vegas police spokesman Larry Hadfield said the bacon was wrapped on the door knobs, and was also found on the ground and fences.

Good thing it wasn’t Pizza or a Wedding Cake! Next Up, Lesbians at the door! 🙂

Officials at the mosque couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

The FBI said the incident happened about 3:15 a.m. Dec. 27. The culprit is described as a white man wearing a dark blue hat, jacket and black-framed glasses. He had black or dark brown hair with long, thin sideburns.

The site west of the Las Vegas Strip wasn’t damaged, and no one was hurt. The mosque was empty at the time, and the case was reported by members who came to worship later that morning.

 

Sowell Decisons

Many people are looking at the recent Supreme Court decisions about ObamaCare and same-sex marriage in terms of whether they think these are good or bad policies. That is certainly a legitimate concern, for both those who favor those policies and those who oppose them.

But there is a deeper and more long-lasting impact of these decisions that raises the question whether we are still living in America, where “we the people” are supposed to decide what kind of society we want, not have our betters impose their notions on us.

The Constitution of the U.S. says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution — and that all other powers belong either to the states or to the people themselves.

That is the foundation of our freedom, and that is what is being dismantled by both 2012’s and this year’s ObamaCare decisions, as well as by the Supreme Court’s decision imposing a redefinition of marriage.

The 2012 Supreme Court decision declaring ObamaCare constitutional says that the federal government can order individual citizens to buy the kind of insurance the government wants them to buy, regardless of what the citizens themselves prefer.

The Constitution gave the federal government no such power, but the Supreme Court did. It did so by citing the government’s power to tax, even though the ObamaCare law did not claim to be taxing.

This year’s ObamaCare decision likewise ignored the law’s actual words, and decided the decisions of 34 states not to participate in ObamaCare exchanges, even to get federal subsidies, would not prevent those subsidies to be paid anyway to exchanges set up by the federal government itself.

When any branch of government can exercise powers not authorized by either statutes or the Constitution, “we the people” are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our “public servants” are really our public masters. And America is no longer America. The freedom for which whole generations of Americans have fought and died is gradually but increasingly being taken away from us with smooth and slippery words.

This decision makes next year’s choice of the next U.S. president more crucial than ever, because with that office goes the power to nominate justices of the Supreme Court. Democrats have consistently nominated people who shared their social vision and imposed their policy preferences, too often in disregard of the Constitution.

Republicans have complained about it but, when the power of judicial appointment was in the hands of Republican presidents, they have too often appointed justices who participated in the dismantling of the Constitution — and usually for the kinds of social policies preferred by Democrats.

Chief justices appointed by Republicans have made landmark decisions for which there was neither constitutional authority nor either evidence or logic. The first was Earl Warren.

When Chief Justice Warren said that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” he was within walking distance of an all-black public high school that sent a higher percentage of its graduates on to college than any white public high school in Washington. As far back as 1899, that school’s students scored higher on tests than two of the city’s three white academic public high schools.

Nevertheless, Warren’s unsubstantiated assumption led to years of school busing across the country that was as racially divisive as it was educationally futile.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, also appointed by a Republican president, gave us the “disparate impact” notion that statistical disparities imply discrimination. That notion has created a whole statistical shakedown racket, practiced by government itself and by private race hustlers alike.

And now Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, gives the federal government the power to order us to buy whatever insurance it wants us to buy. With that entering wedge, is there anything they cannot force us to do, regardless of the Constitution?

Can the Republicans — or the country — afford to put another mushy moderate in the White House, who can appoint more mushy moderates to the Supreme Court?

A Fool and his Freedom are soon Parted

Don’t fall for the ‘marriage equality’ sales pitch. It’s a deception.

Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.

Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc

Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.

1. The Kids Are Not Alright

In March, six adult children from LGBT households filed amicus briefs opposing genderless marriage: see here, here, and here. You can read testimonials of many such children in a newly released anthology by Robert Oscar Lopez and Rivka Edelman, “Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family ‘Equality.’”

Whenever a parent is missing—for whatever reason—a child feels a primal wound. In this respect, parents belong to their children more than children belong to their parents. We ought to recognize that privileges of civil marriage should ultimately exist for children, not for adults. Children have the right to know their origins and not to be treated as commodities. Same-sex parenting—which increasingly involves human trafficking, particularly with artificial reproductive technologies (see number eight)—deliberately deprives a child of a mother and/or a father. The “marriage equality” agenda requires that such children bear that burden alone and repress their primal wound in silence.

2. Love’s Got Nothing to Do with State Interest in Marriage

“Love is love” is an empty slogan when it comes to state interest in marriage. How two people feel about one another is none of the state’s business. The state’s interest is limited to the heterosexual union because that’s the only union that produces the state’s citizenry.

And it still is, whether the union happens traditionally or in a petri dish. Each and every one of us—equally and without exception—only exists through the heterosexual union. In any free and functioning society, there is a state interest in encouraging as much as possible those who sire and bear us to be responsible for raising us.

3. The Infertility Canard

Just as the state has no litmus test for feelings or motives, it has no litmus test for any heterosexual couple who do not produce children because of intent, infertility, or age. Conflating same-sex couples with childless or elderly heterosexual couples seems to be the fallacy of composition: claiming something must be true of the whole because it’s true of some part of the whole.

Sorry, but the heterosexual union, no matter how it takes place, is the only way any citizen exists, including intersex and transgender citizens. So recognizing that union without prejudice remains the only reason for state interest in marriage.

4. Same-Sex Marriage Will Settle Nothing

It’s only the starting point for a glut of philosophically related demands for state recognition and approval of many other types of relationships, including polygamy and incest. This will mark the sudden beginning of an even more sudden end for same-sex marriage, not so much because those other types of relationships prove immoral, but because they serve as exhibits for the argument that all civil marriage—including same-sex marriage—is unsustainable and discriminatory.

5. ‘Marriage Equality’ Opens the Path for ‘Unmarried Equality’

There’s a movement waiting in the wings called “unmarried equality,” which argues that all civil marriage should be abolished because it privileges married people over singles. If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, it will set the precedent for abolishing marriage. Far from getting the state out of the marriage business, it will invite the state to regulate all familial relationships, particularly those with children. Once the state doesn’t have to recognize your marriage, it is freer to treat your spouse and children as strangers to you.

6. Transgenderism Is a Big Part of This Package

Americans have not thought through the implications of same-sex marriage and how it is logically a big step to erasing all sex distinctions in law. If we become legally sexless, the implications are vast when it comes to how or whether the state will recognize family relationships such as mother, father, son, or daughter. There’s already a push to eliminate sex identification at birth, which could mean removing sex distinctions on birth certificates. This will seem logical because all gender identity non-discrimination laws already presume that everybody’s sex is something arbitrarily “assigned” to them at birth.

7. It’s an Open Invitation for State Licensing of Parents

If we allow the abolition of sex distinctions and civil marriage—both of which are written into the social DNA of same-sex marriage—we logically allow the state to gain greater control over deciding familial relationships. Civil marriage so far has presumed that a child born into a heterosexual union has the default right to be raised by his biological parents together. How can the presumption of maternity or paternity survive in a legal system that recognizes neither sex distinctions nor a marriage relationship?

The bellwethers are out there. MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry did a “Forward” spot for the Obama administration in which she stated that all children “belong” to communities, not families. Another friend of the Obama administration, gender legal theorist Martha Fineman, calls for state-subsidized care-giving units to replace marriage and the family.

8. Same-Sex Marriage Commodifies Children

You may think artificial reproductive technologies (ART) are fine as an avenue to obtain children for those unable to conceive. But in the context of genderless marriage, ART ramps up the potential for human trafficking. Check anonymousus.com to read testimonies of grief and loss felt by children who were conceived in this manner. Check the movies “Eggsploitation” and “Breeders” by the Center for Bioethics and Culture to hear stories of the exploitation of women in the industry. There is definitely an element of human bondage in all of this, particularly because human beings are being deliberately separated from their mothers and fathers, in a way that echoes the wounds of slavery’s separations and the search for one’s roots.

9. It Sets a Head-On Collision Course with Freedom of Religion

The handwriting is on the wall. You need only reflect on how a screaming mob managed to conjure up total surrender from Indiana Gov. Mike Pence so he would reject that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Catholic Charities is closing its adoption services where same-sex marriage laws pressure them to reject their church’s teachings about marriage and family. Owners of businesses that serve the wedding industry are being forced to either scrap their consciences or shut their doors. Anti-discrimination lawsuits against churches that don’t perform same-sex marriages will undoubtedly increase.

10. It Sets a Collision Course for Freedom of Speech and Press

Campus speech codes. Social punishment. Firing Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla for discovering his thought crime of privately believing in marriage six years prior. The utter compliance of virtually every big business in America, every media outlet, every pundit who is permitted to have a voice in the public square.

11. It’s Especially On a Collision Course with Freedom of Association

I already mentioned that abolishing civil marriage, along with legal sex distinctions, puts the government in a better position to regulate familial relationships, and probably to license parents. If we think deeply about these things, it’s hard to avoid the fact that freedom of association begins with family autonomy, a place where the state is supposed to leave you alone in your most intimate relationships. It’s hard to see how freedom of association is not affected, especially when PC speech codes have everyone constantly checking their chit chat with neighbors, co-workers, and classmates. At Marquette University, staff were told that any conversation or remarks construed to be against same-sex marriage were to be reported to Human Resources, even if just inadvertently overheard.

12. Same-Sex Kills Privacy by Growing Bureaucracy

With the erosion of family autonomy practically guaranteed by the rainbow arc of same-sex marriage, private life will tend to evaporate, just as it always does in centrally planned societies. Distrust grows because people fear punishment for expressing dissenting views. The emphasis on political correctness in the name of equality, coupled with an ever-growing bureaucracy, is a perfect environment in which to percolate a surveillance society.

13. It’s Meant to Be a Global Agenda

The United States is already punishing countries and threatening to cut off aid if they don’t accept the LGBT agenda. This is especially true of developing countries, in which the whole idea is foreign to over 95 percent of the population. According to a report by Rep. Steve Stockman, corroborated by a Pentagon official, the administration held back critical intelligence from Nigeria which would have aided in locating girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. The new National Security Strategy recently released by the White House makes clear that the LGBT agenda is a global agenda. And it looks a lot like cultural imperialism of the worst kind.

14. It Promises a Monolithic Society of Conformity

In the past year or two, everyone with something to lose by opposing same-sex marriage—with the honorable exception of Eich—seems to have scuttled their principles. Five years ago, the American Psychological Association voted 157-0—that’s right, ZERO—to support genderless marriage. For an excellent assessment of what this sort of conformity means for a free society, read Brendan O’Neill’s article in Spiked, entitled “Gay Marriage: A Case Study in Conformism.” The agenda was imposed by elites, entirely due to a methodical blitzkrieg of programs and enforcement dictated from above. Same-sex marriage simply could not come about without suppressing dissent in all of our institutions.

15. Expect More Severe Punishment for Dissent

If you think the bullying of businesses, churches, and individuals who don’t get with the LGBT program now is bad, it promises to get much worse once codified. Is this really the sort of society you wish to live in? Where expressing an opinion from your heart on faith, family, marriage, relationships, love, or the very nature of reality—is routinely attacked as hate speech? Because that is exactly what you need to expect.

Justice Anthony Kennedy made it very clear in his words of the Windsor decision that any dissent on same-sex marriage was tantamount to animus. It is but a short step from presuming animus to punishing dissent.

So perhaps the biggest question hanging in the air is this: What will the authorities decide to do to dissenters?

Move Forward

Well, now that the Gay Mafia has the Federal Government’s stamp of approval to destroy anyone who gets in their way I think we should turn it up a notch on them.

Polyamory.

Where Multiple Men (or Women) can have multiple wives.

If the definition of marriage that has existed for 10,000 years is on the trash heap of Political Correctness and no longer valid, then is the 1 person and 1 person definition not the next logical step in this ridiculous arms race of hedonism and narcissism?

If marriage is solely the purview of “love” and “commitment” then why is 1 on 1 a limitation? The line we won’t cross.

If 6 guys and 15 women want to be “married” to each other why not allow it?

If a 14 year old wants to marry a 30 year old out of “love and “commitment” is it discrimination to deny them the tenet of marriage?

You broke the tenet of 10,000 years of history so why stop there?

If I want to marry my cat, is it discrimination to prohibit it?

There are no limits, or limitations now.

So I say, we need to start a campaign to legalize Polyamory and Polygamy because anything would be “discrimination”.

Wouldn’t it? 🙂

“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,”  Justice Roberts wrote.

It was about “equality”. So why is polyamory not legal then?

Is “discrimination” ok if it’s not on your ideological agenda?

And there will be no “equality” anyhow. The Leftist control freaks will see to that. But they set the standard that marriage is not strictly defined as it has been for millenia, so who is the number of men and women restricted?

Why can’t I have 15 wives if I and they choose to? Why would I be “discriminated” against? You’re just a “bigot” if you don’t allow it.

Being a single-minded ideologically zealot does have it’s consequences.

Time they paid up.

The game is afoot…

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared. 

After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time.

Remember what I said about freedom of speech yesterday…. 🙂

The Supreme Court and the American people at the polls in 2016 need to decide whether this country will respect their First Amendment rights, including their fundamental right to dissent.

Judge Alito shares this anxiety. “Today’s decision … will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” he writes. In particular, he objects to the comparison between bans on same-sex marriage and the bans on interracial marriage that were widespread before the Court overturned them in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. “The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent,” he argues.

The Holy Warriors of The Left are far from done with you!

Opposition to their Ideology will not be permitted.

In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

 To the past or to the future, to an age when thought is free, from the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man — greetings!- Orwell

Welcome to the Age of Big Brother!

The Baker, The Florist, the T-Shirt Maker…

Hysteria over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has drowned out one critical question: Who are the florist and baker that ABC’s George Stephanopoulos hounded Gov. Mike Pence about? When Americans learn what that florist and baker are threatened with, we face an emerging trend that will destroy companies and jobs, and the chilling specter of what sort of a nation we are becoming.

The florist is 70-year-old grandmother Baronelle Stutzman of Washington State. A longtime gay customer—with whom she had a warm relationship—wanted her to do flower arrangements for his gay wedding. Mrs. Stutzman, a Southern Baptist, explained her Christian belief that marriage is between a man and woman, and thus could not participate in a gay wedding. Washington’s attorney general prosecuted her, pursuing not only her business, Arlene Flowers, but also Mrs. Stutzman personally. A state judge has ruled against her, and she faces the loss of her life’s savings and even her home.

The baker is Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. When he declined two gay men’s order to bake a cake celebrating gay marriage (though the men were welcome to buy any of the premade cakes off the shelf), they officially complained that Mr. Phillips violated Colorado’s civil-rights law. A court ruled against him, ordering him and his employees to undergo government-approved “tolerance training,” and also ordering him to bake cakes celebrating gay marriage for anyone who asks. If he refuses, he can go to jail—put behind bars—for contempt of court.

There are others. First was a New Mexico photographer who did not want to do the wedding shoot for a gay-commitment ceremony—not a wedding, because New Mexico had neither gay marriage nor civil unions at the time. A Kentucky T-shirt maker is being sued for not making shirts celebrating a gay-rights event. An Idaho pastor couple was pursued for not actually performing a gay wedding, until their town changed course. The list goes on, and grows monthly.

Secularists on the political left have vehemently opposed all RFRA’s since at least the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobbycase in 2014. The justices held that Hobby Lobby—a corporation owned by a devout Christian family—could assert religious-liberty rights as an extension of its Christian owners, and that Obamacare’s regulation requiring Hobby Lobby to provide abortion-related healthcare violated the federal RFRA, because the regulation substantially burdened the family’s religious beliefs and was not the least restrictive means to achieve any compelling public interest. In 1993, the federal RFRA unanimously passed the U.S. House, passed the Senate 97-3, and was signed by President Bill Clinton, a vocal supporter of both abortion and the gay-rights agenda.

Millions of Americans are employed by businesses owned by people of faith—Christian or otherwise. Without RFRA protections, employees of Hobby Lobby, Arlene Flowers, Masterpiece Cakeshop, and religious non-church entities, such as the University of Notre Dame, would lose their jobs. Therefore protecting religious liberty also protects jobs. Republicans must reject the false choice that this issue is business versus the Christian Right; those framing the issue as such seek to drive a wedge in the GOP to defeat Republicans in 2016.

These recent lawsuits are why Indiana’s RFRA specified that businesses like Hobby Lobby can assert RFRA in court. And lawsuits initiated by the plaintiffs in Washington and Colorado are why the law specified that RFRA can apply between private parties.

It’s baffling why Indiana legislators were unprepared to explain these things to the nation. Nor can we understand why they chose to sign a “fix” creating unprecedented ways for opponents to sue people of faith in Indiana for declining to participate in gay marriages and abortions. Christians in Indiana might have been better off had Indiana legislators instead repealed RFRA, reverting Indiana’s laws to their previous condition.

If anything, Republican leaders could have demanded a replacement bill identical to the federal RFRA. “If it was good enough for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to sponsor and for Bill Clinton to sign, then it’s good enough for Hoosiers today.” Opponents would have condemned it, but in doing so confirmed that the modern secular Left condemns all religious freedoms that impede their agenda, and that RFRA truly has nothing to do with hate or discrimination.

It is astounding that a nation settled by people who crossed an ocean to live in a wilderness so they could live according to their religious beliefs and conscience, is now poised to oppress millions who desire simply to live by those same beliefs. Everyone has the right to run a business consistent with their beliefs, employing other Americans in the process. Republicans must take up that theme as a pro-business stance.

RFRA supporters are like the brave Americans in the Deep South decades ago who stood for black civil rights against intense political pressure. The fanatical authoritarianism of the political left is plunging this country headlong into a very dark place, from which many nations never return. (Townhall.com)

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Lost Conversations

Because RFRA isn’t discriminatory, along with the fact that there’s no widespread discrimination against gay Americans in states with no public accommodation statues–the left’s argument makes no sense.  This post-apocalyptic scenario would have happened long ago–and it hasn’t.  

But, it could according to the Left if the don’t nuke everyone who even thinks of defying them.

Nevertheless, some of of fellow citizens on the left continue to go indiscriminately insane. Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana soon found themselves under nuclear attack. The O’Connor family, which owns the shop, became the target of death threats. They’ve subsequently been forced underground. It all started when ABC 57 reporter Alyssa Marino asked Crystal O’Connor if she would cater a gay wedding. O’Connor said no, but added that her establishment would certainly serve gay customers; a point that isn’t mentioned until the final sentence of Marino’s article:

“If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” says Crystal O’Connor of Memories Pizza.She and her family are standing firm in their beliefs.

The O’Connors have owned Memories Pizza in Walkerton for 9 years.

It’s a small-town business, with small-town ideals.

“We are a Christian establishment,” says O’Connor.

The O’Connor family prides themselves in owning a business that reflects their religious beliefs.

“We’re not discriminating against anyone, that’s just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything,” says O’Connor.

The O’Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.

The O’Connors say they just don’t agree with gay marriages and wouldn’t cater them if asked to.

The Liberal “journalist” is the one who started this by using “gotcha” yellow journalism in the first place. But I bet she’s a hero at ABC 57 for “exposing” the intolerant underbelly of mean-spirited, discriminatory, evil Christians. Boo Hiss… 🙂

Some people have threatened arson against the pizzeria, or have issued death threats, which caused this family to tragically head for the bunker. I mean what else can you do when the conversation is boiled down to “if you don’t agree with me, I’ll burn your business down, or kill you.” We’ve certainly reached another low point. Thankfully, a GoFundMe page was established by Dana Loesch and her crew over at The Blaze for the O’Connor family, which has accumulated almost $1 million in donations.  Last night, the page was closed, but not after ending its run with nearly $850,000 in donations. 

Yet, that’s not after another pernicious–and unhinged–hypothesis from the left emerged about the donation page emerged; the family did this on purpose so it’s a scam (I want to jump out of a window now).

This childish conspiracy theory was rampant on the leftist comment boards for the last couple of days after it became apparently they lost the battle to nuke this family back into the stone age on their “righteous” vengeance.

Loesch noted that a petition has been filed to remove the O’Connor GoFundMe page. Allahpundit facetiously noted that if this shoddy conspiracy theory is true, O’Connor is the “Gone Girl of religious liberty.” But added that in reality, the leftys are just furious that O’Connor and her family haven’t been ruined.

There was even a some kind of counter GoFundMe set up by the extreme Leftists. I didn’t investigate it but I saw it mentioned.

Is this the End Of Discussion in America?

Yes. Liberal don’t discuss. They state what they want, when they want it and if you don’t give it to them right f*cking NOW you will be nuked into oblivion by their righteous wrath.

Moreover, why are liberals so enthralled with making those with whom they disagree, like Memories Pizza, disappear?  Even liberal Bill Maher is unnerved by this attitude on the left. If liberals think it’s reprehensible to deny gays a wedding cake, how do they feel about a baker being sued for not writing anti-gay slogans on one? What about Muslim bakers refusing service to gay couples? Steven Crowder examined this in Dearborn, Michigan, asking Muslim bakers to make a cake for his fake “gay wedding.” They all refused. Guy and Mary Katherine Ham will detail all of this in due time, but this recent foray into cultural chaos shows that we’ve lost the ability to have serious conversations. 

Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana asked the legislature to pass an unnecessary clarification bill, which passed earlier this week.

They caved.

 Wilco found it significant enough to reschedule their cancelled event in Indianapolis. 

And will be sold out and hailed a hero of The Left. Now that’s a slick capitalist move. 🙂

UPDATE: Alix Bryan, a CBS social media staffer from their Richmond station, reported the GoFundMe page for fraud “just in case.

Witch Hunt

The sanctimoniously outraged Liberals are on the march AGAIN. Out to hang people in the name of “tolerance”! (the irony of that is lost on them in the fog of their own hatred and mindless zealotry). How dare you oppose us! bAnd the truth doesn’t matter because they are red-eyed bull (ies) who just want to steamroll over all the “haters” (aka people who have a different opinion than the almighty righteous leftist mafia!). After all, you have no choice but to agree with them or else, that’s the American (Left) Way. 🙂

Earlier this week, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed into law a religious freedom bill that some think is discriminatory, and could lead to businesses being allowed to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers.  The governor soon found himself under siege by nearly 3,000 angry protestors, according to The Hill. The publication also reported businesses voicing their opposition to the measure, with Apple CEO Tim Cook tweeting his “disgust” over law. Yelp proposed that businesses boycott the state, and said it had cancelled all of its travel there. Angie’s List’s CEO said he plans to cancel a $40 million expansion to their headquarters in Indianapolis, cannibalizing 1,000 jobs over five yeas in the Eastside neighborhood. Oh, and Miley Cyrus called Gov. Pence an “a**hole,” which perfectly captures the hyper- emotionalism exuded by the left that often lends to them taking positions that seek to kill the debate.

Let’s go through the some of the facts about this bill. For starters, 40 percent of states have similar laws (via WaPo):

Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Here are those states, in dark teal:  (and they are all bigots!) 🙂
Forty percent of U.S. states have something similar to Indiana, as does the federal government.

The Washington Post also mentioned that President Bill Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act … in 1993. It was introduced in the House of Representatives by then-Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY). By a voice vote, it passed the House, then worked its way to the Senate, where members voted 97-3 in favor of the law. I’m going to bet that these protestors won’t be showing up at Bill Clinton’s residence, or any of the members of the U.S. Senate–current and former–who voted in favor of the bill, to voice their outrage.

This ignorance of the law was exuded during the Hobby Lobby case last summer. Also, it’s worth noting (again) that RFRA isn’t a “blank check” to discriminate.

Here’s RFRA:

(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person–

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Here’s Indiana’s law:

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Looping back to Hobby Lobby, Bloomberg’s Megan McArdle had a great post noting that there’s–you know–a process to determine if one’s religious beliefs are genuine [emphasis mine]:

1) What can stop a company from arguing that it is against the owner’s sincere religious beliefs to pay workers a minimum wage?The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not a blank check to religious groups to do what they want. The law says that the religious belief must be sincerely held, and also that the government can burden the exercise of that belief if it has a compelling state interest that cannot easily be achieved in any other way. That’s why no one has successfully started the Church of Not Paying Any Taxes, though people have been trying that dodge for years.

2) How can we tell if a belief is sincere?

Hobby Lobby closes its stores on Sundays and otherwise demonstrates a pretty deep commitment to fairly stringent Christian values, of which opposition to abortifacients is often a part. There will always be some gray area, of course, that allows people to claim special treatment for spurious beliefs, but the government has done a fair job over the decades of sorting out genuine beliefs from obvious attempts to dodge the law. Hobby Lobby seems to fall pretty squarely within the “sincere belief” camp.

To further quell the left’s hysteria over this law, here is a pro-gay rights law professor, Daniel O. Conkle, writing for USA Today on why Indiana needs RFRA [emphasis mine]:

I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?

The bill would establish a general legal standard, the “compelling interest” test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.

Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.

If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration.

But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld.

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a “license to discriminate,” and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.

Keep in mind; Conkle also noted that the courts, even in states with RFRA statutes, have rejected recent claims of religious exemptions amongst marriage-related businesses. But also said that those who disagree with gay marriage should have their day in court as well.

The position that wedding-related businesses having the right to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers based on religious grounds is popular. While a plurality of Americans support gay marriage, they also support religious protections for those who disagree as the Associated Press-Gfk poll showed in February. Though, if you head over to Gallup, you’ll find that a solid majority support gay marriage.

Then again, the former finding is not surprising; it’s the 57 percent figure in AP’s poll that show Americans support gay marital rights, but also religious freedom.

In short, this faux outrage is grounded with folks who didn’t get the memo. Actually, it’s probably folks who refuse to read the memo. A Democrat proposed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and it was signed into law by a Democratic president. It’s a 22-year old law! Forty percent of states have RFRA tests within their state laws, and it’s not a “blank check” to discriminate given that there is a high threshold in determining genuine religious beliefs, satisfying a compelling government interest, and making sure the latter is honored in the least intrusive way possible. 

Nevertheless, this silliness has forced Gov. Pence to discuss a “clarification” bill with legislators over the weekend.

It’s not necessary.

UPDATE: Seattle Mayor bans municipal workers from traveling to Indiana on city funds. Yet, it appears his state has RFRA statutes 

UPDATE: Then-State Senator Barack Obama voted for RFRA in Illinois, which the White House did not refute (via Weekly Standard):

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into federal law by President Bill Clinton more than 20 years ago, and it lays out a framework for ensuring that a very high level of scrutiny is given any time government action impinges on the religious liberty of any American,” Pence said. “After last year’s Hobby Lobby case, Indiana properly brought the same version that then-state senator Barack Obama voted for in Illinois before our legislature.”This Week Host George Stephanoplous later asked White House press secretary Josh Earnest to respond to Pence’s claim: “Josh, you just heard the governor say right there this is the same law, he says, that Barack Obama voted for as a state senator back in Illinois.”

Earnest didn’t dispute the Indiana governor’s statement. “Look, if you have to go back two decades to try to justify something that you’re doing today, it may raise some question about the wisdom of what you’re doing,” Earnest said.

UPDATE: Via Allahpundit: Here’s the video of Clinton signing RFRA in 1993.

UPDATE: Via HRC: Illinois has a public accommodation law that prohibits discrimination by sexual orientation from private businesses and government entities “that provide services to the general public.”  Yet, only 21 states have such accommodations. Again, why is this bill controversial? If this law permits somehow permitted a “blank check” on discrimination, which it does not, it would’ve happened in Indiana and elsewhere long ago.

But the truth doesn’t matter to Liberals, especially “morally outraged” liberals who have no capacity for rational thought and it’s all out nuclear war on anyone who stands in the way of their fight for “tolerance” 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy