Columns, Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Media, Politics, Religion, Society

Critics of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law Are Trying To Have Their Cake and Eat it, Too

Wedding_cake_with_pillar_supports,_2009Below is my Sunday column in the Washington Post on Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The column below raises the question of line drawing and states that I would prefer an absolute rule requiring all services. However, I could not support such a rule if we are going to strip protection from “wrong” views while allowing others to refuse on the ground that other symbols or language are clearly offensive. One variation on the “No Cake For You” approach below was suggested by a colleague who said that we could allow bakers and others to refuse any offensive language — religious or non-religious — unless the government could show that the baker would have sold the cake but for the status of the prospective buyer (e.g., gay or straight, Jewish or not, etc.). Thus, as long as the basis of the refusal was the actual language or symbols, it would be protected as an expressive act.

As I say in the column, I continue to struggle with drawing this line. None of the options are particularly satisfying. However, I do think that we have to have a real dialogue on this issue free of low-grade efforts to those on the other side as bigoted for wanting to discuss the range of free speech conflicts. The point is that, when dealing with the question of the right to refuse to create offensive symbols or language, one must address the fact that there are a wide array of such conflicts that can arise among different religious, cultural, or political groups. One does not have to agree with their speech to raise the question of their right to engage in such speech. Indeed, the first amendment is designed to protect unpopular speech. We do not need it to protect popular speech. Some may ultimately decided that no business can refuse any message under the “Let Them Eat Cake” approach despite rulings like Hobby Lobby and Citizens United. However, the first step is to have the debate, preferably free of personal attacks or attempts to silence those who would raise the speech of other unpopular or offensive groups.

Here is the column:

Within minutes of the signing of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a chorus of condemnation arose across the country that threw Indiana Governor Mike Pence and his colleagues back on their heels. The response was understandable, though somewhat belated. After all, both Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama supported similar language that is found not only in federal law but the laws of 19 other states. While broader than most of these laws, the premise of the Indiana law was the same: citizens could raise religious beliefs as a defense to governmental obligations or prohibitions.

For those of us who have been warning for years about the collision of anti-discrimination laws and religious beliefs, the current controversy was a welcomed opportunity to have this long-avoided debate. Yet, we are still not having that debate. Instead, there is a collective agreement that discrimination is wrong without addressing the difficult questions of where to draw the line between the ban on discrimination and the right to free speech and free exercise. That includes the question of why only religious speech should be protected in such conflicts, as noted in the column. Yet, there is a reluctance of acknowledge good faith concerns among religious people in fear of being viewed as bigoted.

There has been a great deal of heated rhetoric in this discussion that avoids many of the more difficult questions. For example there is the common criticism that these bakers cannot assert their religious beliefs when it is really their business that is being required to take certain actions. However, last year, the Supreme Court in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. expressly found that such businesses do have religious rights (as they do speech rights, as recognized in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). In 2014, the Court ruled that “no conceivable definition of the term includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for-profit corporations.” Likewise, despite arguments that the federal RFRA is narrower because it references only conflicts with the government (and not other private parties in the Indiana law), some courts have ruled that it can be used in civil litigation.

As expected, the response of some commentators was to condemn even raising these question of free speech by saying that it saying that it equates gay couples to the KKK or Nazi sympathizers. Even when admitting that they do not have an answer for the free speech question, the attack is on the raising of such questions. There are legitimate concerns over allowing businesses to refuse to prepare products deemed offensive due to symbols or language, but we cannot really address these issues if people are denounced for just raising the conflicts and discussing conflicts. It results in a circular position that we can discuss the question of the protection of offensive speech but not if the question is offensive to discuss. This is an unfortunate trend where difficult questions are avoided by attacking those raising them as presumptive racists or homophobes etc for even raising different types of speech or views. It is a rather odd position to be placed in given my writings for decades supporting gay rights and same sex marriage. More importantly, when discussing the limits of free speech, one necessarily discusses the broad spectrum of free speech examples, including offensive speech. There is not an effort to equate gay marriage symbols or language with anti-Semitimic symbols or language. Obviously, as a supporter of same-sex marriage, I reject that notion. However, the point is that some people hold opposing views from my own. Some of those views I find deeply offensive. If we want to discuss the growing limitations on speech, we need to explore the spectrum of different forms of speech. That is what CNN did in the interview when raising the “KKK cake.” CNN was not saying that such a view is equally valid on the merits. It is ridiculous to say that, by discussing what different people consider offensive, we are saying that all of those views are valid or correct. It is not enough to say that such people are simply wrong or there is clearly a difference in the “real” offensiveness of the messages. Indeed, in some ways, such critics are answering the question by saying that some views are simply not viable because they are wrong. That is saying that society will draw the line on what speech can be the basis for refusing services and what cannot be such a basis.

After all the heated rhetoric over Indiana’s controversial religious freedom law, this rights debate could ultimately come down to a cake war. Just as diners were at the epicenter of the fight over racial desegregation, bakeries have become a flashpoint today.

Conservatives in Indiana and elsewhere have objected to bakers (and florists and photographers) being “forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding.” While those conservatives have been rightly ridiculed for failing to explain how the Indiana law as originally formulated would not license bigotry, critics can be equally chastised for failing to explain where to draw the line between religious freedom and discrimination. Asked on CNN this week whether a Jewish baker should have to make a cake for a KKK couple, Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, insisted that “there’s a huge difference between having to write something objectionable on a cake and being asked to provide a cake for a same sex couple.”

Of course, for some religious bakers, a cake with language or an image celebrating same-sex marriage is objectionable. In other words, critics may be trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

Consider two cases that both happen to involve bakeries in or near Denver, Colo. In July 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a wedding cake. Owner Jack Phillips said that, due to his Christian beliefs, he could not provide a cake for the celebration of a same-sex marriage. Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission ultimately ruled that the bakery broke the state’s anti-discrimination laws.

Now, the flip side. In March 2014, Christian customer Bill Jack asked Azucar Bakery to prepare two cakes in the shape of Bibles — with an X over the image of two men holding hands. Owner Marjorie Silva said she would make the cakes but refused to include what she found to be an offensive message. Jack filed a religious discrimination claim that’s now pending with the state’s civil rights division.

Two sets of cakes. Two different sentiments viewed as offensive. Can we compel the baker in one case and permit the other to refuse? And should the right to refuse be limited to religious objections? There are an array of messages that offend non-religious persons or violate non-religious values. Glibly saying that you cannot discriminate ignores legitimate questions of forced speech and forced participation.

I’ve struggled with the tension between anti-discrimination laws and free speech/free exercise for years, and I see three basic approaches to resolving it:

Let them eat cake. As one option, we could maintain a strict neutrality rule that requires businesses to serve all customers, even when they find customers or their requests (whether involving cakes or flowers or photographs) to be offensive. If you choose to go into a particular business, you lose the ability to withhold services based on the content of messages or the specific attributes of an event. That would mean a bakery couldn’t refuse to inscribe an anti-gay message on a cake — or a birthday message to someone named Adolf Hitler Campbell (which a New Jersey ShopRite said no to a few years ago). Under this approach, a cake would be viewed as a form of speech of the customer, not the baker.

No cake for you. The second possibility is an absolute discretionary rule that allows businesses to decline services or products when they substantially burden religious values. This could lead to a significant rollback of this country’s progress since desegregation. Even the sponsors of the Indiana law have indicated that they do not want such a broad rule.

Speech-free cake. A third option would be to allow a limited exception for expressive services or products. Under this approach, a bakery could not refuse to sell basic cakes to anyone but it could refuse to customize cakes with objectionable symbols or words. A florist could not refuse to supply standard flower arrangements from a pre-set menu but could object to designing and styling, say, the venue of a same-sex event. Likewise, photographers — whose work is inherently expressive, as they select particular moments to capture, frame compositions and create a product tailored to specific clients — could claim an expressive exception in declining to work at events they find offensive.

Frankly, none of these options is entirely satisfying, and all three would lead to tough cases on the margins. For instance, the uniformity and clarity of the “let them eat cake” approach is appealing. Yet it’s hard to imagine compelling Jewish bakers to make Nazi cakes or African American bakers to make KKK cakes. On the other hand, if we allow for expressive exceptions, we’ll have to determine whether or not a funeral director, say, is engaged in an expressive act.

If we are unwilling to impose an absolute rule of service regardless of content, then we need to be honest about our reservations and look more closely at how to allow people to opt out of certain expressive services. If people can decline offensive services, we need to focus our attention on defining those services that are inherently expressive and those that are not. We need to discuss not the central issue of discrimination but those cases on the margins that deal with legitimate speech. As Benjamin Franklin noted, “a great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

561 thoughts on “Critics of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law Are Trying To Have Their Cake and Eat it, Too”

    1. Inga – nothing like attacking the victim. Again with the liberals war on women. When will it stop?

  2. Really hilarious article and video at the link:

    I truly believe that we are the most whiney, sensitive, thin-skinned, easily offended society in the history of the world.

    Nobody has ever been as prolific at getting offended as we are.

    Nobody cries over insignificant nonsense as loudly and consistently as us.

    It’s the one thing we seem to do better than everyone else on the planet. We corner the Offended Market, and it’s not even close. Modern Americans love to get offended more than we love eating Cinnabon or talking about our fitness goals. If it was an Olympic sport, we’d grab the gold, silver, and bronze every year. If it was a job, we’d all be millionaires. In fact, we have turned it into a job, and the people who do it professionally are millionaires (Al Sharpton, etc). It is our calling card, our national pastime. It is the battle we fight and the banner we wave.

    We get offended faster and more efficiently than anyone. And it’s not just our speed that separates us from the rest — it’s our endurance. We have a limitless capacity for offendedness. Every week there are dozens of new national outrages and boycott campaigns and social media crusades to raise awareness about some offensive thing, or to get someone fired for saying some offensive thing, or to teach people that some previously non-offensive thing has now become offensive.

    Most of all, I find myself positively dazzled by the dexterity and athleticism with which we get offended. We can juggle six or seven outrages all at once, and then drop them and pick up new ones in the blink of an eye.

    Our creativity and meticulousness are also quite notable here. We can look at any situation and extract hundreds of offensive factors that an untrained eye probably would have overlooked. We conjure up more fabricated outrages and controversies in a month than past civilizations could have mustered in a thousand years.

    Do you remember what everyone was super worked up about four weeks ago? Yeah, me neither. That’s the point. We move on to the new outrage so quickly and the old ones are buried and forgotten. Well, whatever it was way back then, I’m sure it was REALLY bad and we were REALLY upset.

    It’s always something. We have located the Fountain of Eternal Indignation, and we drink it by the gallon.

    More hilarity at the link:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/most-whiney-thin-skinned-easily-offended-society-history-world

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjmUgjWle5w#t=49

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  3. Jim22

    I appreciate you answering my questions and was sincerely interested in learning your opinion on those examples. I thought it was better to ask than to assume your position. I was never intent on arguing your positions and I appreciate your candor. I am surprised that you felt I used your opinions against you. Should that suggest that you worry your opinions may lack a good moral grounding?

    I am very bothered by how this dilemma will grow – as is evidenced by your question about lab tables and your answers to my questions. The list of goods and services that can be denied on religious grounds seems very long indeed. To add to the problem, I read today that a legislator in Louisiana is drafting a bill to allow businesses to deny benefits on religious grounds to married gay couples. To understate it, no good will come of this. It is very ugly.

    Because of my repugnance at the seemingly endless ways, the willingness, the zeal to discriminate to enact legislation to oppress homosexuals, I favor protecting homosexuals from discrimination – that includes the building of lab tables.

  4. No left leanin’ commie churches roun’ these heah parts! No ma’am! We is sanctified by the blood!

    1. Squeeky

      it was a long interview and she said they had always served the Gays before and it was not a problem. She talked of the front of the store being family oriented and having a prayer box and I am not sure when or where the loaded question came —- but I do know this —- I have a feeling for these things and I don’t believe for one minute that this woman was an innocent. She was a businesswoman. She knew how to run her business for a profit in a redneck town. And she took advantage of the Situation with the Religious Freedom law. It was no coo incidence.

  6. Goodness me what a snit

    And, I wonder how staged all of that was?

    Staged by whom? The pizza parlor owner was minding her own business in her dinky little town of about 2300. She didn’t ask for an interview. She didn’t seek anyone out. A reporter from the “big city” came down and asked her loaded questions, and she being an honest woman answered honestly. She was ambushed by a reporter with an agenda.

    http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2015/04/03/memories-pizza-truthers/

    Then all Hell breaks loose.

    IF you are going to discuss…please get your facts straight. I am not accusing you of deliberately lying, but you are damned close.

    I’m happy for you in your little Christian cocoon and hope that it brings great comfort to you. I’m not interested in being cocooned in your brand of Christianity or any other brand of group think. Evidently YOUR brand of Christianity is good. The pizza parlor lady….is not. Got it. You=good. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you = bad.

    1. Dust Bunny Queen

      The only one around here in a Cocoon is You and the lady in the Pizza Parlor in the Small Town talking to the Media about her Christian Beliefs which are not Christian at all in any Church.

      You yourself admitted you had nothing to do with the Church so I am imagining that you are not familiar.

      It was Hypocrisy in the ectreme to listen to her speaking to the media about her plight knowing this would go nationwide and knowing the donations would come rolling in and she could start her “new” business” within 3 days!!!

      A positive rebirth!!!! Born again like Jesus!!! With 842 grand in a blessing grant from her Christian Brethren. Just like on the Televangelists that she learned the trick from.

      I call them like I see them and the lady is a Hypocrite of the highest order

      Sorry

      And I have never been in the land of Denial in my life

      I come from North County St. Louis

      lol 😉

  7. @ happypappies

    “Why the vitriol?”

    Because he recognizes the truth in your observations regarding some authoritarian personality traits, and that has made him anxious. People get vitriolic (or worse) when they become anxious.

    How dare you “practice psychology,” i.e., use psychological concepts and insights, whether biblical or post-modern, to try to understand yourself and others!

  9. Wadewilliams,

    So let me get this straight, I’ve answered every question you’ve asked of me and refuse to answer my single question. Then you use my answers against me. You’re a stand up person. I’m for people having freedom to opt out, you are not. You feel the need to force people to do what you like and only what you agree with. I’m not surprised.

    1. Jim22 – Wadewilliams has never met a question he could not dodge.

  10. Happy

    Evidently you are unable to comprehend that this issue….freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom to worship is a bit larger than some gay people wanting a wedding cake.

    This is about the Government dictating who we MUST do business with, who we MUST associate with, what we can say, what we can’t say. Government doing it upon pain of a fine or imprisonment. In addition is also about mob rule as seen in the piling on of the innocent pizza parlor owner who was just minding her own business.

    Good for you for being a Christian……I suppose. I am not. I don’t disparage anyone who is. All the preaching in the world and quoting the Bible really isn’t going to sway my opinion.

    If we want to be free. Want gays to be free you can’t put shackles and chains on everyone else to accomplish it. Either we ALL are free or no one is.

    It would be nice if you could also get your facts straight. The pizza parlor in question never refused to serve anyone. The answered a hypothetical question as to whether they would serve a gay wedding. Stupid question but they have a right to voice their opinion.

    I give up. It is like arguing with my cat.

    1. Dust Bunny Queen

      Happy

      Evidently you are unable to comprehend that this issue….freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom to worship is a bit larger than some gay people wanting a wedding cake.

      happypappies

      Dust Bunny Queen

      Do you remember how these people used to be treated and how they had to stay in the closet and marry someone and pretend to be straight? I do. I remember when they were treated like they were mentally ill until 1974

      And you are never going to be free again? Please

      As far as the sign goes. If you make it clear up front you do not cater to gays because of your beliefs, it should be okay because that is how the case went in Washington if you followed it. That woman made 20 bouquets for them before she refused them. She changed her boat mid stream and was inconsistent and because she claimed Christianity of all things was absurd really.

      It would be nice if you could also get your facts straight. The pizza parlor in question never refused to serve anyone. The answered a hypothetical question as to whether they would serve a gay wedding. Stupid question but they have a right to voice their opinion.

      I give up. It is like arguing with my cat.

      Oh oh oh

      Goodness me what a snit

      And, I wonder how staged all of that was?

      “Tells the Media I refuse to sever same sex couples because of my Christan faith

      http://www.thewrap.com/indiana-pizzeria-closes-over-backlash-from-owners-anti-gay-remarks-to-media/

  11. Paul C. Schulte,

    I hadn’t thought about it. I’m simply trying to bring a murky problem into specific relief by determining what’s the actual direct object of discrimination here.

    The Elton John example you mentioned sounds similar to my fashion photographer that employs and photographs gay models but will not photograph their wedding. Your example, like mine, evidences a lack of intent to discriminate against a class of people. In your case, it’s an intent to deny a singular person of service for reasons other than being gay; evidenced by your willingness to bake your neighbor’s cake.

  12. Paul Schulte that is objectionable in the extreme you old ……
    you 😉

  13. I am all about free enterprise. Hang a sign out and say you don’t cater gay weddings.

    Except….you can’t do that. You will be sued. You will be fined by the Government. You are not free to make that decision for yourself without facing destruction on a personal level and of your business.

    It will be great if that day ever came, but given the way things are going now, I doubt we will ever be free again.

    1. Dust Bunny Queen

      Do you remember how these people used to be treated and how they had to stay in the closet and marry someone and pretend to be straight? I do. I remember when they were treated like they were mentally ill until 1974

      And you are never going to be free again? Please

      As far as the sign goes. If you make it clear up front you do not cater to gays because of your beliefs, it should be okay because that is how the case went in Washington if you followed it. That woman made 20 bouquets for them before she refused them. She changed her boat mid stream and was inconsistent and because she claimed Christianity of all things was absurd really.

      The Pizza place never made it plain about the catering either and then they did They said they served gay people all the time, and then, they refused. Now, you tell me this is not Balkanization and drawing lines in the sand DBQ, It is. I am a Christian. I know it is.. My heart tells me so.

      If you are treated as a minority status because of the Great Awakening of Jonanthan Edwards in 2015 it is a sad sad thing. ;(

  14. Refusal to participate in, facilitate or otherwise bear witness to a particular practice or ceremony does not equal discrimination against an entire class of people. If such refusal be deemed discrimination at all then the discrimination is directed at the particular practice or ceremony and not the people as a whole.

    There are no cases of businesses going to court for the right to refuse to sell LBGT’s anything in a normal course of business or deny them access to their establishments. What some people will sue for is their right to follow the dictates of their own conscience as opposed to being indoctrinated by the State by being forced to participate in, facilitate or otherwise bear witness to a particular practice or ceremony.

    To clarify the distinction between “a discriminating taste as a matter of discretion and conscience” and “the wholesale discrimination against a class of people” consider this:

    A fashion photographer, who also does wedding photography, is asked by two of his gay models to photograph their wedding. The photographer politely declines — saying that it would offend his new and very religious wife as well as conflict with his own obligations acquired since converting to his wife’s religion. Immediately thereafter he tells his two models that he’ll see them bright and early Monday morning for the next shoot.

    May it be properly said that the photographer is guilty of discriminating against homosexuals? Or did the photographer merely discriminate against a particular practice or ceremony by legally exercising his discretion to politely decline to participate in, facilitate or otherwise bear witness to it?

    1. Bob Stone – can you discriminate against a particular homosexual but not all homosexuals? For example, I do not want to bake the cake for Elton John’s next wedding, however I am willing to bake the cake for my lesbian neighbor’s wedding. Is this actionable?

  15. No one said anything about a Government here. You must have picked that out of the Air

    Respectfully, Happy…..the entire premise of this thread is about the Government.

    Can the Government force you to go against your religious principles?

    Can the Government force you to participate in a religious ceremony that is against your own religion?

    Can the Government force you to associate with people with whom you do not want. Boy Scouts for example.

    Can the Government fine you or put you in jail if you don’t comply?

    Can the Government close your business if you refuse to comply?

    Can the Government compel you to make speech, in the form of an artistic creation or compel you to support something that you find objectionable?

    How far can the Government intrude into our lives and compel us to break our own vows, religious principles and compel us to speak out against our beliefs or compel us to remain silent and not be able to speak.

    It is completely and totally about the Government. Yes. This particular case has religious overtures, but what about the next one? One where the Government is setting the rules on what you can say about a political class. One where the Government has decided that YOUR political class doesn’t deserve the rights of the First Amendment. One where the Government decides to squash the free speech rights of your group because it is in disagreement with the Government.

    I’m sure you have heard the folk tale of the camel’s nose under the tent? Well, this is just the tip of the camel’s nose. You will really object when the entire camel is taking up your tent…..but then…..it will be too late.

    1. Pogo Hears a Who

      happypappies

      “No one is practicing Psychology here Pogo”
      Of course you are.
      You do not know me but have judged me.
      “Authoritarian”, “Narcissist “.

      “No one said anything about a Government here.”

      Most readers recognize otherwise by the use of the word “Authoritarian”:

      “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
      Authoritarianism is marked by “indefinite political tenure” of the ruler or ruling party (often in a single-party state) or other authority.”

      “negating who I am by attaching a term of the Left to me even though I am Fiscally Conservative and do support a small government”

      You belong to a left-liberal church, the Preabytarians, whose liberalism has been the cause for its declining numbers.
      I assumed you favored their liberal policies, like gay marriage, because you support that here.
      You also support State coercion for the enforcement of their diktats (Thou shalt bake).
      The pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel stance.
      Nothing you posted is conservative or small government.

      All of those positions slant left-liberal.

      Well, okay then Pogo

      The Narcissist thing came from something I was going to post to our resident pop psychologist Ken regarding Maslow as he brought up M Scott Peck and He had written that book about Malignant Narcissism.

      The Only Authority in my life is Jesus Christ. That’s it. Not the Church certainly. I fight with them all the time. They say one thing and do another. If they want to marry gays, they better stand behind it.

      Did you read the part where I said that we had a Democratic Session. meaning that it’s like a riot? I don’t want to support Palestine. That is the way the Vote went. Go back and re read that post if you feel like it. I said something about the Angela Davis decision in 1973 also. I am a cradle Presbyterian and I am in my 60s and we all are. I am not going to quit. My soul is in the music and everything and we have a mission. I can’t help it the Session is chaotic.

      I do not watch TV. I will vote Republican this time because Shillary scares the life out of me. Most on here I talk to recognize this in me but I see that we are still having a problem here.

      I would sooner die than support the State. Squeeks would support it before me because she is left leaning Fiscally and Right leaning Socially. I am the Opposite and you can’t seem to grasp that.

      We don’t care in our Church if our “Liberalism” which is What I claim to be – Socially Liberal – is causing our numbers to fail right now. We also don’t believe in a ridiculous eschatology of an endtimes where Nicholas Cage or Kirk Cameron is going to come in a bus and people are going to start disappearing in mid air because Jesus has come back to “Judge” in the Tribulation and throw people in a fiery lake and the horsemen will come and there will be “signs” and the sun will turn black and the moon will turn red and everything will just die. lol. Nope. We don’t believe that. I hope you are Catholic cause then you don’t either.

      I don’t practice any particular thing. I am not a professor. I am a thinker and a dilettante. I am not ashamed of it. I am good at it. I can put anything together and solve a problem embryonically and move on,

      Personally, it would be more interesting to talk about you, but, you won’t as I am still proving myself here.

      This is the thing Pogo. I had a very deep spiritual experience not too long ago. I went to the advocate/Holy Spirit with all of my Soul Groaning and cried out to God and he said not to worry about all of these issues like Gay Marriage that in the scheme of things they were not important, So, when I am confused, I go and pray. I do it a lot. a lot And people like Max-1 are worth it and are Christian

  16. happypappies

    “No one is practicing Psychology here Pogo”
    Of course you are.
    You do not know me but have judged me.
    “Authoritarian”, “Narcissist “.

    “No one said anything about a Government here.”

    Most readers recognize otherwise by the use of the word “Authoritarian”:

    “favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
    Authoritarianism is marked by “indefinite political tenure” of the ruler or ruling party (often in a single-party state) or other authority.    ”

    “negating who I am by attaching a term of the Left to me even though I am Fiscally Conservative and do support a small government”

    You belong to a left-liberal church, the Preabytarians, whose liberalism has been the cause for its declining numbers.
    I assumed you favored their liberal policies, like gay marriage, because you support that here.
    You also support State coercion for the enforcement of their diktats (Thou shalt bake).
    The pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel stance.
    Nothing you posted is conservative or small government.

    All of those positions slant left-liberal.

  17. Yes, they want freedom for their particular feelings, howevermuch they change (remember when gays were against bourgeois marriage?), but not for other people

    1. Pogo

      In contrast, the authoritarian left, the communists and progressives, want more and more government, including, as in the case here, wanting to have the State force people to participate in gay weddings.

      And we are full circle.

      What are you even talking about? I am all about free enterprise. Hang a sign out and say you don’t cater gay weddings. Be up front about it. We were up front in our Religiosity. If we worship the Trinity how can we be communists since we pay taces and don’t worship the state and have “falling numbers” and still love each other and do lots of things in the community like our music missions?

      Why the vitriol?

  18. @Pogo

    One of my pet theories is that OCD is at least a significant co-morbid trait (if not at the root) of male homosexuality, to the degree that it doesn’t degenerate into frequent bouts of “bi-sexuality.” It seems to me that the few gay men (10 or so) that I have known were very uptight and fussy about little things, and I know this is going to sound weird, but they were also not very broadminded outside of their homosexual comfort zone. This is counter-intuitive, because you’d think gay men always think “outside the box” (Subtle word play alert!) but they seem to have very narrow minds by and large, and display a lot of “all or nothing” thinking.

    You see this same trait in the multi-cultural liberals who overtly express the view that we should all be tolerant of other people’s cultures and belief systems, and then come down like Hitler on rednecks, or conservatives, or Christians. It is like the “vocalization” of open-ness is a substitute for actual open-ness.

    Just my humble opinion.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  19. DBQ

    Also…..

    The baker that refuses a wedding cake to a same sex wedding – does that baker belong to a church that also finds divorce a sin?

    No cakes for the divorced?

  20. happy, Inga, and Ken,

    Your psychiatric diagnostic skills are a bit weak.
    Mostly retreaded slurs and dull mockery.
    I expect better work.
    Try harder!

Comments are closed.