Anyone who regularly reads my columns should know by now that whenever you hear the word tolerance you should flee for your life, or at least proceed with great caution. That is because most of the folks screaming about tolerance don’t believe in the concept at all.
They don’t want your tolerance, they want your complete subservience and acquiescence to their demands. You will accept them and their agenda, bow down to them, and never resist them – or else. There is nothing tolerant about these folks, and they delight in using the heavy hand of the law to force you to submit.
The homosexual activists are of course the world leaders in all this. They are experts in rambling on about tolerance while showing not one iota of tolerance to anyone who dares to disagree with their radical agenda. The terms ‘gaystapo’ or ‘pink mafia’ were not coined without reason after all.
On a daily basis the storm troopers of the tolerance brigade are doing their best to destroy freedom and democracy and turn the entire Western world into one big pink dictatorship. As long as they keep unleashing their reign of terror, I will keep on reporting on this, until they manage to shut CultureWatch down and see me silenced forever.
One case which I have already written about continues to bubble along, so is worth revisiting. I refer of course to American baker Jack Phillips. The owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado is the new object of hate and derision by the tolerance brigade because he dared to stand true to his conscience rather than be coerced by the militants.
While an activist judge has thrown the book at him, many folks are coming to his side, rightly seeing this as a very important case of religious liberty. It seems he may well go out of business because of his stance, but many locals are rallying to his aid.
One news report describes the situation so far: “On Friday, hundreds of supporters flooded the small Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood in support of the store’s owner, Jack Phillips. Phillips made national news in 2012 when he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, claiming it violated his Christian beliefs. The couple sued him, and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint on their behalf.
“Last week, administrative law judge Robert Spencer made a ruling on the case. He said Phillips would have to sell gay couples wedding cakes or risk facing penalties and fines. On Friday, Phillips’ supporters fired back by supporting his business and making donations.
“Supporter Sharon Taylor says she and her friends have purchased cakes from Phillips for years. She wanted to show her support because she says Americans should have the right to stand by their religious beliefs. ‘When we heard that [Peter Boyles] was on the radio today supporting him, we knew we had to come out,’ she said. ‘There are a lot of us out here who believe that our freedoms are slowly being taken away and that we need to stand up and protect them when we can.’
“Other supporters were first time customers. ‘I’ve never been here before. I came today because of this cause. This guy has rights; he has freedoms; he’s allowed to do what he wants to do as long as it doesn’t hurt other people,’ Rich Wyatt said. ‘America’s in a difficult position right now, and we’re losing rights every day that we can’t afford to lose. I’m proud to see Americans coming out today and supporting this guy’s rights to make a cake for whoever he wants to make a cake, or not’.”
The case of course has become a hotly debated national news item, without various heavyweights from all sides coming out on this one. Dennis Prager offers some more background to the case and to the cake shop owner: “Though same-sex marriage is not allowed in Colorado — the Colorado Constitution states that ‘Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state’ — the two men had been married in Massachusetts.
“As acknowledged by all parties, Phillips told the men, ‘I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’ Jack Phillips is an evangelical Christian, and his religion does not allow him to participate in same-sex marriages or celebrations of same-sex marriages.
“In other words, Phillips made it clear from the outset that he does not discriminate based on the sexual orientation of a prospective customer. He will knowingly sell his products to any gay person who wishes to purchase his baked goods. Nevertheless, Craig and Mullins went to the ACLU, which then sued Phillips.”
He notes how the judge’s ruling forces Phillips to either make the cake for the homosexuals or face fines, if not jail time. After looking at some of the ruling, Prager responds as follows:
“Here’s why that objection is irrelevant:
1. No religion practiced in America — indeed, no world religion — has ever banned interracial marriage. That some American Christians opposed interracial marriage is of no consequence. No one assumes that every position held by any member of a religion means that the religion holds that position.
“2. If opposition to same-sex marriage is not a legitimately held religious conviction, there is no such thing as a legitimately held religious position. Unlike opposition to interracial marriage, opposition to same-sex marriage has been the position of every religion in recorded history — as well as of every country and every American state until the 21st century.
“3. The Colorado baker made it clear to the gay couple — as acknowledged by the court — that he would be happy to bake and sell cakes to these gay men any other time they wanted. Therefore, he is not discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. He readily sells to people he knows to be gay. What he is unwilling to do is to participate in an event that he opposes for legitimate religious reasons. Until, at the most, 10 years ago, no one would have imagined that a person could be forced to provide goods or services for a same-sex wedding.
“4. If a baker refused on religious grounds to provide the wedding cake for a polygamous wedding, should the state force him to do so? If a baker refused to provide a cake to a heterosexual couple that was celebrating living together without getting married, should the state force him to?”
Good points indeed. Prager concludes this way: “Some years ago, Jonah Goldberg wrote a bestseller titled Liberal Fascism. If you think that title is an exaggeration, read the book. Or just watch what liberals are doing to those who oppose same-sex marriage. In the name of tolerance, the left is eroding liberty in America.”
The Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) are the effluent pipe from which flow Hegelian and Marxist ideology and all our misery.
“The SORs outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation.”
These dry as dust sounding regulations, whose creation was overseen by lesbian and Marxists are little understood or let alone known by the vast majority of the population, who, even if they did, would judge them as so abstruse as to having little practical impact on society. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The regulations have a hidden corollary which, if revealed, would suddenly alert the public as to their true meaning. What the regulations hide is the fact they mention only provision and not reception. It’s as though a curtain has been deliberately drawn half way across them. In full they should read:
The SORs outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation; and that therefore 98% of the nation will be discriminated against, on any grounds, by removing such goods and services that previously upheld the values and morality necessary to produce and maintain marriage, family life and a Christian nation.
You will search in vain for a Lawyer, MP, Judge, school, church, bed and breakfast, blood supplier, photographer, cake maker, adoption agency, foster parents , who will provide you with goods and services, not contaminated, degraded and sodomised by the pink law, because they will all have been shut down.
It is true that choice will not be taken from you entirely: you can choose either to receive pink goods and services or none at all.
When they shut down my Christian school, I did not complain because I have no children.
When they sacked my Christian doctor, I did not complain because I hardly every get sick.
When they shut down the Christian adoption agency, I did not complain because I am not a child in need of adoption
When they they shut down my Church, I did not complain because I don’t believe in anything.
When they took away my freedom of speech, there was no one left to complain.
David Skinner, UK
I pray that everyone will take the time to listen Dr Scott Lively, one of the few voices left to speak the truth about the profound evil of homosexuality over and above all other sins.
“Celebrating diversity” is all the rage these days – but is there a zone beyond which “diversity” becomes intolerably evil and dictatorial. Where are the limits to “diversity” – or does love really “know no [ethical] bounds”? As Shakespeare remarked, even death has his bornes, beyond which no fardles may be borne!
“Tolerance” surely cannot assume that everything is “tolerable”. A bridge cannot bear loads beyond its capacity to carry, nor should we expect men and women to bear iniquities for which they were not created.
John Wigg
Logically then why can’t they compel people to attend the wedding if one is invited? It should be illegal to refuse an invitation on principled grounds.
Damien Spillane
There are more of us than them. Why are we so silent?
Graham Jose
It’s amazing how 98% of the population are held hostage to the strident demands of 2%. “As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone” is the usual mantra to condone sexually deviant behaviour. The cake maker was not hurting anyone – he would gladly have made cakes for any occasion other than a gay wedding but rather than respect his views and look elsewhere, he was sued; but the corollary of the Sexual Orientation Regulations in David’s post above reveals weasel words.
It was good to see Pastor Lively’s presentation – an antidote to fading belief in bible scripture. He emphasises the clash of two opposite world views and how it behoves those who believe to speak up. I read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah for the first time recently, found in Genesis 19. It’s a riveting report of a story which begins “And there came two angels to Sodom at even;” (link below). As Pastor Lively says, there is nothing new under the sun and the seriousness of universal apostasy should serve as a warning of calamity.
.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=AKJV
Rachel Smith
Taking the baker to court was a spiteful, petty and vexatious thing to do. If the judge can give way to that kind of attitude it is a sure sign of a confused mind as well as an attack on freedom.
David Morrison
Apart from the fact that Messrs Charlie Craig and David Mullins could probably have chosen from literally thousands of cake makers who would celebrate their abominations, how soon before a gay cake maker refuses to make a wedding cake with one man and one woman on top of it?
In Britain we have gay hotels and B&B,like Hamilton Hall in Bournemouth [1] and Chymorgen [2] in Cornwall that are allowed to discriminate against straight couples or single people who subscribe to a universal acknowledgement and respect for the complementary and binary components, necessary for the continuance of the the human race.
But let us hear it from the horse’s mouth as to why the pinkoes should be allowed to discriminate against the 98% of the population, apart from the fact that the wind is temporarily in their direction, they have the money and they have insinuated themselves, temporarily, into the key positions of power.
Listen to this: “I don’t think gay clubs should be allowed to have discriminatory admissions policies just because they’re private businesses, I think they should be allowed to do so because it’s beneficial for society to have safe spaces for LGBT people; and the right to a place where you can associate with like-minded people and be yourself.” [3]
Well ladies and gentlemen, that can only happen if we all become queer, which is what our children are going to be forced to become.
It never fails to amaze me that those who crave tolerance, in the homosexual and lesbian factions cannot understand that it takes opposite sexes to produce a child. So when normal attitudes are expounded, the truth hurts them.
Full marks to the baker who will not be bulled into having the right to refuse to produce or serve anyone who violates their own values.
Iana Angliss
Each decision by a judge in respect of these trading “gotchas” – the B&B accommodation, the bakery, the wedding cake, etc – actually demonstrate that the fundamental law of contract has been overturned.
No longer is the commercial world operating on a free offer and free acceptance basis for conducting trade.
The law of contract says that a shopkeeper displaying his wares (or equivalent for an advertiser of his services) is “inviting an offer from the public”.
A member of the public who offers to trade is awaiting an acceptance by the shopkeeper before there can be any contract in force.
It is open to the supplier of the goods or service to decline to accept, without giving a reason.
Most businesses focus their attention on what they define as their specialty or their chosen niche market. This already introduces an element of discrimination. If I am selling industrial oils (for machinery), and someone comes offering to buy cooking oil for his fish&chip shop, I will decline to trade, and there is no law of discrimination which can prevent me. Neither is there any legal penalty applicable to me as I have not refused in bad faith: I simply don’t have what he wants.
BUT additionally, there is no law or social stigma attaching to my refusal which defines me as a “bad person.”
However, there is now (via gaystapo activism) a possibility that I could be challenged. If a homosexual person asked for say petroleum jelly (a pharmaceutical grade grease) and I were to say “Sorry, I don’t have any available, try a pharmacy or supermarket”, I might be the subject of a complaint to HREOC (irrational as that may seem).
I might then have to go to great lengths to demonstrate to a commissioner that I had no stock at the time, and/or that I could not obtain it in the quantity sought (say 500gm container), that I would refuse in the same way every request, and so on, at huge expense in time, money and emotional energy.
The result may be that the commissioner finds against me, and that I was supposed to supply what the purchaser was looking for. The effort required in mounting my defence might be enough to kill my business, and discourage me from starting up again.
The process is the first penalty – the cost of defending my rights as a business operator. The gaystapo enjoy any number of “victories” (which are never reported) via this commercial bullying because hardly anyone can afford to defend themselves.
The second penalty could be being forced to accept the offer to purchase, on uneconomic terms. It costs me so much to provide that 500gm container (because I have to buy a 20kg bulk pack first), that I must establish a high price for that sale. But HREOC could force me to charge a supermarket price only, rather than permitting me to recover all my costs.
Thirdly, there is the bad publicity, and the stigma of being labelled a “bad person” in the eyes of the gaystapo and their media friends.
All of these are unintended consequences for the community which has accepted that homosexuals (2% of the population) have equal impact with the other 98%. But they are definitely intended by the gay activists as part of their agenda of dominance.
It seems that hard core gay folk have a high and mighty opinion of themselves that elevates them beyond the reaches of societies norm. They are arrogant, self righteous gadabouts whose purpose in life appears to want to infiltrate and dominate. Dangerously though, their reach of influence has provided them with a power base that’s both vast and militant ready to knock down any act or sign of non compliance to their cause that dares to express a view or take a stand that’s different to theirs
John Angelico, what is the law here? What is the difference between a shop refusing to sell cigarettes, alcohol or some other item to customers who are either too young, already drunk or for some other reason that the shopkeeper might think would harm the purchaser, physically, morally or economically? Does a seller have to give any reason for not doing business with someone, when there are others around who would be quite willing to do so?
In terms of producing and raising children, the productive part of society, real husbands, wives, fathers and mothers, are not only being considered as belonging to the stone age, but are being forced to finance an engorgement of both a biologically unproductive part of society and a growing number of single parents families who are dependent on the state. For traditional families who are called dirty breeders by the pinkoes, to have to bear the weight of financing families that come in all shapes and sizes, whilst being deprived, through the Sexual Orientation Regulations of receiving goods and services, essential for protecting, sustaining and developing their own fertile families gives equality and diversity a whole new meaning.
David Skinner UK
This is how marriage is treated by the culturally bereft.
The Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) are the effluent pipe from which flow Hegelian and Marxist ideology and all our misery.
“The SORs outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation.”
These dry as dust sounding regulations, whose creation was overseen by lesbian and Marxists are little understood or let alone known by the vast majority of the population, who, even if they did, would judge them as so abstruse as to having little practical impact on society. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The regulations have a hidden corollary which, if revealed, would suddenly alert the public as to their true meaning. What the regulations hide is the fact they mention only provision and not reception. It’s as though a curtain has been deliberately drawn half way across them. In full they should read:
The SORs outlaw discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation; and that therefore 98% of the nation will be discriminated against, on any grounds, by removing such goods and services that previously upheld the values and morality necessary to produce and maintain marriage, family life and a Christian nation.
You will search in vain for a Lawyer, MP, Judge, school, church, bed and breakfast, blood supplier, photographer, cake maker, adoption agency, foster parents , who will provide you with goods and services, not contaminated, degraded and sodomised by the pink law, because they will all have been shut down.
It is true that choice will not be taken from you entirely: you can choose either to receive pink goods and services or none at all.
When they shut down my Christian school, I did not complain because I have no children.
When they sacked my Christian doctor, I did not complain because I hardly every get sick.
When they shut down the Christian adoption agency, I did not complain because I am not a child in need of adoption
When they they shut down my Church, I did not complain because I don’t believe in anything.
When they took away my freedom of speech, there was no one left to complain.
David Skinner, UK
I pray that everyone will take the time to listen Dr Scott Lively, one of the few voices left to speak the truth about the profound evil of homosexuality over and above all other sins.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/scott_lively/speech_011512.html
David Skinner, Uk
“Celebrating diversity” is all the rage these days – but is there a zone beyond which “diversity” becomes intolerably evil and dictatorial. Where are the limits to “diversity” – or does love really “know no [ethical] bounds”? As Shakespeare remarked, even death has his bornes, beyond which no fardles may be borne!
“Tolerance” surely cannot assume that everything is “tolerable”. A bridge cannot bear loads beyond its capacity to carry, nor should we expect men and women to bear iniquities for which they were not created.
John Wigg
Logically then why can’t they compel people to attend the wedding if one is invited? It should be illegal to refuse an invitation on principled grounds.
Damien Spillane
There are more of us than them. Why are we so silent?
Graham Jose
It’s amazing how 98% of the population are held hostage to the strident demands of 2%. “As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone” is the usual mantra to condone sexually deviant behaviour. The cake maker was not hurting anyone – he would gladly have made cakes for any occasion other than a gay wedding but rather than respect his views and look elsewhere, he was sued; but the corollary of the Sexual Orientation Regulations in David’s post above reveals weasel words.
It was good to see Pastor Lively’s presentation – an antidote to fading belief in bible scripture. He emphasises the clash of two opposite world views and how it behoves those who believe to speak up. I read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah for the first time recently, found in Genesis 19. It’s a riveting report of a story which begins “And there came two angels to Sodom at even;” (link below). As Pastor Lively says, there is nothing new under the sun and the seriousness of universal apostasy should serve as a warning of calamity.
.http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=AKJV
Rachel Smith
Taking the baker to court was a spiteful, petty and vexatious thing to do. If the judge can give way to that kind of attitude it is a sure sign of a confused mind as well as an attack on freedom.
David Morrison
Apart from the fact that Messrs Charlie Craig and David Mullins could probably have chosen from literally thousands of cake makers who would celebrate their abominations, how soon before a gay cake maker refuses to make a wedding cake with one man and one woman on top of it?
In Britain we have gay hotels and B&B,like Hamilton Hall in Bournemouth [1] and Chymorgen [2] in Cornwall that are allowed to discriminate against straight couples or single people who subscribe to a universal acknowledgement and respect for the complementary and binary components, necessary for the continuance of the the human race.
But let us hear it from the horse’s mouth as to why the pinkoes should be allowed to discriminate against the 98% of the population, apart from the fact that the wind is temporarily in their direction, they have the money and they have insinuated themselves, temporarily, into the key positions of power.
Listen to this: “I don’t think gay clubs should be allowed to have discriminatory admissions policies just because they’re private businesses, I think they should be allowed to do so because it’s beneficial for society to have safe spaces for LGBT people; and the right to a place where you can associate with like-minded people and be yourself.” [3]
Well ladies and gentlemen, that can only happen if we all become queer, which is what our children are going to be forced to become.
[1] Hamilton Hall
http://www.hamiltonhall.info/
[2] Chymorgen
http://www.chymorgen.co.uk/
http://www.gayaccommodationcornwall.co.uk/lesbian-self-catering-holiday-cottages-apartments-cornwall.htm
[3] http://thethirdestate.net/2011/01/life-isnt-fair-why-its-ok-for-g-a-y-to-discriminate-but-not-for-homophobic-bb-owners/
David Skinner, UK
It never fails to amaze me that those who crave tolerance, in the homosexual and lesbian factions cannot understand that it takes opposite sexes to produce a child. So when normal attitudes are expounded, the truth hurts them.
Full marks to the baker who will not be bulled into having the right to refuse to produce or serve anyone who violates their own values.
Iana Angliss
Each decision by a judge in respect of these trading “gotchas” – the B&B accommodation, the bakery, the wedding cake, etc – actually demonstrate that the fundamental law of contract has been overturned.
No longer is the commercial world operating on a free offer and free acceptance basis for conducting trade.
The law of contract says that a shopkeeper displaying his wares (or equivalent for an advertiser of his services) is “inviting an offer from the public”.
A member of the public who offers to trade is awaiting an acceptance by the shopkeeper before there can be any contract in force.
It is open to the supplier of the goods or service to decline to accept, without giving a reason.
Most businesses focus their attention on what they define as their specialty or their chosen niche market. This already introduces an element of discrimination. If I am selling industrial oils (for machinery), and someone comes offering to buy cooking oil for his fish&chip shop, I will decline to trade, and there is no law of discrimination which can prevent me. Neither is there any legal penalty applicable to me as I have not refused in bad faith: I simply don’t have what he wants.
BUT additionally, there is no law or social stigma attaching to my refusal which defines me as a “bad person.”
However, there is now (via gaystapo activism) a possibility that I could be challenged. If a homosexual person asked for say petroleum jelly (a pharmaceutical grade grease) and I were to say “Sorry, I don’t have any available, try a pharmacy or supermarket”, I might be the subject of a complaint to HREOC (irrational as that may seem).
I might then have to go to great lengths to demonstrate to a commissioner that I had no stock at the time, and/or that I could not obtain it in the quantity sought (say 500gm container), that I would refuse in the same way every request, and so on, at huge expense in time, money and emotional energy.
The result may be that the commissioner finds against me, and that I was supposed to supply what the purchaser was looking for. The effort required in mounting my defence might be enough to kill my business, and discourage me from starting up again.
The process is the first penalty – the cost of defending my rights as a business operator. The gaystapo enjoy any number of “victories” (which are never reported) via this commercial bullying because hardly anyone can afford to defend themselves.
The second penalty could be being forced to accept the offer to purchase, on uneconomic terms. It costs me so much to provide that 500gm container (because I have to buy a 20kg bulk pack first), that I must establish a high price for that sale. But HREOC could force me to charge a supermarket price only, rather than permitting me to recover all my costs.
Thirdly, there is the bad publicity, and the stigma of being labelled a “bad person” in the eyes of the gaystapo and their media friends.
All of these are unintended consequences for the community which has accepted that homosexuals (2% of the population) have equal impact with the other 98%. But they are definitely intended by the gay activists as part of their agenda of dominance.
It seems that hard core gay folk have a high and mighty opinion of themselves that elevates them beyond the reaches of societies norm. They are arrogant, self righteous gadabouts whose purpose in life appears to want to infiltrate and dominate. Dangerously though, their reach of influence has provided them with a power base that’s both vast and militant ready to knock down any act or sign of non compliance to their cause that dares to express a view or take a stand that’s different to theirs
John Angelico, what is the law here? What is the difference between a shop refusing to sell cigarettes, alcohol or some other item to customers who are either too young, already drunk or for some other reason that the shopkeeper might think would harm the purchaser, physically, morally or economically? Does a seller have to give any reason for not doing business with someone, when there are others around who would be quite willing to do so?
In terms of producing and raising children, the productive part of society, real husbands, wives, fathers and mothers, are not only being considered as belonging to the stone age, but are being forced to finance an engorgement of both a biologically unproductive part of society and a growing number of single parents families who are dependent on the state. For traditional families who are called dirty breeders by the pinkoes, to have to bear the weight of financing families that come in all shapes and sizes, whilst being deprived, through the Sexual Orientation Regulations of receiving goods and services, essential for protecting, sustaining and developing their own fertile families gives equality and diversity a whole new meaning.
David Skinner UK
This is how marriage is treated by the culturally bereft.