Why is the religious freedom of an anti-LGBT baker more important than that of a Muslim soldier or physician?

35 Questions

This is part 31 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


31. why is the religious freedom of an anti-LGBT baker important to you, but not a Muslim soldier or physician?

There must be a story to go with this somewhere, but I’m not sure what it is. In a nutshell, though, the religious freedoms of all Americans should be respected, but there are some limitations, just like the Freedom Speech restriction of “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” So, let’s talk about this for a moment to correct some misconceptions.

First, most Christian bakers, florists, photographer, etc. do not discriminate against gay people. They discriminate against events. If a gay person comes into a bakery, the Christian baker will sell the gay person bread, cookies, cake, whatever. It’s when asked to provide a wedding cake for a wedding event that creates the problem. I would be surprised if you didn’t get the same reaction from an Islamic baker, but I wonder if activists would flip out over that. Most Christians are not “against gay people.” They’re against homosexuality, and they separate the two. One is an action, a sin, and that is what they won’t condone. Quite frankly, Christians are supposed to discriminate against sin!

Muslim soldiers and physicians also have a right to practice their religion, and I haven’t heard of any instances where they have not been afforded that right. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, but it’s certainly not on the scale that Christian rights have been attacked.

I wonder if a Muslim baker would be attacked in the media for not baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding the same way Christians have. Would Muslim bakers have to be “reeducated?”

Related Posts:

Quick Marks (September 4)

Quick thoughts on some of the past week’s news: Dave Grohl feels like an alien; Those who are supposed to protect us from violence don’t know how to protect us from violence (Antifa); and possibly the highlight, an Australian woman who grew up with two lesbian mothers explains how unhappy she was.

Dave Grohl on how Donald Trump inspired Foo Fighters’ new album – NME

Dave Grohl discusses how Donald Trump & subsequent ‘wave of conservatism’ shaped his lyrics on Foo Fighters’ new album ‘Concrete & Gold’

Grohl also added that being in the US during the “conservative wave” that came with the rise of Trump reminded of the ‘alienation’ he felt as a teenager.

“It’s weird,” said Grohl. “It really sparked a lot of my early, alienated, freakish punk rock feelings from when I was a teenager. I was one of those little freaks in his blue bedroom in the middle of a really conservative part Virginia feeling like I was just an alien. I started feeling that way again.”

I have news for you Dave. Everyone feels like an alien at times in their life. How do you think conservatives felt for eight years under Obama’s administration?

Come to think of it, as a Christian, we’re supposed to feel a little alien. Like we don’t belong.

Source: Dave Grohl on how Donald Trump inspired Foo Fighters’ new album – NME

FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks

Confidential documents call the anarchists that seek to counter white supremacists “domestic terrorists.”

“Everybody is wondering, ‘What are we gonna do? How are we gonna deal with this?’” said the senior state law enforcement official.

If your senior state law enforcement official is asking, how are we gonna deal with this, I think it’s time to get a new senior state law enforcement official.

It’s not that hard to figure out. Bring in more police. If the police can’t handle it, call in the National Guard. Oh, they did? Maybe they should be allowed to do their jobs.

I think the bigger problem is that Democrat politicians and the Main Stream Media are contributing to the problem by blaming the victims of the violence. But that’s what they do best: blame the victims. It doesn’t matter that the victims are hate groups. A lot of Christian groups are wrongly considered hate groups, so how long before Antifa starts showing up at Christian gatherings with their violence?

Violence is never acceptable.

Source: FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks

Australian Woman Who Grew Up With Two Lesbian Mothers Explains How Unhappy She Was

A woman from Australia who grew up with two lesbian mothers and no father figure has spoken about her experience and why same sex marriage isn’t good for children.

This is a pretty interesting read, but make sure you watch the video.

She also has a YouTube channel: Millie Fontana. Unfortunately, there’s only a couple uploads.

You can find out more about putting children’s rights before adult desires at Them Before Us.

Source: Australian Woman Who Grew Up With Two Lesbian Mothers Explains How Unhappy She Was

The Marriage Equality Myth

Gay Pride God

Always the marriage equality argument. This is, of course, a big fat lie.

Marriage equality has always existed. The law never said gay people can’t get married. It said men had to marry women, and it applied equally to ALL men regardless of sexual orientation. That’s equality.

But, but, gay men couldn’t marry whoever they wanted!

Neither could straight men! Straight men couldn’t marry their mother, sister, brother, male neighbor, dog… whatever. The same restrictions that applied to gay men, applied to straight men. That’s equality.

The laws said a man has to marry a woman. Is a gay man a man? Is he different from a straight man? I imagine most gay men consider themselves to be men. And if a gay man is a man, like any other man, the laws will apply equally to him. That’s equality.

Changing the law to allow men to marry men, does not change the equality aspect unless the law is rewritten to say: gay men can only marry gay men, and straight men can only marry straight women. Obviously, it will/does not. So, new laws, or allowances, or rights, under the law will remain equal. If men are allowed to marry men, it will apply equally to straight men. Because that’s equality.

Why would a straight man want to marry another man? The only reason I can think of are economics, but the point is, they would be legally, and equally, be able to do so.

The equality issue is a false argument. It’s a myth. It’s a distraction from the real issue, and the real issue is that they want to redefine marriage.

Related Posts:

Heterosexuality Rears Its Ugly Head In a Same-Sex “Marriage”

Santos said, "Because [she] is not her daughter; [she] is our daughter."

Manuel Santos is patently wrong. When he refers to her, he is referring to the baby’s biological mother, Patidta Kusongsaang, and when he refers to our, he is referring to him and his husband, Gordon Lake.

Let me point out the obvious. Santos and his husband can not have children. It’s impossible, by nature1. Therefore, the baby, Carmen, is not biologically theirs. From a legal standpoint, she may be, but not biologically. No court decision can change that.

Children, by nature, have a biological mother and a biological father. Again, this is something that a court can’t change. A court decision doesn’t change the child’s DNA. The child will forever be the biological child of Manuel Santos and Patidta Kusongsaang, no matter how Santos and his partner feel about it. To think otherwise is a denial of reality; a delusion you might say.

But it seems to me, that this same-sex "marriage" is exactly that, a denial. While the argument is posed as an equality, and love, measure, it leaves out the family measure.

It’s at this point the unnaturalness of the union becomes apparent. A same-sex couple can’t procreate. They must receive assistance from an outside individual; an individual of the opposite sex.

And it’s here that reality must be confronted: In order to have biological children, at least one member of the same-sex couple must embrace heterosexually in order to procreate. And only one of them can be the biological parent.

There is no hate in that statement. There is no bigotry. Only truth.

The bottom line is this: homosexuality is a social construct, not a biological one, and they must choose to put homosexuality aside in order to create a family in which one parent is still left out biologically.


  1. This seems to me to be the very definition of an unnatural relationship.

Related Posts:

Discriminating Between People and Events

There’s a lot of screaming about anti-gay discrimination from Christian shop owners, but are they really discriminating against gays?

You hear a common theme from the shop owners: they will provide services for gay people, but they won’t provide services for a same-sex “marriage.” The outraged response shows that people clearly don’t understand the difference between the two. To not provide services for gay people, such as someone’s birthday cake, would be to discriminate against a person–an individual. That would be a legitimate complaint; that would not be loving your neighbor. But a wedding ceremony is not a human being, it is an event. And for a Christian owner to not want to provide services for an event that he does not believe in, is not just acceptable, it should be expected.

Many people miss the fact that we are talking about two different cases here, but respond the same for both. In one case we’re talking about individual human beings, and in the other we are talking about an event. They want the same protection for each, but in order to be fair to everyone, we must violate the beliefs of many, not just a few that we are angry with at the moment. The whims of the law can’t change with the whims of the people.

If we’re going to force people to support, or appear to support, ideas and events that violate their conscience, than in the name of equality, the government must:

  • force Christian cake shop owners to create cakes that support same-sex “marriage”
  • force gay bake shop owners to create cakes that support “God Hates Fags” messages
  • force black cake shop owners to create cakes that support KKK events (if there is such a thing)
  • force Christian cake shop owners to create cakes with “God Hates Fags” messages
  • force any cake shop owner to create cakes with pornographic images

Of course, I can’t see a KKK member soliciting a cake shop owned by black people for a cake. In which–I can’t believe I’m thinking this–in this case, I suppose the KKK member actually has a better sense of reality than the LGBT Nazis. Why wouldn’t you just take your business elsewhere? Why create a stink?

Sometimes discrimination is good. For example, if you Google “definition discrimination” you are presented with two definitions. The second one reads: recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. The usage in a sentence example is: “discrimination between right and wrong.”

Another example of discrimination is this article. I’m discriminating between a gay individual and a gay event. See how that works? We are talking about the difference between and individual and an event. And this is good. The two are not the same, should not be treated the same, and should not have the same protection under law.

So, to answer the question, are Christian shop owners discriminating against gays? No. They are discriminating against an event.

Note: the vast majority of Christians do no believe “God Hates Fags.” Those that do are a vocal minority, and not representative of the greater majority. Hmm. Sound familiar?

Related Posts: