Judson Phillips, the clearly sane president of Tea Party Nation, is very worried about the direction Arizona is going, now that Governor Jan Brewer decided that keeping her state business-friendly is more important than a few wingnuts who believe they have a right to play by different rules from everyone else when it comes to things like discrimination. Let us read his latest screed together:
The left and the homosexual lobby in America went into overdrive to kill this bill. Conservatives rallied for this bill and Governor Brewer opted for cowardice instead of courage.
Why is this bill so important and what did it mean for not only Arizona but America?
The issue can be boiled down to one word: Freedom.
Explain to us the meaning of “freedom, ” Judson.
A free man or woman controls their labor. A slave has no control over their labor. A free man or woman decides who they will work for and under what conditions. The slave cannot.
The left and the homosexual lobby are both pushing slavery using the Orwellian concepts of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness.”
The law began as a response to a case in neighboring New Mexico. There, the state of New Mexico allowed a lawsuit against a Christian photographer who declined to photograph a homosexual commitment ceremony. There have been similar cases with bakers in Oregon and Colorado.
And they all lose, because the law is pretty cut-and-dried on this matter. If you’re selling goods to the public, you don’t get to pick and choose whom you sell to.
The storm rose against Arizona and Jan Brewer proved she was no Ronald Reagan. She has an honored place in the ranks of the French Republicans. Corporations and business interests, many of whom support far left wing causes, like Apple demanded this bill be vetoed. Apple gives 96% of its political giving to Democrats. Why a Republican listens to a word from Apple or lifts a finger to help them is beyond comprehension. The NFL threatened to pull the Super Bowl from Arizona in 2015.
Oh, the grammar and the poor syntax. If you click on the piece, you’ll also see that it’s published in large, bold print. We are dealing with a genius here, folks. Of course, he’s lying when he suggests that it was only liberal-minded businesses that protested this and other similar laws. Pandering to anti-gay wingnuts is bad for business across the board, because normal people are turned off by them.
The left loves to come up with absurd hypotheticals to scream that there must be compliance with their fascism, so how about a couple from our side.
Should a devout baker be required to create a cake for a homosexual wedding that has a giant phallic symbol on it or should a baker be required to create pastries for a homosexual wedding in the shape of genitallia? Or should a photographer be required to photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior? Would they force a Jewish photographer to work a Klan or Nazi event? How about forcing a Muslim caterer to work a pork barbeque dinner?
Let’s play whack-a-mole with stupid, yet hilarious questions, shall we?
Any baker can refuse to bake a penis cake. All they have to do is leave “giant penis cake” off their list of available goods. It’s curious that he thinks that gay weddings feature “giant phallic symbols,” though, or that we all just demand pastries shaped like genitals. I’ve heard about such things for bachelorette parties, but not really for weddings, gay or straight. A photographer can likewise say, “sorry, I don’t shoot porn,” without fear of reprisal. That said, what moron believes that the average gay wedding features nude sex photography? What rock does a person have to live under, and moreover, how dumb do his followers have to be?
As to his last two stupid questions, here is Think Progress to answer them, simply:
Political views are not protected under law from discrimination (nor is the eating of pork). The District of Columbia protects against discrimination based on “political affiliation” (party), and New York protects “political activity” (i.e., volunteering for a campaign), but no other state has anything close, and neither New York or DC would prevent viewpoint discrimination. No caterer could ever be forced to serve any particular food, atheists are protected from discrimination under federal law just like other religious affiliations/non-affiliations, and political viewpoints aren’t protected. ADF might applaud itself for “supporting” a California photographer that refused to take pictures at one of its events because she disagreed with the group’s positions, but that example has nothing to do with the “religious freedom” the group is purporting to protect.
Simple. Also, and I understand that Judson may not have much experience being invited to nice events where catering is involved, but caterers have menus. So, like, if you go to a Muslim caterer, Judson, and pork isn’t on their menu, but you really want pork, you probably say, “Oh, this place doesn’t do barbecue? Can you recommend a caterer that does?” And the Muslim caterer, if she is a good caterer, will say, “Oh, you should try such-and-such.” This is how normal people do things.
The most common victims of the left wing homosexual assault on freedom have been Christian bakers and photographers. These are not uncommon skills. In even the most rural areas you can find them.
First they came for the bakers, and I did not bake cake, so I stayed silent.
Does anyone really believe these cases of Christian bakers or photographers being sued over their refusal to provide services.
Does anyone really believe Judson is capable of running spell or grammar check?
If a photographer or baker doesn’t want to take a particular job, liberty says they have the right to decide how their labor is used.
That may be true, in a sense, but not in this sense. If a business acts as a public accommodation, they have to play by the same rules as all the other businesses. They don’t get an exemption because they’re far too bigoted to handle large swaths of the public. If it’s too difficult for them, perhaps they ought to find jobs where they don’t have to deal with the public.
Liberalism is the paranoid belief that leftists have that somewhere, someone may be thinking for themselves.
Yes, I am terrified that Judson is thinking for himself. He seems to overheat when he thinks too hard.
It is the tyrannical belief that no deviation in belief is allowed from the decreed orthodoxy.
It is the antithesis of liberty.
It is tyranny on the march.
All right, Judson. And that’s the end of his column. No, he does not attempt to tie any of his points together, or to cite any sources, or anything like that. It’s just the ramblings of a man who is worried about the coming onslaught of giant penis cakes and slavery. A good therapist could probably help him out.
[h/t Right Wing Watch]
