Tag Archives: gay marriage

In Masterpiece, gay couple wants to have their cake, and have you eat it

Embed from Getty Images

The Masterpiece Cakeshop is a small bakery located in a shopping center in Lakewood, Colorado, just west of Denver. The proprietor is Jack Phillips, and he is not simply a baker. Phillips is an artist.

The business website proclaims that for your wedding, birthday, or special occasion, Phillips creates a masterpiece. Custom designs are his specialty: If you can think it up, Jack can make it into a cake!”

For more than two decades, Phillips grew his business into an award winner, one of the most popular of its kind in the Denver area. But now, despite it being one of their most popular services, the shop is no longer accepting custom wedding cake requests.

Masterpiece and Phillips are embroiled in a highly controversial and public battle that has wound its way to the United States Supreme Court. There will be no wedding cakes, at least until the court makes their ruling.

It all began more than five years ago. In the summer of 2012, a gay couple was planning to get married. Charlie Craig and David Mullins, that couple, wanted their cake designed by Masterpiece. 

However, Phillips wouldn’t do it, claiming that his religious beliefs kept him from creating designer cakes for same-sex celebrations. He would, however, sell the couple other baked goods. Craig and Mullins, with the ACLU of Colorado in their corner, decided to literally make a court case out of the refusal. 

According to a timeline of the events provided by Kaitlyn Schallhorn for Fox News, in May 2014: The Colorado Civil Rights Commission decided at a public hearing that Masterpiece had violated Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA. Phillips was ordered to change its company policies as well as offer “comprehensive staff training” to employees. The cake shop was also required to provide quarterly reports about how it handled prospective customers.”

That ruling was just one in a series of court decisions in the five years since the original complaint. The current SCOTUS case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission will finally settle that legal battle once and for all.



At issue is a clear attack on individual freedoms. Does the government have the right and ability to force a business owner to create a product that is against their legitimately held personal and/or professional beliefs?

The clear answer for anyone who cares about freedom would be: no, the government has no such right.

The couple wants you to believe that this is a case about gay rights. That is a farce. Phillips was not denying sales to Craig and Mullins. They were free to choose from any number of items available at the shop.

This is about freedom of expression for the artist. Do the research and take a look at Phillips’ specialty work. That is exactly what he is, an artist. To force him to make a gay wedding cake against his legitimately held Christian religious beliefs would actually violate his own rights.

Michael Farriss leads the Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization representing Phillips and Masterpiece in this case. He recently stated the following in a Fox News piece:

“Since the dawn of the republic, our constitutional order has honored individual freedom of mind and accorded citizens the corresponding liberty to speak and refrain from speaking as their conscience directs. Yet this formerly prized feature of our legal system devoted to individual freedom now faces growing opposition.”

That growing opposition largely comes from liberal progressives such as Craig and Mullins. There was a much more appropriate course for the couple. Simply take your business elsewhere. Then ensure that the gay community learned of the Phillips position at the Masterpiece Bakeshop. 




One would assume that such an action would cost Phillips some amount of business. If so, that would have to be his price to pay for standing up for his personal beliefs. The market would have spoken.

But as usual, that is not enough for some people. Folks like Craig and Mullins and their ACLU supporters not only want their cake, but they want you to eat it too. They want to force Phillips and you and I to support their beliefs, their lifestyle. If that runs completely counter to our own beliefs, oh well, tough.

As SCOTUS heard the arguments and testimony over the last couple of days, Justice Anthony Kennedy had some common sense comments per Audrey Taylor at ABC News when she reported that Kennedy “acknowledged that civility and “tolerance” is key to any free society but made clear “tolerance must be mutual” and suggested alternative accommodations were “quite possible” since there were other cake shops in the area.”

This is clearly a case that should be, and should have been all along, decided by the marketplace, and not by the courts. But here we are. I hope and pray that the United States Supreme Court stands up for freedom and returns a ruling in favor of Phillips and Masterpiece.

Traditional marriage grounded at United States Air Force

USAF Colonel Leland Bohannon
Genesis 2:18-23 reads as follows:
The LORD God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.

So the LORD God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each living creature was then its name.

The man gave names to all the tame animals, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a helper suited to the man.

So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman.

When he brought her to the man, the man said “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman, for out of man this one has been taken.”

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

The story of the beginning of man and woman’s journey together here on Earth is a familiar one to most people, no matter their level of faith or their personal belief.

To some, it is simply that, a story and nothing more. But to myself and more than half of the human population it remains a basic tenet of faith. To most of those same people, this biblical story forms the basic foundation for the concept of marriage.

The institution of marriage has been under attack for decades from progressives here in America. They have made major inroads in their battle to bastardize these sacred unions.

A controversy in the United States Air Force highlights that the battle for marriage continues today.

Colonel Leland Bohannon was set to be promoted to the rank of one-star general. However, one of his subordinates recently filed an EO (Equal Opportunity) complaint against him.

This complaint was substantiated, and now Bohannon has been suspended from his command and is likely to never receive the promotion he earned with decades of sacrifice and hard work.

The complaint was based on Bohannon’s position supporting traditional marriage. This past spring, a master sergeant under his command was retiring. The master sergeant is gay, and has a same-sex partner.

It has become tradition to honor the spouse of such a retiree for the sacrifices they have made in supporting the retiree. That honor comes in the form of recognition at the retirement ceremony, and presentation of a certificate of spouse appreciation.

Per the website militarywives.org, during the retirement ceremony an air force wife will be called and escorted to the stage, and presented with a certificate that reads as follows:

 

CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION
FROM THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
In grateful appreciation,
The United States Air Force presents
this certificate of recognition to:
(Spouse Name)
for the commitment and numerous contributions
that made positive impacts to the Nation’s defense.
Thank You for the support which gave strength and
purpose to your spouse’s service

GIVEN THIS FIRST DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN


Holding a traditional Christian view of marriage, Bohannon refused to sign the certificate of spouse appreciation for his retiring master sergeant’s same-sex partner. He instead had a more senior military leader sign the certificate. The master sergeant then filed the EO complaint.

Per Todd Starnes, a group of U.S. Senators including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio wrote to Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson in an attempt to save Bohannon’s career. Per Starnes, part of their letter stated:
“Col. Bohannon recognized the moral and legal dilemma this situation presented, and to his credit, sought to carve out a solution that would affirm the contribution made by the retiring officer’s same-sex partner while at the same time allowing the colonel to abide by his religious convictions.”
What you have here is a case of the U.S. Air Force attempting to force a Christian into affirming something that he fundamentally believes to be immoral, in spite of the fact that there was no need to do so.
This is exactly what modern progressives want. They want to force their beliefs on the rest of us. If you won’t conform, you will be silenced, or bullied, or punished, or all of these. And if you are not, then the entity they want to do that punishing will be sued.
When entered into between a healthy, informed, consenting adult man and woman, marriage is a sacred union. That is what I believe. That is what Colonel Bohannon believes.
The Colonel should not be forced, when there are other legitimate options that in no way take away from the retiring master sergeant or his same-sex partner, to alter his beliefs. Nor should he be punished for holding them.
Bohannon’s beliefs are legitimate, and they should be defended by all of us who believe the same. The special union of man and woman is a gift from God. We need to be unafraid to support Colonel Bohannon and his traditional view of marriage.
Hopefully the appeals from the esteemed group of United States Senators are acted upon favorably for Bohannon. He should be fully restored, his record unbesmirched, and his promotion to General granted.

Disagreement Does Not Equal Hate

Traditional, Conservative, and Christian, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee used his popularity in those circles and publicly called for Americans who support traditional marriage to get out to their local Chick-fil-A restaurant this past Wednesday.

On his Facebook page, Huckabee posted the following statement: “Let’s affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse.”

This led to an uprising of support among those, such as myself and my wife, who agree with Huckabee’s position on marriage as intended by God to be between one man and one woman. We ate dinner on Wednesday late afternoon at the Chick-fil-a restaurant at 2301 E. Butler Street, just off Aramingo Avenue in the Port Richmond section of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The place was packed, and had to bring extra help on to serve all those who, like us, heeded Huckabee’s call and came out in support.

The controversy began when leaders within the LGBT community (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) had discovered that Chick-fil-a takes public stances on behalf of, and supports charitable organizations that benefit, traditional marriage as biblically defined. As the company’s President, Dan Cathy, said when confronted on the issues this week: “Guilty as charged!”

The leaders within LGBT then did what the overwhelming majority of liberals begin to do when they realize that not only does someone disagree with them, but is willing to do so publicly, including putting their money where their mouths are – they began to express hatred. They did so in the usual fashion, by accusing those towards whom they felt hatred of hating them.

It is the oldest trick in the liberal book. If you do not support gay marriage, then you are not only against it, but you hate us. The old “either you are with us, or you are against us” mentality is put into play with aggression. The immediate use of this type of accusation can be found on page one in the liberal handbook. Immediately following on page two comes demonization of the person, company or group that is against your position.

No consideration was paid to a company statement that read “The Chick-fil-a culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”

The company went on to explain that it has a history of applying biblically-based principles to its business practices, such as remaining closed on Sundays, and that it intends to “leave any policy debates over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

In an interview with the Baptist Press, Cathy stated that “We are a family-owned business, family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

The most recent Gallup Poll on this issue shows that a full 74% of Republicans say that same-sex marriage should not be legal, and 67% of all Americans who attend weekly religious services feel the same way. In an October 2011 poll by the Pew Forum, 74% of white Evangelicals and 62% of black Protestants are opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

But what will not be revealed in poll figures are the feelings behind those religious, moral, cultural and political opinions. The fact of the matter, which I can reveal from my own personal feelings, those of people close to me who feel the same as I, and every single person that I have ever spoken to on this issue who shares my values is that hate is nowhere in the equation.

We don’t hate gays. We don’t wish anyone damned to eternal hell. We don’t want anyone served differently in restaurants. We don’t want anyone treated differently by the police or fire departments. We don’t want anyone beaten or killed or even completely shunned.

What we do want is the hatred to stop – from the liberals. If you find that some business supports your social, political, moral position on some issue, then by all means, support that business. In fact, the Starbucks coffee company has apparently come out in support of gay marriage. Perfect opportunity to show your support by frequenting their business with your dollars. Just don’t tell us how to spend ours when we disagree with you.

On this past Wednesday, August 1st, 2012 the Chick-fil-A company set a one-day sales record. This record was set thanks to the support of the huge number of people in this country who believe as they do, that traditional marriage is the way to go. There were no signs demanding death to gays, there were no feelings of hatred towards gays.

Fundamental disagreement on this or any other issue does not equate to hate. I have known a number of gay individuals in my lifetime, none of whom I hated even though I completely disagreed with the choices they were making and/or the ways in which they were choosing to publicly express themselves sexually.

I pray that as we move forward both as a nation and as a species, that we can all find a way here on God’s beautiful creation of a planet to live together in peace. That we can all find love and compassion for one another. And that those who accuse others of hate perhaps take the time to listen to their own words, and into the feelings in their own hearts. It is there that they are more likely to find any true hate.

Jersey Gets Same-Sex Marriage Right

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:’eOkNThzGRQFJjI5AJu3vHw’,sig:’n3ldnHa_IUdekEmLuhJv3NwMpCKx45eMBq7YhSXDojU=’,w:’507px’,h:’338px’,items:’79329260′,caption: true ,tld:’com’,is360: false })});//embed-cdn.gettyimages.com/widgets.js
Marriage in NJ remains between a man and a woman

All across the United States and all across the spectrum of ideas, liberals and progressives have been attacking traditional American values for the better part of a century now. These attacks have gained momentum in recent decades thanks to persistent, pervasive, and often subversive campaigns by leftist organizations.

One of the most recent attacks came in the State of New Jersey, where a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage was being pushed through the legislature and being vocally supported by ultra-liberal Governor John Corzine. In today’s editions of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Corzine actually implied that gay marriage is a “fundamental human right” and to deny it would be a violation of civil rights and liberties.

Thankfully, the New Jersey Senate did not see it that way. They voted by a solid 20-14 majority yesterday to protect marriage as solely between a man and a woman, as God intended. The vote comes on the heels both of New York’s rejection of the idea and the electoral victory of Chris Christie over Corzine in November. Christie will take over the Governor’s office in 10 days and had promised to veto such a measure should it have passed.

The ‘gay marriage’ (sic) issue is yet another in a surge of issues over these last few decades that liberals and progressives simply could not win in referendums at the ballot box, and so they have resorted to pressuring and bribing politicians, infiltrating the media, and bringing law suits in jurisdictions where the courts are known to be solidly liberal in their rulings.

Traditional Americans are beginning to both understand these threats and to grasp the seriousness of their nature when taken individually and as a whole as threats to our society. True mainstream America has begun to fight back and win. In November 2008, California passed ‘Proposition 8’, which put an end to court-backed gay marriages begun months earlier and recognized marriage as only between a man and a woman. Maine voters then followed suit in November of last year.

The issue, of course, is not one of whether or not some State or Commonwealth may come up with some type of civil union legislation allowing couples of the same sex to reap the same civil benefits as opposite-sex couples. The issue is the protection of a particular type of union called ‘Marriage’ or ‘Matrimony’ the basis for which was established by God Himself as being between a man and woman at the creation and which has been in existence for millenia.

If there are men out there who wish to insert their penis in another man’s anus or mouth and call that a normal, loving, sexual experience with a straight face, that is their business within the privacy of their own home. But for them to foist such an idea on the rest of society as something that we should all embrace as a normal, human act to be celebrated and sanctioned under the moral umbrella of ‘marriage’ is ludicrous on it’s face.

Marriage about morality? You bet it is. How does that jive with the legality of divorce and the practice of adultery? It doesn’t, frankly. Having gone through them myself, I can tell you that divorce and annulment are serious processes that should not be entertained, supported, or granted frivolously, and that certainly have no business being celebrated. And adultery may be the dumbest and most hurtful thing in which any married person could ever engage.

The marital ceremony is about bringing together a man and a woman as one, as were Adam and Eve by God. Marriage is about a loving celebration on a daily basis between a man and woman, husband and wife, in the course of developing more fully their own relationship with one another and with God, and in attempting to build a family. If you are not a man and a woman committed to these concepts, then you shouldn’t be married or entertaining the idea.

I am extremely fond of my dog, Petey. He is a good dog. Loyal, faithful, fun. We have lots of great times together. In fact, I would say that I care more about Petey than some gay people care about their partners. Should I be allowed to marry Petey? I mean, I love him, and would love to have society pay for his veterinarian bills. If I have to pay for the medical bills of some gay person’s ‘partner’ then why shouldn’t they pay for Petey’s vet bills?

Once men can marry men, and women can marry women, would we move next to allowing such further obscenities to the institution of marriage as me marrying my dog, or some farmer marrying his cow, or some shepherd marrying his sheep? What about a computer programmer marrying his computer-generated, life-like, animated, 3D female character? Where does it end?

Think that is stupid, inane, ridiculous, trivial? Well that is exactly how many of us in normal society sees the idea of men marrying other men, and women marrying other women. It has nothing at all to do with hate, or fear, or discrimination against gay men or lesbians. It is about protecting a particular God-given institution and Sacrament that is meant solely to be between a man and a woman. There is no Biblical or historical basis for, or constitutional right to gay marriage.

Currently there are 39 of the 50 U.S. states already fully and specifically prohibiting gay marriage with laws modeled after or pre-dating the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, including Pennsylvania, which thankfully despite the ultra-liberalism of the Philadelphia area actually remains the most socially conservative state in the northeast region.

We can no more make a gay person straight than we can make a stone come to life. Gay people were created that way by God. It is something with which they will have to go through life dealing. We don’t need to hate, we need to be compassionate. But compassion does not extend to supporting every action of an individual. It also does not mean surrendering our most cherished institutions and our God-given Sacraments to the ideology of a tiny minority.

The State Senate of New Jersey got it right yesterday when they voted to hold back the abomination of same-sex marriage. They also got it right a couple of months ago when they tossed Corzine out on his typical high-taxing, low-morality, America-hating can. Here’s to hoping that Americans continue to awaken to what has been going on in our country and continues to take it back, as New Jersey may have begun.

Miss California Gives Straight Answer

What was very obvious early on in the Miss USA pageant held this past Sunday night was that Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was a beautiful young woman on the outside.

She was the typical stereotype of what we all would expect from a ‘California Girl’: blond, long legs, gorgeous face. And when it came time for the bikini/swimsuit competition she displayed the great body that you would expect to come strolling down the beach in Malibu.

But what did not become apparent until right near the end was just how beautiful Carrie Prejean is on the inside. It took an incredibly controversial question under those circumstances from an incredibly outrageous, over-rated, quasi-celebrity judge in the pageant named Perez Hilton who demonstrated his own internal ugliness to bring out Miss California’s inner beauty.

Hilton, an openly gay male and celebrity gossip blogger, had the task of asking a question of Ms. Prejean during the final portion of the contest. All of the other finalists had to give their opinions on the somewhat difficult questions asked by a particular judge when their own turns came, but none got a more outrageous judge with a more sensational question than Ms. Prejean.

Hilton asked his question with wide-eyed enthusiasm, quite obviously expecting a different response: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?” 

With the relative softballs that the other finalists were being tossed in comparison to this bomb shell of a question, Miss California looked momentarily lost as she searched her mind and her heart for an answer. She quite obviously knew that this was her make-or-break moment.

Many people thought that she was the odds-on favorite to win, and the results of later voting showed that was indeed the case heading in to this question period. A politically correct answer, even some non-committal answer, very likely would have resulted in her being crowned as Miss USA.

But fortunately for everyone in attendance and for everyone searching for good examples in these increasingly amoral days, Carrie Prejean is a Christian, and she simply could not sell out here true beliefs for a pageant crown.

She stumbled through her answer as she tried hard to balance those beliefs with an answer that might still salvage the title. Some of her reply included “I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

Well hallelujah! First, a young woman with integrity enough to answer a controversial question with honesty. She very well could have gone another way with her public answer, won the crown, kept her personal beliefs to herself for now, and perhaps revealed them down the road as a ‘change of heart’.

But that’s not how Carrie Prejean rolls. This beautiful young girl just a few short years out of high school stood on that stage in front of thousands watching her live, and millions more on television, and spoke from her heart and soul.

And secondly, big kudos go out to the parents and family that raised this young woman to also be beautiful on the inside, and to understand at such a young age that truth cannot be compromised for expediency. She later would comment that she now believed that God had placed her in that position intentionally, and I would have to agree with her.

Immediately, the exasperated Hilton was taken aback, and he along with numerous gays in the audience and later on the internet and in other forums had negative, hurtful, and profane comments to make about this wonderful young lady. There is only one word that comes to mind: typical.

The fact is that God instituted marriage as a sacrament to be between a man and a woman. That is in no way a hurtful or sexist or demeaning statement towards gays. It is simply the truth.

Though there were a smattering of boos, the large majority in the audience cheered and applauded when Ms. Prejean gave her answer, one that she had to know once she was finished would derail her Miss USA hopes. As it turns out, it was still very close. She finished as a very close 1st Runner-Up in the judges voting.

In the aftermath, the Miss California Organization denounced her answer and said that they did not agree with it. Shame on them for not standing up for their California girl. One of the most liberal states in the American union has already turned thumbs down on gay marriage when it was put to the public for a vote, which only shows that even many people with generally liberal political and social viewpoints understand basic, fundamental truths.

In response, Hilton commented that she lost the pageant because of her answer, and then later video-blogged that she did not lose because of the answer, but because she was a “dumb bitch“.

This one should not even be considered in any way controversial on Prejean’s part, but the controversy should be squarely on Perez, who showed with his attitude and his words that he is a total and complete horses ass. Perez Hilton is a perfect representation of all that is ugly in the world today, while Carrie Prejean represents all that is right and true.

After his outrageous attacks on her simple honest answer, Prejean said simply that she would pray for Hilton. Thankfully, she stood up and showed all of us her beauty on Sunday night, both inside and out. Congratulations to Carrie Prejean for her high finish in the pageant, but more importantly for her, for taking the higher ground that night and ever since.