Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The ‘Rainbow Jihad’ is coming for you next, Christian

Published

on

The LGBTQ and their Progressive allies were truly emboldened when Justice Kennedy handed down the majority decision to make Same Sex Marriage legal through the entire United States. Even before that decision, Denver based baker Jack Philips was visited by a gay couple in the summer of 2012 who wanted to hire Jack to bake them a wedding cake. Phillips offered to make cakes for other events and sell them cookies and brownies that allowed him to honor God and his Christian Faith, but had told them nicely “No” on the Same Sex Wedding Cake. The couple left the store throwing a temper tantrum like little children who were never punished for bad behavior.

What the news is saying:

Cake Is His ‘Art.’ So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple? | Adam Liptak, New York Times

If a bakery has a free speech right to discriminate, gay groups contend, then so do all businesses that may be said to engage in expression, including florists, photographers, tailors, choreographers, hair salons, restaurants, jewelers, architects and lawyers. A ruling for Mr. Phillips, they say, would amount to a broad mandate for discrimination.

Soon after; Phillip’s business, Masterpiece Cakes received threatening telephone calls from the “tolerant” progressives across the country, and protest movements against his business became the norm. Eventually the American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of this “loving gay couple” and was dragged before a human rights commission in Colorado, where they openly compared Philips to a Nazi. This, in spite of the fact that Jack’s father fought against the actual Nazis in World War II.

This is just one of many stories on how the “Rainbow Jihad” (as CRTV’s Steve Deace likes to call them) had become emboldened in recent years by progressive activists determined to pound the final nails into the casket containing “the rotting corpse of Christianity” using the LGBTQ and their quest for ‘civil rights.’ They know that a certain group of Christians will never accept the homosexual agenda due to the absolute words made in the Holy Bible regarding such acts and how God handle one such ancient community regarding this.

The Rainbow Jihad is hunting for businesses that will not bow and bend to their sub-culture; rather than seeking businesses that are truly LGBTQ friendly. You really have to wonder if they just wanted to set Jack Phillips up for persecution, and I think that was the plan all along. He is not alone. It does matter if you run a bakery, a restaurant, a flower shop or have your own photography business. If you call yourself a Christian and you dare not partake in this pagan event called same sex marriage with whatever business you have…you will be singled out and crucified for not justifying and affirming what they call ‘love’ and what God calls an abomination.

These Christians could always separate themselves from their faith and accept the LGBTQ’s demands and they get the gratification that they brought them over to the ‘dark side’ or whatever. Philips meanwhile will have his day in court and we shall find out how Neil Gorsuch rules on this. Religious Freedom must include the rights of business to refuse service to anyone who cause them to sin against their God.

For further reading:

In Key Supreme Court Case, Department of Justice Backs Christian Baker | Brian Fraga, ncregister.com

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/in-key-supreme-court-case-department-of-justice-backs-christian-bakerThe U.S. Department of Justice’s amicus brief, filed Sept. 7 with the U.S. Supreme Court, argues that the baker, Jack Phillips, cannot be compelled by Colorado to “create expression for and participate in a ceremony” that would violate his First Amendment rights.

“This case is the only hope of protection for conservative believers in blue or purple states,” said Douglas Laycock, a University of Virginia School of Law professor who studies religious-liberty cases.

Masterpiece Amicus Brief Full Of Cakes | Kevin Daley, The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/19/scotus-justices-receive-brief-full-of-pictures-of-cake/A coalition of creative professionals who style themselves “cake artists” filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court Tuesday in a case concerning the rights of merchants who decline to produce items for same sex weddings given moral or theological objections.

The brief contains almost 40 images of various cakes, to demonstrate that cakes are a unique form of artistic expression deserving First Amendment protection. The petitioner in the case, Jack Phillips, argues his custom cakes are a form of protected expression, and therefore the state cannot coerce him into creating a cake that conveys a message with which he disagrees. Perhaps appropriately, the cake artists’ brief was filed by Baker Botts LLP.

In Cakeshop Case, Two Sets Of First Amendment Precedent Collide | Margot Cleveland, The Federalist

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/20/masterpiece-cakeshop-case-two-sets-first-amendment-precedent-collide/On one side of the dispute stands Jack Phillips—a Christian baker in Colorado who five years ago refused to craft a wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. “I’m being forced to use my creativity, my talent and my art for an event—a significant religious event—that violates my religious faith,” Mr. Phillips said, according to the Times. To Philips, this is “more than just a cake.”

Opposite Phillips are David Mullin and Charlie Craig, the two men who sought out his services and who later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. “We asked for a cake,” they counter. “We didn’t ask for a piece of art or for him to make a statement for us. He simply turned us away because of who we are.” According to the Times, “Mr. Craig said the free speech argument was a smoke screen. ‘It’s not about the cake,’ he said. ‘It is about discrimination.’”

So which is it? Free speech or discrimination?

 

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as ‘sweetheart,’ prompting zero outrage

Published

on

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as sweetheart prompting zero outrage

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan referred to Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as “Sweetheart” as he addressed her during a speaking engagement on Sunday. He apparently caught his faux pas and immediately justified the remark, but at that point the moniker which many consider to be sexist or misogynistic had already been noted.

Nevertheless, it didn’t cause the stir one might expect. As a far-left progressive, Omar is known for being a feminist icon on Capitol Hill even though she hasn’t been in office for a full two months yet. As our EIC noted, the lack of a rebuke was because of the source, not because she now feels it’s okay to refer to her as “sweetheart.”

The statement came as Farrakhan was telling Omar she shouldn’t be sorry for the statements she made last week about Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish influence in Washington DC, particularly over Republicans.

In a world where consistency was still considered a virtue, followers of Omar would be wondering why she’s not expressing outrage over the belittling reference from a powerful man. But the world isn’t consistent and Farrakhan always gets a pass.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Man fined £1,000 for outdated sense of humor

Published

on

Man fined £1000 for outdated sense of humor

Jonathon Van Maren, a contributor for LifeSiteNews, recently stumbled across an article in the UK’s Edinburgh News about a construction worker who was arrested for “pointing and laughing” at a biological male who was dressed as a female (transgender woman).

[Author’s Note: It is impolite and unkind to point and laugh at others. This article is not an endorsement of such behavior.]

As Van Maren explained, a construction worker named Graham Spiers was walking with a group of friends. The group pointed and laughed while passing a transgender individual who, suspecting that his appearance had become the subject of ridicule, telephoned the police.

Spiers was arrested five day later.

Sherriff Robert Fife scolded Mr. Spiers’s sense of humor and actions:

Transgender insanity: Police now jailing people for laughing at men in women’s clothes

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/transgender-insanity-police-now-jailing-people-for-laughing-at-men-in-womenSheriff Robert Fife also piled on, informing Spiers that, “Your offensive comments were not funny at the time and are not funny now. Your children should grow up understanding gender differences and would be ashamed at your behavior that comes from a different era has no place in today’s society.” Fife then told Spiers that in addition to the cash he had to pay to the biological man for laughing at him, he also had to pay an additional fine of another five hundred pounds.

Graham Spiers was ordered to pay a total of £1,000 for his actions “from a different era,” 500 of which was paid to the complainant.

Of the actions by police and the court in this instance, Van Maren opined:

It is disgusting enough that law enforcement would arrest and charge someone for this triviality. That alone indicates that freedom in Scotland is truly dead. But the fact that law enforcement then lectured Spiers on being a throwback from a different age (that different era being about a decade ago, for the record) and telling him his children should be ashamed of him? And that Spiers was expected to cower and listen to this tongue-lashing from his betters so he could get re-educated and realize that men could now become women and that laughing at their attempts was forbidden by law? That should absolutely repulse any liberty-loving person and terrify everyone who values freedom.

My Take

Pointing and laughing at others is unquestionably unkind. I am repulsed at the thought of such outward meanness. However, that this behavior so would be considered illegal and result in one’s arrest is punitive at best, and is undoubtedly a waste a valuable time and resources. Furthermore, the punishment in this case is brazenly excessive.

This is yet another instance of big government run amok. The Founders knew the dangers of big government. It would be prudent of us to heed the Founders’ advice, lest we find ourselves in the position of Mr. Spiers: subjugated beneath the arbitrary boot of “benevolent” governmental authority.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The anti-MAGA hoax epidemic

Published

on

The anti-MAGA hoax epidemic

There’s a trend that’s been quietly, consistently rearing its ugly head against the President of the United States and his supporters since before the 2016 election. We’ve seen it among unhinged journalists, virtue-signaling celebrities, and Democratic politicians. We’ve seen it manifest in the ugliest form of hatred – the common hate-hoax – and it’s doing more to divide America than the source of the perpetrators’ anger.

They hate President Trump. They hate the people who got him elected. The hate the idea of making America great again because as much of the MAGA agenda comes to pass, they’re learning they’ve been wrong the whole time. I know first hand. I’ve been proven wrong myself.

No, I’m not a hate-hoaxer, but I’ve been against the President to varying degrees for over three years now. Before he officially won the GOP nomination in 2016, I opposed him because I felt he would do too much damage while delivering only a moderate amount of good policies. He wasn’t as bad as John Kasich or Jeb Bush, but we had Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul as better candidates. Nevertheless, he won the nomination, prompting me to spend the final leg of the 2016 election without a horse in the race. I didn’t like the idea of Trump being President, but under no circumstances did I want Hillary Clinton to be President, either.

100% crowdfunded news. Please help.

After he won, I became a cautious but hopeful watcher. While we worked on alternatives to bring limited-government federalism to the forefront of local, state, and national politics, I took a case-by-case stance on the President himself. When he did well, I praised him. When he did poorly, I criticized him. This stance has remained until this day, though there have been times when I was more supportive or more critical, depending on the policy discussion of the day. Tax and bureaucratic cuts – good. Tariffs and bump stock bans – bad. The recent cave on the border omnibus – very bad. Most foreign policy moves (leaving Iran deal, leaving Paris accords, moving embassy to Jerusalem) – very good.

Unfortunately, it seems many on the left have been unwilling to recognize even the remotest possibility anything the President is doing is good. What’s worse is that some have been so aggressive in their desire to prove their point that they’ve pretended to be victims for the sake of getting their “victims’ perks” of love and affection from their peers while painting anyone wearing a MAGA hat as bigoted and hateful.

Thus, the anti-MAGA hate hoax was born and it’s been so prominent over the last two-and-a-half years, one must wonder how mainstream media and Democrats became so gullible that they fall for it every single time.

Andy Ngo at Quillette put together a comprehensive list of hate hoaxes that leftists have perpetrated to paint the President and his supporters as racists. It’s absolutely stunning when you see the magnitude of the hatred – THEIR hatred – that makes them willing to tell bald-faced lies just to prove the movement they oppose is as bad as they think it is.

I’ve had ideological disagreements with nearly every presidential candidate (let alone every President) since I became an adult. There’s nothing wrong with disagreement as long as one is willing to not be blinded in one direction or the other. There are plenty who blindly follow President Trump to approximately the same degree that supporters blindly followed President Obama. The herd mentality seems to have become the way of the political world in America for our last two presidents. But that blind devotion is simply an annoyance. The blind hatred that drives people to commit these hoaxes is far more dangerous.

It’s likely when the details are fully revealed regarding Jussie Smollett’s hate-hoax, it was driven more by a narcissistic desire to advance his career rather than pure hatred for the MAGA crowd or the President, but obviously the latter hatred played a role in his decision-making process. This type of action is never acceptable. We have enough outrage in America. There’s no need to manufacture even more for false reasons.

It’s time for the unhinged left to stop assuming every MAGA supporter is racist and start asking how the actions of those on their side of the political aisle drove massive amounts of people to support President Trump. Perhaps then, they’ll realize the hatred is coming mostly from them.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report