Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop now hangs in the balance

Published

on

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop now hangs in the balance

The legal case of Jack Phillips came and went and now they wait with bated breath to find out how the Supreme Court rules and were Justice Neil McGill Gorsuch stands on the issue of religious freedom and freedom of conscience. We shall find out if voting for the Republican candidate is still the right thing to do for the Conservative Christian, or if the argument can finally be torpedoed.

We know why Jack Phillips is in court to begin with, and all because of the ideal that homosexual rights are the same as the rights of minority groups who were truly discriminated against in the past. In a piece written by Jack Phillips himself that was published in the USA Today; he says that he would sell your basic cookies, cakes etc anyone regardless of their faith and choices on who they go to bed with, and if the statement did not conflict with his faith, he would create one of his ‘masterpieces’ for you and whomever to gorge on. Charlie Craig and David Mullins however, wanted Phillips to create a cake that would affirm their ‘marriage.’ As Phillips said in his article, they were living their beliefs as Phillips was living his.

With Phillips as the owner, he told them quite clearly that he would not use his skill set to promote and affirm that ran in conflict with his beliefs. He would still sell them a cake, or whatever but he would not affirm their lifestyle or marriage. From the stories I have heard Craig and Mullins were enraged and the Rainbow Jihad coupled with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission came down on Jack like the weights in an Olympic competition. With the CCRC as progressive as they are, they naturally sided with Craig/Mullins and found Phillips guilty. Phillips was not willing to just give up and thus his day with the Supreme Court.

Charlie Craig meanwhile talked with the press saying; “This entire time Dave and I have just been asking to be treated equally in public. We’re two regular guys that just were wronged and decided to stand up for ourselves. Dave and I do not have an agenda, we all deserve fair and equal treatment, and that’s why we’re here today.”

This should bring up a lot of questions that the press should have asked. Why did you want Jack Phillips to affirm your marriage with his cakes? Why could not have taken your business to a gay friendly bakery? You say that have no agenda and you just want to be treated equally; why did you want to make a business transaction with Masterpiece Cakeshop? I honestly think that Craig/Mullins are not sincere in their statement about having no agenda. I honestly believe that they (and perhaps others sympatric to their cause) were searching for someone who would refuse service based on their so called ‘love of each other.” To paraphrase the old song from the heavy metal group Metallica, they wanted to seek and destroy a God fearing Christian and their business, and put other likeminded Christians on notice. This is just as much of a terrorist attack than any attack in which actual people have been killed. They are not alone, but this the one that made to the highest court in the country.

Progressives see the LGBT community as a force of arms in order to finally corner and marginalize Christians who believe in the Bible and take their faith seriously and literally. The public education system has done a good job in turning many children against the Christian faith or at least got them to embrace certain anti-biblical ideas that have crept into Christian teaching. So has our mainstream media which for many years pushed a liberal to progressive narrative on its viewers.

The LGBT community does not want to be told that their sexual acts are self-destructive to them and the people around them. They want that sexual fix, cause it “feels good.” They don’t want to be told that it is destructive. They might know it deep down, but like drugs they just keep doing it. Because they don’t want their neighbor to remind them of their impending fate, they have to force people to tell them, it is ok to be gay. While I disagree somewhat with Denver pastor Bob Enyart that telling a child that homosexuality is good will inoculate him or her from the Gospel of Jesus Christ (God through the Holy Spirit can still draw people to himself regardless), he is right about how the devil can use people to allow a community of people to die slowly. By using people to encourage wickedness, a community destroys themselves from within rather than without, with the approval of the community’s leaders, and much to the pleasure of the devil watching the people with glee, self-distrust slowly.

Will America as a whole go the same path? Justice Gorsuch could allow for such a fate, in the name of judicial precedent. If so, the LGBT battle will be elevated to the same level as the abortion fight for the progressives have supported two things that enable the destruction of humanity, and why Satan himself maybe pulling the strings of our justices in order for the American people to eventually perish, or cause another empire to fall.

This article first appeared in The Christian Post

Someone who wants to be a voice for liberty and freedom. Telecom (Radio/TV) Pikes Peak Community College 1993-1998, BS Journalism, minor Political Science, Colorado State University-Pueblo 1999-2004

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

In a violent world, it’s time to do the right thing “for the children”

Published

on

In the never-ending assault on liberty, Progressive Democrats and Republicans often resort to using children as a type of political cover for their otherwise unpopular agenda. We are witnessing this right now as they work to dismantle the Second Amendment following the Florida high school shooting.

But let’s face it; who can say “no” to an agenda when it’s “for the children?”

Clearly, this ploy has paid huge dividends for big-government Progressives. One need look no further than the recent budget negotiations where the obsolete Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was renewed for 6 years. Or the recent suggestion to use Social Security to finance big-government’s newest entitlement—Ivanka Trump’s Paid Family Leave.

Quite honestly “for the children” has been so successful that I’ve decided to adopt it myself. While Progressives use it to destroy freedom, I will use it to defend the Constitution.

For example, as I mentioned earlier, Progressives are using the Florida tragedy to void the Second Amendment to keep children safe. But I will defend gun rights because it’s the only way we can keep them safe. Unarmed Americans in gun-free zones will only lead to more tragedies like Florida, not fewer.

Additionally, I will defend the First Amendment “for the children.” What future awaits the next generation if liberty is destroyed due to being raised on political correctness and spending their time in safe-spaces?

In fact, I will defend the entire Constitution “for the children.” What future will the next generation have if tyranny replaces freedom?

I will also fight for the Convention of States‘ goal for a balanced budget amendment “for the children.” What kind of future will they have if they are forced to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility? And I will fight to end abortion “for the (unborn) children,” because they are deprived of even having a future when they are deprived their right to life.

While there will certainly be more issues to fight for, it’s time to get ready America. The Strident Conservative is going to be more strident than ever because, after all, it’s “for the children.”

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His politically incorrect and always “right” columns are featured on RedState.com, NOQReport.com, and TheResurgent.com.

His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Let’s Just Say It: The Socialist-Left Doesn’t Really Care About Protecting Children.

Published

on

By

The Socialist Left cares more about gun confiscation than any common sense ideas that will really protect kids.

Once again, we are witness to the nation’s Socialist-Left blithely assuming the unearned mantle of moral superiority because they supposedly care for ‘the children’. Allegedly ‘objective’ journalists are falling all over themselves to promote a nascent campaign to destroy our common sense civil rights to the exclusion of steps that will really ‘Do Something’.

It is not without a hint of irony that the nation’s Socialist-Left does not care about children before they are born.  But soon after they become a precious commodity that must be protected at all costs – including everyone’s fundamental human rights. Those who are merely a cluster of cells or some other humanity denying pejorative in the womb, suddenly become children to be exploited for political gain upon their full emergence into the world.

Gun Control Doesn’t Work – If it did, Chicago would be the safest city in the nation.

Before the nation’s Socialist-Left is celebrated by the world with the laurels protector of children par excellence, shouldn’t we check their alleged solutions as to whether they work? For if gun control doesn’t work, then they are merely setting up next the mass murder tragedy, and for another round of attacks on our civil rights.

Examine their much ballyhooed utterances over the past few days: The national socialist left is promising a little temporary safety exchange for a mere pittance of our essential liberty. Of course, if they are pressed on the point, they will respond with some sort of meaningless boilerplate about cutting down the carnage. Even so, such vague promises are hardly worth the loss of liberty it would entail.

So what are we getting for the low-low cost of our freedom? How do their ‘solutions’ fair in the real world? Do they actually protect people? Or do they make the situation worse – far worse?

Well, we already know that very much like it’s tyrannical half-sister socialism, Gun control doesn’t work. Just ask the good people of Chicago or Caracas whether or not depriving the innocent of their means of self-defence will protect them. Parenthetically speaking, if gun control actually worked in some mythical Utopia, we would be hearing it about 24/7. This fantasy world doesn’t exist, but there are other steps that can be taken to save at least one life – and isn’t that the standard by which such things are measured?

Commonsense steps that will really protect children and their Civil Rights.

There have been plenty of suggested initiatives that will help reduce these terrorist attacks, from containing the contagion by reducing the killer’s media profile to providing better security. Not to mention restoring basic discipline and a moral underpinning to our children, or simply letting people defend themselves getting rid of the insanity of so-called “Gun Free” zones.

But instead of discussing steps that will actually work, the Socialist-Left ridicules them.  Or they insanely advocate we go further in removing God from the public square or decree them to be a redirection from their real obsession.

The Takeaway

To be perfectly blunt about it: The most disgusting aspect of this whole cycle is that it won’t do a thing to protect children and we will be back here doing the very same thing in a few weeks or months. That is what is sickening about this whole affair, and just crediting the Socialist-Left with just a modicum of basic intelligence will show that they know this as well.

To the nation’s Socialist-Left, getting to their ultimate goal gun confiscation is far more important than the lives of children they supposedly want to protect. They care more about depriving people of the means to resist [how’s that for a word?] to their Marxist tyranny than everyone’s safety, and they are willing to climb over the bodies of children to get there. If the nation’s Socialist-Left really cared about protecting children they would advocate what works instead of what brings them power.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Media: Please stop bringing Fame to mass murderers with the Gratuitous use of their Names and Imagery.

Published

on

By

It is time that we stop glamorising killers with unnecessary media fanfare    #NoFame4Killers

Saying that the Socialist-Left wants a certain level of violence to push gun control will always result in a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Still, it’s hard to shake that conclusion when it comes to the idea of refusing to bring fame to mass murderers. Studies have shown that these killers inspire others to copy their horrid acts, so it’s only logical that cutting down their media exposure would help alleviate the problem.

Proving the point is the report in the Miami Herald that: There have been threats of violence at 12 U.S. schools, at least, since Fla. Shooting, Including an arrest of a high school student who threatened ‘Round 2’ of Florida Shooting as reported at Tme.com

Consider a 2015 study from researchers at Arizona State University and Northeastern Illinois University reported in the PLOS journal, concluding that:

We find significant evidence that mass killings involving firearms are incented by similar events in the immediate past. On average, this temporary increase in probability lasts 13 days, and each incident incites at least 0.30 new incidents (p = 0.0015). We also find significant evidence of contagion in school shootings, for which an incident is contagious for an average of 13 days, and incites an average of at least 0.22 new incidents (p = 0.0001).

To make it perfectly clear, we are not talking about keeping this information secret or censoring the media. The data should be available in certain places in the media – a dispassionate recitation of the facts of the crime, to keep conspiracy theories and other such nonsense at bay. But there is no logical reason to make a mass murderer famous for the sake of clicks or ratings.

Nor is this a call for government intervention, this is more like a “gentlemen’s agreement” (or gentlewoman’s as the case may be) to stop gratuitously promoting these killers. It’s about denying fame to cowardly murderers who are the worst of the worst, nothing more, nothing less.

Consider that the experts in the field have detailed the extensive planning and preparation these mass murderers that proceeding through five distinct phases. This article published in PoliceOne.com detailed these stages: 5 phases of the active shooter: A tactical reload

1. Fantasy Phase
2. Planning Phase
3. Preparation Phase
4. Approach Phase
5. Implementation Phase

Are we to believe that the “Columbine effect” doesn’t factor in these stages?
In addition, are we to believe that in the Left’s magical “Gun-Free” Utopian fantasy land, that criminals of this type wouldn’t find alternative methods of mass murder?

Both sides of the political aisle have championed this have idea. It was extensively discussed on the Glenn Beck Radio program: Logic and Reason Needed, As well as the publication ‘Mother Jones’.  While we loathe to link to them, they did offer some useful tips to alleviate this deadly problem:

Report on the perpetrator forensically and with dispassionate language. Avoid terms like “lone wolf” and “school shooter,” which may carry cachet with young men aspiring to attack. Instead use “perpetrator,” “act of lone terrorism,” and “act of mass murder.”

Minimise use of the perpetrator’s name. When it isn’t necessary to repeat it, don’t. And don’t include middle names gratuitously, a common practice for distinguishing criminal suspects from others of the same name, but which can otherwise lend a false sense of their importance.

Keep the perpetrator’s name out of headlines. Rarely, if ever, will a generic reference to him in a headline be any less practical.

Minimize use of images of the perpetrator. This is especially important both in terms of aspiring copycats’ desire for fame, and the psychology of vulnerable individuals who identify with mass shooters.

When both ends of the political spectrum agree on something that is so basic and eminently obvious, everyone should take notice. But then again, maybe there are those who really want a certain level of violence, who would prefer to tilt at the windmill of gun control and never really solve anything.

 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.