The Left Loses Ground...

[PoliticalChic]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The extremist rightwing overreach with insane legislation like the RFRA has hurt the religious right.

Instead of achieving their theocratic goals they alienated corporations who chose to take their business elsewhere rather than risk losing customers nationwide.

As a theist PR exercise it was a complete and utter failure of monumental proportions.

To pretend otherwise, as the OP is trying to do, just exposes the fact that those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry on We the People are completely out of touch with reality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation -

...Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural...."

 

[PoliticalChic]

The extremist rightwing overreach with insane legislation like the RFRA has hurt the religious right.

Instead of achieving their theocratic goals they alienated corporations who chose to take their business elsewhere rather than risk losing customers nationwide.

As a theist PR exercise it was a complete and utter failure of monumental proportions.

To pretend otherwise, as the OP is trying to do, just exposes the fact that those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry on We the People are completely out of touch with reality.

"....those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry..."


....cudgel...

...bigotry....


Exactly the sort of faux pas one would expect from a dunce line you.



"A prominent Silicon Valley chief executive stepped down just days after his appointment, amid a firestorm across the Internet that was sparked by employees who complained about his opposition to gay marriage.

Brendan Eich resigned from Mozilla, the organization behind the Firefox Web browser, after intense criticism over a six-year-old, $1,000 donation he made in support of a 2008 California ballot initiative to ban gay marriage."
Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down - WSJ

 

[PoliticalChic]

History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation -

...Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural...."

I actually think that your post was a pretty good job....

...far beyond what I have come to expect of you.


Sadly, it is for naught, as the OP states " It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."

 

[Seawytch]

Poll: Most Americans oppose discriminatory religious freedom laws

Majority oppose 'religious freedom' laws that could discriminate

 

[NYcarbineer]

...

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
.

But why shouldn't they? Opposition to the mixing of the races is a bonafide religious belief with a long history.

Why shouldn't people be able to assert their religious belief in such as a constitutional right? If they should have that right regarding sexual orientation, why shouldn't they have it regarding race?

 

[Seawytch]

...

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
.

But why shouldn't they? Opposition to the mixing of the races is a bonafide religious belief with a long history.

Why shouldn't people be able to assert their religious belief in such as a constitutional right? If they should have that right regarding sexual orientation, why shouldn't they have it regarding race?

Opposing the mixing of religions is a bona fide religious belief with an even longer history...also prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why do only the anti gay bigots get a special exemption from laws?

 

[candycorn]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Its a foreign concept to her...biting off more than she can chew. The only threat is to her bedsprings and those in the lower floors of her tenement buildings.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Its a foreign concept to her...biting off more than she can chew. The only threat is to her bedsprings and those in the lower floors of her tenement buildings.

How about we each put our pictures up, dear?

 

[NYcarbineer]

History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation -

...Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural...."

I actually think that your post was a pretty good job....

...far beyond what I have come to expect of you.


Sadly, it is for naught, as the OP states " It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."

Wrong:

"...in 1867, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld segregation in railway cars.[74] The court explained that “[t]he natural law which forbids [racial intermarriage] and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to [the races] different natures.”[75]

The Pennsylvania court’s appeal to divine authority was used by state supreme courts in Indiana, Alabama, and Virginia to support the validity of statutes banning interracial marriages and by decisions in Alabama and Kentucky to support segregation of transportation and higher education.[76] The latest use of this language came in a 1955 Virginia decision.[77]

“[T]he theology of separate races constituted a kind of cultural religion that permeated the hearts and minds of attorneys and judges throughout the courts of the South for a hundred years after the Civil War.”[78]..."

Wake Forest Law Review A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

 

[Luddly Neddite]

History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation -

...Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural...."

All true and good points.

"against god's will" is always the excuse for this hate mongering but, in the end, reality has always prevailed. That, and the fact that true Christians don't preach hate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
.

But why shouldn't they? Opposition to the mixing of the races is a bonafide religious belief with a long history.

Why shouldn't people be able to assert their religious belief in such as a constitutional right? If they should have that right regarding sexual orientation, why shouldn't they have it regarding race?

Opposing the mixing of religions is a bona fide religious belief with an even longer history...also prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why do only the anti gay bigots get a special exemption from laws?

You are soooooo overly sensitive about your....disability.

This part of the OP seems to fit you:
"... overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left..."



4. " Regardless, the sexual revolution marches on and the Left’s definition of “civil rights” has expanded—not only does it prohibit class-based discrimination in places of public accommodation, it now requires conscription into the revolution itself.

...it’s no longer enough for employees to have access to low-cost contraceptives and abortifacients. .... employers must provide them free of charge.


It’s no longer enough for bakers, florists, and photographers to provide service to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. They must participate in and facilitate any kind of action or ceremony their customers desire—no matter how offensive to their beliefs—so long as those ceremonies further the ideals of the sexual revolutionaries.




Under pressure from activists and the national media, Indiana modified its law to state that it could not authorize a provider to deny services to anyone on the basis of multiple protected criteria, including race, sex, and sexual orientation."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles




No longer is it enough for the Left that every other citizen be non-judgmental, no matter how bizarre their practices.....

...now every citizen must praise same, or actually part-take.....

Pretty much the antithesis of liberty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
.

But why shouldn't they? Opposition to the mixing of the races is a bonafide religious belief with a long history.

Why shouldn't people be able to assert their religious belief in such as a constitutional right? If they should have that right regarding sexual orientation, why shouldn't they have it regarding race?

Opposing the mixing of religions is a bona fide religious belief with an even longer history...also prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why do only the anti gay bigots get a special exemption from laws?

It's a last ditch effort by the anti-gay bigots to cling to some rationale for anti-gay discrimination, i.e., to try to concoct some material difference between one's race and one's sexual orientation that somehow justifies discrimination against the latter but not the former.

 

[Votto]

The extremist rightwing overreach with insane legislation like the RFRA has hurt the religious right.

Instead of achieving their theocratic goals they alienated corporations who chose to take their business elsewhere rather than risk losing customers nationwide.

As a theist PR exercise it was a complete and utter failure of monumental proportions.

To pretend otherwise, as the OP is trying to do, just exposes the fact that those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry on We the People are completely out of touch with reality.

Progs run corporate America, and as such, rule and reign in Washington DC. They always have and always will.

The only way to fight is to fight for state rights and an end to Prog corporate tyranny.

As it stands now, the next lemming Prog will either be Hillary or Jebediah.

There is no end to it.

 

[Seawytch]

...

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
.

But why shouldn't they? Opposition to the mixing of the races is a bonafide religious belief with a long history.

Why shouldn't people be able to assert their religious belief in such as a constitutional right? If they should have that right regarding sexual orientation, why shouldn't they have it regarding race?

Opposing the mixing of religions is a bona fide religious belief with an even longer history...also prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why do only the anti gay bigots get a special exemption from laws?

It's a last ditch effort by the anti-gay bigots to cling to some rationale for anti-gay discrimination, i.e., to try to concoct some material difference between one's race and one's sexual orientation that somehow justifies discrimination against the latter but not the former.

There is a material difference between race and sexual orientation. There is no difference in the bigots and their desire to discriminate based on animus.

 

[Jroc]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Most of them had it forced onto them on the by a judge. Even your California rejected same sex marriage you're a moron

 

[NYcarbineer]

...

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
.

But why shouldn't they? Opposition to the mixing of the races is a bonafide religious belief with a long history.

Why shouldn't people be able to assert their religious belief in such as a constitutional right? If they should have that right regarding sexual orientation, why shouldn't they have it regarding race?

Opposing the mixing of religions is a bona fide religious belief with an even longer history...also prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why do only the anti gay bigots get a special exemption from laws?

You are soooooo overly sensitive about your....disability.

This part of the OP seems to fit you:
"... overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left..."



4. " Regardless, the sexual revolution marches on and the Left’s definition of “civil rights” has expanded—not only does it prohibit class-based discrimination in places of public accommodation, it now requires conscription into the revolution itself.

...it’s no longer enough for employees to have access to low-cost contraceptives and abortifacients. .... employers must provide them free of charge.


It’s no longer enough for bakers, florists, and photographers to provide service to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. They must participate in and facilitate any kind of action or ceremony their customers desire—no matter how offensive to their beliefs—so long as those ceremonies further the ideals of the sexual revolutionaries.




Under pressure from activists and the national media, Indiana modified its law to state that it could not authorize a provider to deny services to anyone on the basis of multiple protected criteria, including race, sex, and sexual orientation."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles




No longer is it enough for the Left that every other citizen be non-judgmental, no matter how bizarre their practices.....

...now every citizen must praise same, or actually part-take.....

Pretty much the antithesis of liberty.

Employers do not provide contraceptive coverage free of charge. The price is the work the employee does.

 

[Seawytch]

The extremist rightwing overreach with insane legislation like the RFRA has hurt the religious right.

Instead of achieving their theocratic goals they alienated corporations who chose to take their business elsewhere rather than risk losing customers nationwide.

As a theist PR exercise it was a complete and utter failure of monumental proportions.

To pretend otherwise, as the OP is trying to do, just exposes the fact that those who use religion as a cudgel to impose their bigotry on We the People are completely out of touch with reality.

Progs run corporate America, and as such, rule and reign in Washington DC. They always have and always will.

The only way to fight is to fight for state rights and an end to Prog corporate tyranny.

As it stands now, the next lemming Prog will either be Hillary or Jebediah.

There is no end to it.

Ah yes...states rights. You guys realize all the laws that protect gays from discrimination are local laws?