Who Are the ‘Haters’?

From CampusReform:

Following a discussion on the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling hosted by the George Washington University Federalist Society, the Student Bar Association and law school dean sent emails condemning the invited speaker from the Alliance Defending Freedom.

The event, “Religious Freedom or Discrimination: A Discussion of Masterpiece Cakeshop,” featured American Civil Liberties Union General Counsel Kenneth A. Klukowski and Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence.

So, according to the lawyers to be and their leftwing administrators at GW, you shouldn’t even debate whether small business owners should be forced by the state to provide creative services for a same-sex wedding, because to defend religious freedom is hate.

But let’s recall the Justices Kennedy, Breyer and Kagan were part of the Court’s majority that found it was the Colorado Civil Right Commission that had shown animus toward baker Jack Phillips’ religious beliefs. So, who is the hater (hint: not those defending religious freedom).

Relatedly:

13 Comments for “Who Are the ‘Haters’?”

  1. posted by Kosh III on

    Hate speech:
    “Kill a queer for Christ”
    Got
    Aids
    Yet
    “AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality” Jerry Falwell
    “human rubbish” Thomas Sowell
    “intrinsically evil” Pope Ratzi

    All from avowed “Christians” showing their “love.”

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Hate speech:

      “intrinsically evil” Pope Ratzi

      Yeah, you better cut that off mid-statement. You should know better.

      Reply
    • posted by Johnny Q on

      KoshIII that was not hate, they were just lovingly defending their religious freedom ;0)

      Reply
  2. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Who Are the ‘Haters’?

    Duh. The left-liberal-progressives, of course. (Accepts accolades from the conservatives on IGF with wildly exaggerated gay bow, and then falls off the stage into a transcult mosh pit from which he emerges in an Ivanka Trump Lace-Trim Bell-Sleeve Dress.)

    Having deftly (if not entirely accurately) dealt with the main point of this post, let me to make a few observations about underlying issues:

    (1) It seems to me that conservatives are overreacting in this instance. ADF is not (and in my view, should not be) exempt from negative comment and/or criticism, any more than the ACLU is or should be exempt. The overreaction is part of a pattern I’m seeing more and more often. Increasingly, conservative media is outraged whenever a conservative group like the ADF is criticized, while at the same time lambasting opposing groups like the ACLU. Conservatives seem to more and more emulate the “snowflakes” they so enthusiastically condemn.

    (2) The ADF may or may not be a hate group, but it is not a hate group solely because it takes the position that the Constitution neither protects gays and lesbians from sodomy laws nor grants gays and lesbians a right to marry on equal footing with straight, and, accordingly, that both Lawrence and Obergefell were wrongly decided. Those positions were and remain mainstream conservative positions, long advocated by members of The Federalist Society, including, most famously, by one of the Society’s founders, Justice Scalia.

    (4) The Federalist Society’s Constitutional position is grounded on two convictions: (1) Griswold and its progeny, which take broad view of unenumerated rights under the Constitution, are wrongly decided, and (2) Glucksberg, which limits unenumerated right to those which “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”, is the proper test for unenumerated rights.

    (5) If Glucksberg is the proper test of unenumerated rights, then both Lawrence and Obergefell must, logically, be reversed (see the reasoning of Justice Scalia’s dissent in both cases).

    I’m not suggesting that either Lawrence or Obergefell will be reversed outright at this point (although I think that it is a distinct possibility after a fifth Justice in the mold of Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas is elevated to the Court). All I am pointing out is that implacable opposition to Griswold and fervent support for Glucksberg are longstanding, and now mainstream conservative positions.

    Reply
  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    As a side note, at least one Republican has a modicum of decency and common sense and is willing to stand up to the Trump Administration’s lunacy on this issue.

    Reply
  4. posted by JohnInCA on

    I love how folks whine about the SPLC but never ever actually refute the compiled evidence in favor of a determination the group makes.

    Fact is, the SPLC has never called a group a “hate group” based on support for or against non-discrimination laws. And if you look at the SPLC’s site on the ADF, what do you find?

    Oh yeah, support for sodomy laws (not just that they are constitutional, but that they are good), support for forcibly sterilizing trans folk, spreading fear and misinformation about a homosexuality/pedophilia connection, and spreading fear and misinformation about gays being a threat to Christianity.

    And they back up every one of their claims.

    So please Mr. Miler, which of those claims do you refute? And I’m afraid that as the SPLC has already done their homework and given reasons they made those claims, you’ll need to explain why you don’t think their evidence supports their conclusions.

    I’ll wait.

    Reply
  5. posted by MR Bill on

    Here’s some hatefulness, outside academe: “Within days of the LGBT guidance’s publication, Heidi Green, then-chief of staff for U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, requested that it be rescinded, Sonny Ramaswamy, then-director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the federal department that administers 4-H, told the Register.

    Afterward, a NIFA communications manager sent an “urgent” email to at least two states — Iowa and New York — urging the 4-H organizations there to remove the LGBT guidance from their websites, the Register found.

    The subsequent decision to take down the policy set off a firestorm this spring that engulfed 4-H programs in at least eight states — including Iowa, Idaho, Wisconsin, California, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and New York.

    And it eventually precipitated the firing of Iowa 4-H director John-Paul Chaisson-Cárdenas, a fierce advocate of the LGBT policy, the Register found after conducting extensive interviews and examining more than 500 pages of state and federal communications.

    John-Paul Chaisson-Cardenas, a former 4-H Youth Development Program leader, was a fierce advocate for a more inclusive 4-H program that welcomed LGBT youth. He was fired earlier this year.Buy Photo
    John-Paul Chaisson-Cardenas, a former 4-H Youth Development Program leader, was a fierce advocate for a more inclusive 4-H program that welcomed LGBT youth. He was fired earlier this year.
    The 4-H policy’s removal comes amid other moves by the Trump administration to roll back federal protections that the previous administration saw as also covering gender identity — or the deeply held sense of who one is that may differ from the sex organs with which one is born.

    The Trump administration previously declared it would place limits on transgender troops serving in the military, and it rescinded a 2016 Dear Colleague letter issued by Obama’s Education Department that said prohibiting transgender students from using facilities such as restrooms that matched their gender identity violates federal anti-discrimination laws.” https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/2018/11/18/4-h-transgender-lgbt-iowa-john-paul-chaisson-cardenas-iowa-state-university-civil-rights/1572199002/

    Reply
  6. posted by Tom Schharbach on

    Bobby Jindal writes: “Before arguing about the rights of evangelical bakers, conservatives need to show why all Americans, regardless of faith, should fight to protect each other’s religious liberties.

    It might be instructive for Jindal to review religious liberty cases that have come before the courts during the last decade. Conservatives are all over religious liberty cases involving conservative Christians like white on rice. On religious liberty cases involving non-Christian religions, and in particular Islam, the conservative silence in almost all cases is deafening.

    If Jindal thinks that it is important for “all Americans, regardless of faith, [to] fight to protect each other’s religious liberties“, he might want to start proselytizing among his fellow conservatives.

    Reply
    • posted by JohnInCA on

      He might also want to check his timelines. The past cases that got to the SCOTUS, and the current ones on their way, all predate Obergefel. He is arguing that folks should have been content with the Obergefel win before it happened.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      He might also want to check his timelines. The past cases that got to the SCOTUS, and the current ones on their way, all predate Obergefel. He is arguing that folks should have been content with the Obergefel win before it happened.

      Stripped of the pretense, the conservative “poor winners” argument comes down to “Sit down in the back and let conservative Christians enjoy the ride from the front of the bus.” Timelines have never been relevant to the conservative argument, and religious liberty for non-Christians is beneath notice.

      Reply
  7. posted by TylerSnofs on

    Good news ! an interestingoffering
    Just click

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iiIxcoMOQEYhhZHZuLnVhrSmizZo1SGE/preview

    Reply

Leave a Comment