We Can Have Gay Rights or Freedom of Speech


What do a reality show star, a cakemaker and a photographer have in common? They’re all victims of a political system in which the mandate to not merely recognize gay marriage, but to celebrate it, has completely displaced freedom of speech.

The issues at stake in all three cases did not involve the Orwellian absurdity of “Marriage Equality”. The cases of a Christian cakemaker and a Christian photographer whom state courts have ruled must participate in gay weddings or face fines and jail time were blatant violations of both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion in the name of outlawing any dissent from gay marriage.

That is why Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was suspended. Robertson, unlike Bashir, didn’t take to the air to make violent threats against an individual. He expressed in plain language that he believes homosexuality is wrong. And that is something that you aren’t allowed to do anymore.

The left sneers that A&E isn’t subject to Freedom of Speech because it’s a private company. And they’re right. But then they insist that a cakemaker and a photographer aren’t protected by Freedom of Speech or Religion because they’re private businesses.

In their constitutional universe, companies have the right to punish speech in the name of gay rights, but not to engage in protected speech in dissent from gay rights. And that’s exactly the problem. It’s not just gays who have been made into a protected class, but homosexuality itself. To dissent from it is bigotry that you can be fired for, fined for and even jailed for.

Gay rights were not settled by legalizing gay marriage. We are facing an ugly choice between freedom of speech and gay rights.

In these three cases, gay rights activists have made it clear that we can have one or the other. But we can’t have a country where we have both gay weddings and people who disagree with them.

And that’s unfortunate because even the most generous interpretation of the benefits of two men marrying each other would struggle to prove that it is more beneficial to a society than the ability to speak your own mind and to practice your own religion without being compelled to violate it.

If we have to choose between gay rights and the First Amendment, the moral arc of the universe that liberals like to invoke so often will not swing toward the bullies who insist on dealing with their self-esteem problems by forcing everyone to consent and approve of their lifestyle.

Gay marriage was sold to Americans by cunningly crafted “gay families” on popular sitcoms. Now Americans are discovering that real gay activists aren’t friendly people who just want to make jokes between commercial breaks, but are neurotic and insecure bullies who attack others from behind the safety of the politicians that they bribed with the massive disposable incomes that comes from not having families or long-term relationships.

Most Americans still believe that homosexuality, adultery and a range of other deviant sexual behaviors are sins. They also, like Phil Robertson, believe that disapproving of a behavior does not mean rejecting the person. That’s where they part company with gay activists who are unable to tolerate Phil Robertson as a person if they are also unable to tolerate his opinion of their sexual habits.

The American tolerance for things like homosexuality comes from a mindset that is a lot closer to Phil Robertson than it is to Barack Obama. It’s that very Phil Robertson attitude which allows Americans to disapprove of homosexuality, while accepting that homosexuals should have spaces for expressing their need for political identity ceremonies. That tolerance led to civil unions and then gay marriage. And that tolerance has been woefully abused.

Americans are far more tolerant of sexual misbehavior than they are of people trying to take away their civil rights. And that is something that gay rights activists need to consider carefully.

American tolerance for homosexuality is not a blank check. It’s not the “progressive” endgame that the left believes it is in which tolerance for a thing is mistaken for the Stalinist willingness to punish dissent from that very thing.

When ordinary Americans talk about tolerance, they mean tolerance. When the left talks about tolerance, it means intolerance.

Now the gay rights movement, which is just another pimple on the bony arm of the left, is showing its true colors. It is showing that its calls for tolerance are really mandates for intolerance.

It isn’t looking for public spaces in which to be gay, but the elimination of public and even private spaces that reject homosexuality. It’s not gay rights that we are talking about, but gay mandates.

If Americans are forced to choose between Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and gay rights; gay rights activists may not like which way they will vote.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz PolishBear


    1: While we all have the right to freedom of expression, private companies (whether newspapers, radio stations, or TV networks) are not obligated to provide you with a platform. Newspapers are not required to print every single “Letter to the Editor” that they receive, and A&E is not obligated for indulge “Duck Dynasty’s” Phil Roberton in his disdain for Gay Americans.

    2: If it bugs you that you aren’t able to respond to an opinion you disagree with, perhaps you should thank the late President Reagan. In the early days of broadcasting, radio and TV stations were required to provide equal time for opposing opinions under the “Fairness Doctrine,” but the Reagan Administration succeeded in getting rid of the “Fairness Doctrine,” which in turn gave rise to conservative talk radio. Now Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Phil Valentine, Neal Boortz, & every other right-wing blowhard you can name can say whatever he wants, and he doesn’t need to provide time for dissenting opinions. How’s THAT for your precious “Freedom of Speech?”

    • A Z

      A&E has a right to fire Phil Robertson. Most libertarian and many if not all social conservatives would agree. We also have the right to to take our checkbook elsewhere, which we will.

      When bundling fails as a business model, more pressure in terms of customers walking away from A&E will happen. Bundling insulates liberal execs and other media types for the time being. Roku, internet streaming, and other venues will break that business model.

      Let the games begin.

      • storibund


        Conservatives need to own up to the fact that their cable subscription subsidizes our enemies, and empowers groups like GLAAD to erode our freedoms.

        • Norman Dostal

          you can still be a bigot-=relax

          • Jakareh

            You’re another stupid leftist whose favorite is “bigot”, but who doesn’t know what the word means.

      • Norman Dostal

        silly-A&E wont feel anything. a few hundred thousand rednecks turning the channel-who dont even have a Nielesen box-doenst matter at all

        • A Z

          Channels have been dropped before due to low viewership.

          Comcast, DirectTV & Dish know what channels their subscribers watch. They do not need Arbitron or Nielsen.

          The carriers often get into contract disputes with content providers and are more than willing to drop them or play hardball when it comes to renumeration for content.

          Duck Dynasty has 11.8 million viewers. The majority of those cannot be liberals with a case of schadenfreude. Your numbers for viewership are off by a factor 100, but why does that no surprise me?

          Have a nice day!

    • storibund

      Lefties have all the means at their disposal to air opposing opinions. No one’s stopping them – “Air America” mean anything to you?

      Whose fault is it that nobody wants to listen to their spew?

      • kikorikid

        Very succinct, very true.

    • Habbgun

      Two easy points here. A&E and the court system are 2 different entities. A&E can do what it wants. It gave an outlet to Duck Dynasty it can decide to remove it and DD can sell itself to another buyer that will love the ratings.
      I personally believe everyone has been had by A&E and DD and whatever gay org they got to be part of the scam. The Roberston return from suspension show will make a ton of money. The court system is completely different. It punishes people who are “nobodies” because it can. That is what the Constitution was set up to prevent not abet.
      The issue is not whether homosexuality is a sin though that is part of it. The real issue is whether marriage is holy. If so it is an institution far beyond the reach of the state. By suing and making people an involuntary part of gay “marriage” the state through its leftist minions is trying to say it is above individual belief. I know you agree that the state outranks religion but when you take on the millions who don’t agree please don’t expect leniency. You weren’t exactly to show it yourself.

      • Vegdaze

        The best solution would be to divorce the legal benefits from religious marriage. Allow everyone a civil marriage for health, inheritance benefits, etc. And have a separate holy marriage if you so choose.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eric-Paddon/100001252965548 Eric Paddon

      The issue is not A+E’s “right”. Of course they have a “right” to do what they like but so too did the Hollywood studios when they of their own volition, enacted the blacklist against Communists and suspected Communists. To this day, the Left has not let go of what they keep calling an “American Inquisition” in which they bray endlessly about the evil Kafkaeseque society of people unable to work because of their *beliefs* and their *ideas*. So to this day we see this story falsely made the metaphor for the whole story of the Cold War. All we are doing in this instance is pointing out the evils of a blacklisting that are taking place that unlike the one against Communists in the 50s, has to do with denying people of their right to earn a living based on mainstream beliefs. Those who think Robertson should be fired or made to undergo the GLAAD version of “naming names” by prostrating before the gay elites, should in the interests of consistency now acknowledge there was nothing evil about the Hollywood blacklist of Communists lest they be forced to acknowledge that it wasn’t blacklisting they found evil, it was regarding Communism as evil.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      and A&E is not obligated for indulge “Duck Dynasty’s” Phil Roberton in his disdain for Gay Americans.

      And by the same token, I’m not obligated to watch A & E or to eat at Cracker Barrel Restaurants anymore either. By the way, when and where did Phil Robertson indicate he had a disdain for gay Americans? He said living in sin isn’t logical, but that is far and away from claiming that he had a disdain for gay Americans? Indeed, what are you smoking? And why do you believe that all Christian Americans should be stopped from expressing their own personal opinions in public especially when asked as part of an interview? Apparently, like a typical Leftwing Marxist hack, you believe all opinions expressing traditional American values should be stifled in the public arena. How very revealing of your Leftwing Marxist totalitarian hack mindset.

      In the early days of broadcasting, radio and TV stations were required to provide equal time for opposing opinions under the “Fairness Doctrine,

      Actually the “Fairness Doctrine” wasn’t fair at all as it was used by the Left to stifle public debate and especially the voice of the right, which is why the Left is working so diligently behind the scenes to have it re-instituted, as the Left hates dissenting opinions because their opinions exactly like their ideology of Marxism, doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

      Now Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Phil Valentine, Neal Boortz, & every other right-wing blowhard you can name can say whatever he wants, and he doesn’t need to provide time for dissenting opinions.

      Actually, dissenting opinions are not in the least bit stifled or prevented by the removal of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”. However, because those Leftwing/Marxist ideologue’s dissenting opinions are so obviously bogus, they always inevitably fail in a matter of a short time in the arena of the free market as we’ve seen ad nauseum over and over again and despite the infusion of millions of dollars donated by Leftwing benefactors. You sound like you are one of the small handfuls of Leftwing moonbats that somehow enjoy watching MSNBC and think it is somehow entertaining TV.

      The stifling of free speech is also the reason why the Left in this case targeted Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty in the first place. They couldn’t stand the idea that a television show, which featured religion so prominently, had become by far the most popular television show in the history of cable TV. Thus, they decided to target Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty in a deliberate and very transparent attempt to take them down, but this time they over-reached, and this time the Left, gay marriage, and political correctness run amuck will all end up paying a price for their over-reach. It’s time to finally pay the fiddler you unhinged mental midget moonbat!

      How’s THAT for your precious “Freedom of Speech?”

      What an adolescent moron and unhinged political hack!

    • Moa

      > “While we all have the right to freedom of expression, private companies
      (whether newspapers, radio stations, or TV networks) are not obligated
      to provide you with a platform.”

      True, we agree. However, at the moment there are few places you can express an opinion against homosexuality and the American Government and Military are enforcing a ban against such speech (punishable by court martial, which is *very* serious). This is *massively* unconstitutional – because while you’re correct that the First Amendment may not apply to private companies (although I would argue it is more complex than that) it most certainly does to the US Government. Your argument has limited applicability, and is false when it comes to the US Government.

      It is clear you’re a gleeful totalitarian. It’s almost as if you learned nothing from the struggle for freedom that Poland went through – don’t you remember? or you don’t want to?

      ps. why do you hate the Freedom of Speech? what sane person in the 21st Century would oppose it?

    • Crassus

      Neal Boortz retired. Just thought you’d like to know.

      • godofplague

        That’s a shame when we had a local talk station I liked listening to him at work.

  • blahblahblah

    The left was horrified that “don’t ask don’t tell” rules in the military allowed gays to be fired for speaking out about their gay identity, but they insist that redneck Christians must be fired for speaking out about their views of gay sex. Isn’t this “don’t ask don’t tell” for rednecks?
    If companies may not discriminate against religious groups in their hiring practices, are they allowed to discriminate afterwards by firing those who talk after hours about their religious beliefs?
    If Christians calling gays “sinners” is a firable offense, then why is it not a firable offense to hold the far more pernicious Muslim belief that gays should be executed for their “sin?”
    Personally, I think A&E is delighted that Robertson spoke out. It creates a diversion from more newsworthy topics like the failure of Obamacare. Also, it gives the opportunity for another Maoist Media Show Trial, complete with public shaming and repentence ala Paula Deen. The Maoist show trial will be much more effective at chilling free speech than Robertson’s silence ever could have been.
    And, yes, I do know that I’m blurring some distinctions here. Private companies operate under different rules than the military; negotiated contracts with TV stars are different from take-it-or-leave-it employment contracts with store clerks. But those distinctions are lost on most of the public anyway. Most of the public walks away from these media show trials convinced that political correctness has become de facto law.

  • Jakareh

    “If Americans are forced to choose between Freedom of Speech, Freedom of
    Religion and gay rights; gay rights activists may not like which way
    they will vote.”

    But it doesn’t matter which way Americans vote, and it hasn’t from the beginning. Homosexuals will keep finding judges who are either themselves “gay” or who want to be invited to the hot parties and be praised by the mainstream media. For freedom to survive in America, it’s not just “gay” rights that have to be curtailed, it’s the whole extraconstitutional concept of “judicial review”.

    • Norman Dostal

      majority has already chosen gay rights, dumdum-that happened two years ago

      • Jakareh

        Really? That was a national referendum on “gay marriage”? Somehow, I missed it.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Some ‘Bama bots are programmed to refer to his reelection as a referendum on any talking point issue at any moment.

          Yeah, they are getting worse as the wheels are flying off.

      • pupsncats

        Everyone has the right to be stupid. Too bad the majority will end up paying for their stupidity if as you say, the majority has chosen to support deviancy.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “majority has already chosen gay rights, dumdum-that happened two years ago”

        The constitution already makes gays equal before the law. That’s all they need. Whatever elections you refer to are obviously being misinterpreted by some folks.

    • kikorikid

      John Marshal is spinning in his grave. For freedom to survive we have
      to overcome the intellectual fascism of Political Correctness.
      The Left is clearly showing its Fascist orthodoxy in this matter.
      It does matter which way Americans vote.
      You are throwing ,together, “Gay Rights and Judicial Review”.
      The “Ole Equivalency Argument” from the Left is simply hairbrained
      and your argument is,here, as well.
      If you want a discussion on Judicial Activism v. Judicial Review
      then bring it on. I’d suggest you read Marbury v. Madison first.
      Simply put, judicial review is the lynch-pin of the checks and
      balances afforded us in the U.S.Constitution.
      Activist judges,who rule by popular decree and not the Law , are the
      miscreant parties here.

      • Jakareh

        There would be no judicial activism without judicial review. There are no longer any effective checks and balances against the judicial branch, which being the farthest one from the people should be the least powerful.

        • kikorikid

          So, you make a declaration that is fanciful and
          assume it is fact. Or at least I’m buying into it. NOT!
          “No effective checks and balances”? Says who?
          Where did they go? What will we do?
          Why should they be less influential/least powerful?

          • Jakareh

            “No effective checks and balances”? Says who?

            Three words: Roe versus Wade.

    • Vegdaze

      The rights of a minority are not subject to a vote by the majority. Also, there are several pro-gay rights court decisions decided by Republican president appointed judges.

      • Jakareh

        “The rights of a minority are not subject to a vote by the majority.” This is what’s called “assuming the conclusion”, which is a logical fallacy. Whether “gay marriage” is a right is precisely what’s under dispute. Opponents don’t believe “gay marriage” is a valid concept, let alone a right. In our view, saying the U.S. Constitution mandates “gay marriage” is a deliberate and utterly dishonest distortion of the document’s meaning.

  • GSR

    Phil Robertson (who by the way, is no boob. He hold’s a Master’s degree, was a big-time college football quarterback, was asked to join the Washington Redskins, who once he graduated, his QB position was filled by one Mr Terry Bradshaw, and started a hundred-million dollar enterprise Duck Commander hunting products), was citing common, standard Christian (including Catholic) belief. Nothing new here folks, only in our hyper-sensitive, hyper-pandering PC society, it upsets some to hear “truth from the ages”. Everyone has sinned; Phil quite a bit in his past. A Christian is someone who admits their sin and tries, repeat, tries not to repeat his prior mistakes.

    • Moa

      Good points. Don’t forget that PC is shorthand for *Marxist Political Correctness*. Dropping the term off the front helps disguise what it is and where it comes from. If we keep repeating its real name then it’ll help people understand that PC is not some benign, well-meaning guideline :)

  • David_in_Houston

    “What do a reality show star, a cakemaker and a photographer have in common? They’re all victims of a political system in which the mandate to not merely recognize gay marriage, but to celebrate it, has completely displaced freedom of speech.”

    Phil Robertson’s anti-gay diatribes (which compared gay relationships to bestiality — and a video from 3 years ago where he said gay people are full of murder) had nothing to do with gay marriage. As for the baker and photographer, they live in states that don’t have gay marriage. (Although now New Mexico does.) Those issues had to do with public accommodations and state-sanctioned non-discrimination laws, not marriage.

    “Americans are far more tolerant of sexual misbehavior than they are of people trying to take away their civil rights.”

    That’s true. That’s why conservatives didn’t have an issue supporting Newt Gingrich for president, even though he’s a two-time adulterer. As far as the other thing goes, I had no idea that ostracizing a group of Americans (just because you happen to choose to become religious) was a civil right — probably because it isn’t one. Society is not obligated to tolerate your choice to become intolerant. Our country is a secular society, not a Christian theocracy.

    “Most Americans still believe that homosexuality, adultery and a range of other deviant sexual behaviors are sins.”

    No. Most Americans know that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a behavior; and most Americans know that the Bible is not a scientific journal about human sexuality.

    “When ordinary Americans talk about tolerance, they mean tolerance. When the left talks about tolerance, it means intolerance”

    So the photographer was displaying tolerance when she refused to treat the lesbian couple exactly the same as any straight couple that expected to pay for the services that she offered? …and the baker was tolerant when they refused to provide a cake to the gay couple? Who exactly do you think is doing the discriminating in these cases?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Our country was founded by religious dissidents as a place where people could keep their faith without the imposition of a state church, whether that church is secular or religious, whether it demands that no one participate in gay marriage or that everyone participate in gay marriage.

    • NoWay

      Haven’t you fools figured out yet that Robertson was simply quoting the first chapter of the book of Romans?

    • Habbgun

      Yes homosexuality is an orientation. It is also not holy as religion understands it. You are hung up on the sin since sin is negative but the fact that marriage is holy is the positive. Gay marriage can never be holy. It can only be recognized by a government, supported by force and no more. This is the point we are making. You can have your cake. You can eat it too. You can’t sit there and say it is all equal in the eyes of the Lord. It just isn’t. If you felt it was this wouldn’t be an issue at all. You would get your cakes at the thousands of bakeries and wedding photographers aching to get your business. Gay marriage dies the minute gay activism dies. What will hold it up? Nothing.

      • Norman Dostal

        wrong-thousands of denominations welcome gays and dont think their innate orientation is sin-which is just common sense
        Marriage, you ignoramus, in teh US is NOT religious-never has been

        • Habbgun

          You just contradicted yourself dum-dum. You mentioned denominations so you admit that there is a religious connection. These denominations happen to be ones that you found something to latch onto. American marriage has always been religious but not subject to a central theocracy which are two different things. Every day worthless people like you show what you are and how to deal with you. Moslems publicly hang gays, gays worry about islamophobia. Other people simply say this is what I believe and leave me alone and you go full in on trying to control them.. That’s cowardice. You know the new rule don’t you? If you don’t take on Moslems for their beliefs the way you go after Christians and Jews you are merely a hack. You’re a hack. And a dum-dum.

  • Argen Tino

    I consider myself as a neo-conservative (like Douglas Murray) and I’m a straight man. Here is my take on the homosexuality issue: This is 2013 in the 21st century. Whether we like homosexuals or not, we should just accept the reality. There is no point in having another group of enemy (gays and lesbians) when we already have way too many major enemies who can be lethal. If anyone doesn’t like gays, they should be keep it to themselves like I do it myself. By being enemies to them while most of the world is starting to accept them more and more, we are simply being stubborn and not doing ourselves any favor at all. Let them get on with their own lives. Instead we should be more vocal in fighting our major enemies such as Islam, Pusslims, Barack Hussein Pusslimbama, Political Correctness and the communist DemoRat party. The Republicans, Tea Party and other conservatives should also keep in mind that not all conservatives are Christians and not all conservatives are religious. I am an atheist and it will be extremely disappointing if you guys consider me as an enemy just because I don’t agree with some religious bull$hit. Just my two cents here…

    • NoWay

      “There is no point in having another group of enemy”

      “just because I don’t agree with some religious bull$hit”

      You are not needed, kindly shut your trap.

      • Argen Tino

        LOL and who are you? Are you a spokesperson of the Republic Party? Nope!
        Also, If you think that the GOP can win elections/keep winning elections only by getting “Christian votes” then even worse times are waiting in future…it pains me to see the stubbornness in people like yourself which only plays into hands of the communist, Islamofascist and national traitors aka the democratic party…I don’t think gays and lesbians are our enemies and rightly so. Even then, I would never encourage anyone to be homosexual. The more people you alienate, the bigger hole you dig for yourselves.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          The problem is not that the Republican Party is too exclusive, it’s too inclusive with leftist views. It drops the ball on the fight for accurately articulating conservative views and ends up being painted negatively. So for all of their selling out, they are worse off than if they had toughened up to the reality of the need to actually explain clearly what distinguishes them from the leftists. And in some cases it ends up being not that much. Certainly not enough.

          That’s why it’s hard to argue with the fallacy that we don’t have an opposition party. We do, it’s just full of sellouts. Which backfires and ends up leaving people like you publishing myths about supposed conservative views.

          • Argen Tino

            I am a registered Republican. I value the constitution and patriotism above all. No matter what someone like the commentator named “NoWay” might tell me, I’d NEVER become a libtard. If I can be an atheist and Republican at the same time then I don’t see why Gays and Lesbians can’t either. However we also need to take the initiative and make themselves feel more comfortable towards our party. We need to explain the fact that our view is just a patriotic and libertarian view which promotes more freedom (personal and economic) and less govt. control.

          • Habbgun

            If these gays weren’t leftists first they would be joining the Republican party. We’ve got a president who actively works with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. You get Duck Dynasty here but you get hung in Islamic republics. They don’t really care. It’s about personal power. Nothing more and nothing less and personal power is more easily gained on the Left.

          • Argen Tino

            Everything you wrote are facts! Gays, Lesbians and feminists are easily brainwashed by the Lamestream Libtard media. They think DemoRats are their friends while in reality they are Pusslim Brotherhood agents. It’s extremely hard to tolerate such ignorance day in day out.

          • Norman Dostal

            no, dumdum, if the GOP welcomed gays then gays would be republicans-the whole “youre not equal” thing turns people off-weird huh?

          • efraim mackellar

            You are a libertarian. A libertarian is by definition not a conservative. I believe that homosexuality should be outlawed. It used to be, not that long ago. The first country to legalize same sex marriage was, briefly, the post Revolution Soviet Union. All of this “gay” agenda in the West, has come about as a result of the ideas of the Frankfurt School. It was Marxist to the core.

    • Habbgun

      Religious bull$hit. Not tolerant on your part and part of the problem. Just because you are atheist does not mean you are above something. Quite the contrary. You don’t believe so you are infinitely malleable. At least you admit it. Ayn Rand who everyone holds up as being such a great resource for the right was an intellectual coward. Rather than say she didn’t believe in anything higher than man (not surprising since she came from the USSR) she simply wrote religion off. Problem is without natural rights everything falls apart. Natural rights led to American success and she couldn’t deny it so she ignored it. This argument that the photographer and baker have to do custom work on behalf people whose lives they don’t agree with on a religious level is a joke. You can’t allow people to be excluded from products meant for general consumption. Custom work is meant for individual consumption. These lawsuits are mere harassment. It is meant for these people to have to exclusively serve people they don’t want to serve. Do you think gays should have to make custom cakes for Chikfila buycott memorial day or Duck Dynasty Support Week? Of course you don’t,

      • Argen Tino

        Despite being an atheist, I don’t see Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or others as my enemies. I don’t agree with their beliefs but whatever. I think as an atheist my #1 enemy is Islam (not just mine but for all of us). That’s why I mainly have problem with Pusslims and Islam-apologist leftists who promote political correctness. Needless to say that political correctness is a mental disease. I see people from other religions as allies when it comes to defeating Pusslims and Pisslam. Similarly Gays and Lesbians should also wake up and realize who their #1 enemies are. Christians think that they will go to hell but more importantly Pusslims think that they should be killed!
        I said religion is bull$hit and it’s part of my freedom of speech to say so (and also think that atheism is superior to religion). This should NOT be the reason to think of me as an enemy. Libtardism is a mental disease, the remedy is conservatism. However conservatism doesn’t necessarily mean religious conservatism. It should be more of a patriotic/economic/libertarian point of view.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “I am an atheist and it will be extremely disappointing if you guys consider me as an enemy just because I don’t agree with some religious bull$hit.”

      You’re not an enemy. You simply don’t understand the article or the central issues. It’s not fundamentally about differences of religion. It’s about control and equality before the law.

      Please read the article again more slowly and see if you can deconstruct it critically and then try again. The “gay agenda” is every bit as dangerous as the threat from sharia at least in the next few years, possibly more so. Ironically the gays are paving the way for the jihadis to make their stealth play. But even without those longer term potential threats, try to understand the points of the article.

      • Argen Tino

        Tell a h0m0 to go live in a Pisslamic country for a while and he will learn his lessons. They will pay for their ignorance with their lives if they wanna align themselves with Pusslims. Unfortunately most of these cretins support the Commucratic Party so no wonder they are too thick to understand this simple mechanism.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Most conservatives are at least as tolerant of homosexuals living their own lives as you are. The reason these arguments can be seen in public discourse is not because conservatives started it.

          It was started by communist propaganda and class warfare stirring up victimization feelings, playing on fears people often have. And because we’ve corrupted our educational institutions we now have indoctrinated fools that don’t actually listen to what anyone opposing them is really saying. They’re told that they deserve top grades just because they’re sincere and they don’t need to listen to those “other guys” the “bigots” who disagree because they are morally equivalent to the slave drivers. Which is ironic considering all of the history of how we got here.

          But anyway, there you do. The oppressors are in the “progressive” factions. That’s how they get their “progress,” by engineering society – which requires removing individual liberties of people who disagree and “hurt the feelings” of others. They oppress you while trying to play the hero.

          • Hass

            Good replies mate.

          • Jakareh

            “Most conservatives are at least as tolerant of homosexuals living their own lives as you are.”

            I don’t know about you, but the lesson I’ve taken from the way homosexuals are behaving is that an attitude of live-and-let-live isn’t possible with them. Homosexuality is a perversion and a pathology, and the sad truth is that homosexuals hate those not afflicted with it.

            I was watching GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz tear into Phil Robertson and my thought was, “They want to take revenge on the rest of us.” Revenge for what, you may ask? For being able to marry—and deep down they all know marriage is one man to one woman, for being able to make love to another human being rather than engage in a brutish and unnatural emulation of it, and perhaps most of all, for being able to create new life with someone we love.

            The more power homosexuals acquire, the more power they will want, and the more they have of it, the worse it will be for the rest of us.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The key is distinguishing public space homosexuality from others who understand poltics the way that we do, but simply had experiences that altered their sexuality in ways they can’t get a grip on, or choose not to try because they too have been indoctrinated to some degree.

            But as long as they share our politics and understanding for the need for law, order and certain traditions that have proven to be vital to actual progress, they’re our allies. You and I just won’t have any reason to discuss their sexuality with them. Which is fine by me.

          • Jakareh

            Your first paragraph perfectly reflects my attitude until about two or three years ago. But then I got to know “gays” and I changed my mind about them. Of course, I don’t mean that in the usual way you hear it.

            The campaign for “gay marriage” amounts to an invasion. Homosexuals are trespassing where they don’t belong and enforcing their conquest through “lawfare”. Personally, I’ve never heard a homosexual say, “Marriage has nothing to do with who we are. Let’s just have a way to easily deal with legal issues that arise when we have a long-term relationship.” They could call that a “domestic partnership” if so inclined. Wherever a “domestic partnership” was instituted, however, it became immediately became a wedge for full-fledged “gay marriage”.

          • Paul

            why are we allowing any of this homos make up just a very small percentage of our society and the demand that we change a concept held dear in this country for generations i say let them get married but dont allow them to adopt or reproduce by artificial means we will be rid of this problem in a generaion

          • kikorikid

            The last paragraph here could be right out of
            “The Prince”.
            “They want to take revenge on the rest of us”
            The use of aggression by the homosexual community
            is an attempt to mitigate alienation and an accompanying
            anomic disintegration of Self for having denied
            the Norms, Values, and Beliefs of the Heterosexual World.
            Aggression affirms the strength of the “New Self”.

          • Vegdaze

            Perversion and a pathology? No, homosexuals are your brother, your coworker, your fellow parishioner.

          • Jakareh

            My only brother is happily married, I work all by my lonely self, and my church considers homosexuality a grave sin.

            But even if you were right, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. This is the line of reasoning your statement implies: “Well, if someone who’s related to ME (or who works with ME, or who goes to MY church) is gay, then there can be nothing wrong with being gay.”

            A leftist would think that because leftists are stupid and conceited. In fact, the average leftist is a solipsist. (Wow, I just realized that! Suddenly, I understand leftists better, so thank you!) I, however, am much more humble. I would never think that because a homosexual might be associated with me, somehow the nature of homosexuality would be changed.

          • kikorikid

            Very high self-esteem does not mean much if
            it is held by one of very low character.

          • Vegdaze

            So progressive equals bad? It seems women’s suffrage, the eight hour work day, and ending child labor were all good things brought by progressives. I can’t think of any situations where extending civil liberties has hurt society as a whole.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Because of those things we must accept any and all suggestions referred to as “progressive.”

        • A Z

          If all the sudden every last Republican said come on over and never said another word we might possibly double the gave vote. Democrats would still get the majority of the gay vote. I just don’t see it happening.

          Jesus’s (whether you see him as the son of god or a sage) admonishment of “Go and say no more” is applicable and always will be. Anyone who says anything at that point is just as blind and dumb as the people practicing the lifestyle.

        • Jakareh

          “Tell a h0m0 to go live in a Pisslamic country for a while and he will learn his lessons.”

          With all due respect, but you haven’t been paying attention to the way our enemies act. If you said that to the type of homosexual activist who would sue a cakemaker for not taking part in his mock wedding, it’s not like he would actually move to Peshawar. Instead he would say, “I know many Muslims who are wonderful people. You’re a homophobe, and Islamophobe, and a bigot!” Just like the Bolsheviks before them, our present foes have no common sense, no empathy, and no compassion. They do not abide compromises. They want you to do exactly as they say, and to do it with a cheerful attitude. And if you don’t, they want to destroy you.

          Our enemies may come from different recta, but they are nevertheless all turds in the same sewer. And you can quote me on that.

          • kikorikid

            and I’m tired of your incessant obfuscation;tell us what you really think!!!!!

          • Jakareh

            You know, I say this in the best way possible, so don’t take me wrong, but you’re a lot less smart than you think.

          • kikorikid

            Mine was a facetious remark which went two atmospheres
            over your head. What is your beef? Don’t just blindside attack, hit me with the truth. What the ..c. is your problem?
            May I suggest you ratchet back and relieve the pressure OR

    • A Z

      “By being enemies to them while most of the world is starting to accept them more and more,”

      Like Sweden? They accept gays? I don’t think so. They are demographically turning Muslim.

      • Argen Tino

        Pusslims will never tolerate gays; we all know that. Pusslims can’t even tolerate fellow Pusslims with a different opinion let alone non-Muslims and H0M0S. We all know Pusslims as the scum of this world. They are the most barbaric pieces of filth the world has ever seen. Since Pusslims don’t tolerate gays are you trying to suggest that we shouldn’t tolerate gays them either?! LOL
        As a matter of fact, Pusslims are not even human beings in my eyes. So I should just say it like this: More and more humans are accepting gays and lesbians; we should do the same thing.

        • A Z

          ” By being enemies to them while most of the world is starting to accept them more and more”

          By the rest of the world I think that is mainly Europe.

          Yet Europe is Muslim.

          I kind of agree with you r line of thinking. However tolerance is not enough for them. We must teach that gays are great, interchangeable & normal. I just cannot do that.

          It is one thing to teach kids that say Harvey Milk was gay and a decent country public servant (I dispute this) during “Gay ” Month. It will go way beyond it. It is more like the frontline had been breached and we are now engaged in Rattenkrieg.

          The lifestyle is just wrong along with heteros who are promiscuous and engage in anaI coitus. Read the science mags. In 1/3rd of a century there has been no magic pill. Now they say AZT & similar pills prematurely age people. Now is that our problem too?

        • http://raycaruso.com/ Ray Caruso

          The funny thing is that a great many Muslim men crave gay sex:


          And yet they hate the Western concept of homosexuality with a passion. When they take over in Sweden, which barring drastic action on the part of natives, is only a matter of time, I suspect they will round up everyone who’s ever gotten gaymarried and behead them.

    • Biff Henderson

      People are free to think what they want.

      Gays are free to live as they choose to live. They can construct ant farms in the crack of their azz or promote Dr. Pepper enemas for all I care. Voicing disapproval of any behavior based on personal convictions is not a hate crime. If I object to promoting behavior that I deem is destructive to the social fabric that’s my right. Gay or straight, anyone that contracts medical complications through condom failure or unprotected sex did so because they engaged in high risk behavior. The costs associated with a libertine lifestyle is far reaching in all aspects of life and the burden of that damage is foisted on every man, woman and child. The consequences have proven to be lethal for those suckered in to this narrative. If you take the proper precautions and enjoin in bliss with those you trust, etc. Manipulative predators love that babble. Framing this objection in Biblical terms is the hate crime.

    • pupsncats

      Yup. Let’s keep to ourselves while the pushing of the envelope against common sense, human dignity and worth, freedom, humanity and truth are swept under the rug to appease the corrupt, deviant, immoral, insane and stupid people gain the power to silence and

  • CarolinaSistah

    Hypocrisy is ugly and hated by most people! My ‘tolerance’ will go only so far as another’s tolerance. Activists like GLAAD show zero tolerance. As a great singer once sang, “nothing from nothing leaves nothing”.

  • camp7

    I would like to thank A&E and GLAAD for helping Phil Robertson get the message out about homosexuality. Looks like they bit their own tail. By trying to deny his freedom of speech they only exposed their own hypocrisy and brought more critical analyses to the forefront.


    • Norman Dostal

      too late, dumdum-the Phil types are a dying breed-over 70% of people under 30 fully support gay rights-do the math

      • camp7

        Wrong stop Normy. Gomorrah is that-a-way. Follow the yellow brick road..

      • objectivefactsmatter

        The biology is slightly more important than leftist “math.”

    • kikorikid

      The situation brings to the fore the fascist tendencies of
      the Left. Disagree with the Left and they assume the mantle
      and mask of Police, Judge, and executioner. Now, the Left
      mearly wants to destroy a persons economic livelihood.
      In the future they will want to put a transgressor
      up against a wall.

    • Vegdaze

      How are they denying his free speech? They’re making a business decision to curb the bad PR. At the same time I wouldn’t be surprised if all reality stars sign contracts agreeing to not paint the network in a bad light.

  • JeffreyRO55

    Gay people deserve to have the same legal rights as straight people. Religionists are always free to hate gay people, and to say whatever they want about them. They are not free to discriminate against them in commerce, if a state has an anti-discrimination law.

    • johnlac

      Nazis have the same civil right to flaunt their beliefs as anyone else. Would you compel the cake store to make a cake with a big swastika on it celebrating the birth of Hitler?

      • JeffreyRO55

        No, a cake store can’t be compelled to make a swastika cake, because Nazi’s are not protected under the law.

      • Norman Dostal

        idiot-nazi symbols arent protected

  • Norman Dostal

    wow-conservatives really are retarded. No one was arrested for their hate speech-just publicly punished as they should be. The cake maker must serve the public-blacks, jews, gays. That duck guy was an at will employee-A&E doesnt wnat a bigot representing them so they suspended him-what is the problem here?

    • Habbgun

      The problem was that they were forcing someone to do custom work dum-dum and the work was going to be specifically part of the celebration and these people did not want to participate (and yes that is participate) they would provide the access that anyone else had in terms of an off the shelf cake or posing for a portrait.

      This is a reasonable position especially since there are plenty of establishments that want the business (you believe in public punishment so it is obvious you believe that there should be those who go around looking for those to punish just like those who brought the lawsuit did).

      Secondly dum-dum no one expects gays to have to provide custom services in the reverse such as baking a Phil Robertson Return celebratory cake or a Chikfila buycott celebration day cake. If these days become secular holidays are you willing to enforce all bakeries (even if owned by gays) have to provide cakes, photography and catering? After all we may not agree with the lifestyle but if you’re the best cake decorator in town we want your services. I’m assuming they wanted the Christian baker and photographer because they were great at what they do and not because they were looking for a public shaming (public shaming is sort of medieval don’t you think? Maybe we should just bring back the stocks)

  • ttechsan

    One of my best friends growing up & grad HS in 72 is gay. I had many gay clients that knew as a Christian I took Biblical stance. They stayed with me when could hv gone to gay Ins agent but stayed because I treated them professionally despite diff view on lifestyles. I never feared Aids from them b4 we learned what we know now. We respected each other & we did business ok. The activist today wouldnt allow that. They are dead now & I miss our good deep discussions w/o any rancor at all. Sad those days are gone. We agreed to disagree. Pretty simple really.

  • Dave

    Huh? Gay rights laws have been on the books for decades;. The first citywide law was passed over 40 years ago and the first statewide law was passed 32 years ago. There’s been no free speech or freedom of religion in Wisconsin since 1982? Good to know!

  • Infovoyeur

    In a commendible defense of freedom of speech etc. against an intrusive State plus Politicl Correctness, Greenfield seems to err too far to another side. And that is the distorting demonizing of homosexuality plus especially gay activists. (1) Gays are NO objective threat harm danger or menace to society or other individuals, plus (2) same-sex marriage is a civil right. The fact that citizens (personally) think X is “sinful” or “misbehavior,” is NO reason to (officially) act against it.
    “Forcing consent, approval of lifestyle,” etc., I don’t know which logical fallacy this is. Straw Man? Red Herring? Perhaps “Bogeyman”?
    The conservtive/Right stance in general is what we need for survival (always and esp. now). However, its excesses in re power structure etc., can lead to a bad-hierarchy (some are good!) demeaning, dejecting, depersonalizing of some groups. I personally think homosexuality is “left-handed,” a variation but not a dangerous deviation. BUT you should hear, what some such as Robert George, J.D., and other groups say about same-sex couples–not their sex acts, but what the very quality of their association is like. An enduring committed pair-bonded responsible Love-relationship, to have and hold until, etc.? No. Rather: “Adult desire.” “Transitory and unstable emotions.” “A contract between chums.” At least the Family (Research?) Council was honest: “a validation of sex partners.”
    The conservative mind-set touches more of the moral foundations than the liberals who value “taking care, avoiding harm” excessively. However, the excess conservatism–along with an unconsidered acceptance of historical-cultural homophobia–comes up with some mighty strange and torqued, warped, skewed viewpoints ultimately much less socially profitable than helpful. –30–

  • Kafir istani

    A private company like a t.v. channel is also free to set its own limits , funny how Phil is free to do as he pleases yet a private T.V. station is not ( according to this story ) . Once again this is not about freedom but is all about being anti homo . And as for people who have to brake laws ( anti discrimination ) to express them selves , how is this any different from other criminals ? Is it one law for all ? People are still free to say any thing they like and stop with all the garbage about things being other wise , it all hot air from losers .As with Utah so with the other 30 .

  • laura r

    there may be more to this than meets the eye. he may have been suspended as there could have been a buyout or a merger. he had a contract, we dont know what was violated, he could have crossed the line. we dont know the details. you will never know the real story. this is filler & gossip for the press. folks, its TV thats all.

  • Vegdaze

    What happens when similar business owners won’t bake a cake for an interracial or Jewish wedding? It’s clear discrimination and illegal. A business owner cannot refuse services just because they don’t like someone. In the case of A&E, nothing illegal has happened; they made a business decision to curb the bad PR of someone offending gays, blacks, and others all in the same breath. You don’t have to be gay or black to be offended by his statements.

  • kikorikid

    100% spot on!
    Everyone not part of the Umma, the world of Islam,
    will be killed or enslaved.
    Everyone needs to become keenly aware of
    what is on the way. The other stuff, as you suggest, is fluff.

  • kikorikid

    The President of the United States said there are
    58 States, you say 31. Help us out, who do you think is

  • Paul

    in case everyone forgot this is a country for,by and of the people that means that we the people voice our opinion and views on potential legislation and our democratically elected senators and representatives are supposed to vote with the majority of the constitutes they represent
    the very premises of this indicates majority rule which is how the founders intended it. that makes it our government, not their subjects.they work for us at our behest not the other way around. this is a concept that seems to have been forgotten in this country. we need to get back to a constitutional government instead of a special interest government

  • Stan Jenkins

    The cakemaker and photographer broke state nondiscrimination laws having nothing to do with speech. Change the laws in that case if you believe the cakemaker and photographer were wronged.