Religious “Liberty”

065CA47E-EFA0-42CF-BA7F-BD3179FCD47AAttorney General Jeff Sessions just announced the creation of a Religious Liberty Task Force that will “ensure that the Justice Department is prioritizing the rights of religious people and groups in its policies and legal battles.”

Acording to Sessions, there is “a dangerous movement” eroding religious liberties and that “we have gotten to the point where courts have held that morality cannot be a basis for law; where ministers are fearful to affirm, as they understand it, holy writ from the pulpit; and where one group can actively target religious groups by labeling them a ‘hate group’ on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

So rejoice all you bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gay/lesbian wedfings. Congratulations to all those who are morally offended when people say “happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”

Praise be for all the local civil servants whose Christian beliefs take precedent over their civic duties. Say amen all you preachers and pastors who can make your sermons all about supporting conservative Christian politicians and ideologies without losing your precious tax-exempt status. Sing hallelujah all you pro-lifers who value the life of a fetus over that of a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions.

It’s about time someone has finally stood up for the poor, persecuted Christian majority in America. So thank you, Jeff Seasons and the Department of Justice for establishing this Religious Liberty Task Force. This is how we will make America great again…for straight, white, Christian conservatives, anyway.

Because, in Today’s America, they are all that matter. Everyone else is immorally bankrupt lost souls who are apparently destroying what real (i.e., Christian) Americans hold near and dear.

Welcome to the new American theocracy.

54 thoughts on “Religious “Liberty”

  1. Michael July 30, 2018 / 1:48 pm

    On the upside you can bang hookers , abuse kids, embezel money and oppress minorities and when it comes out just shed a few tears on tv because Jeebus forgives apparently.

    No wondee everyones trying to get in!

    Oh plus extra cake for the non gays.


    Liked by 3 people

  2. Michael July 30, 2018 / 2:00 pm

    It’s all so sad on the outside looking in.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Suze July 30, 2018 / 2:26 pm

    that is so unconstitutional as to be laughable. This guy is a LAWYER? What kind? real estate? and did he pay for a diploma without attending school? good grief!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Matt July 30, 2018 / 2:59 pm

    “So rejoice all you bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gay/lesbian weddings.” Actually, I think that’s fair. Religious beliefs and sexuality should be valued equally. Would a Muslim be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, or prepare food containing pork or alcohol? Of course not, so why should a Christian’s beliefs count for less?
    On all other points, yeah, extra protection isn’t required.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Paula Light July 30, 2018 / 3:02 pm

      Agree here. They didn’t refuse to serve the gay couple in their bakery, only cater their wedding. People are refusing to see the distinction.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 3:13 pm

        They refused to bake a cake for a paying customer solely based upon their sexual identity. How is this different from refusing to bake a cake based upon the color of the customer’s skin? Do you think that would be okay?

        Liked by 2 people

        • Paula Light July 30, 2018 / 3:21 pm

          I think a compromise could have been reached. Bake the cake, but someone else decorate it. Why did they have to know the couple was gay? In any case, yes, I think it should be okay not to force people to bake a cake that goes against their religious beliefs. Discrimination based on race is already illegal.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 4:15 pm

            So why should it not be illegal based on sexual orientation?


            • Paula Light July 30, 2018 / 4:54 pm

              Because of religious freedom. The bakers feel that by baking a cake on spec, as opposed to serving them in the bakery, that they will be participating in something they disagree with on principle. We don’t insist that a rabbi or a priest perform a ceremony for a gay couple when they advertise online, do we?

              Liked by 1 person

            • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 5:00 pm

              Rabbis and priests aren’t bakers. And I don’t know about priests, but rabbis and pastors in some Christian religions are very tolerant of and welcoming to the LGBT community and do perform gay and lesbian wedding ceremonies.


            • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 5:04 pm

              “Religious freedom” is a dog whistle for religious discrimination.

              Liked by 2 people

    • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 3:10 pm

      If a Muslim ran a retail bakery, yes, he should not have the right to discriminate against LGBT customers. What if a Christian baker refused to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah? Should a Christian baker not serve a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, an atheist because they don’t accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior?


      • Matt July 30, 2018 / 3:19 pm

        As Paula said, there was no refusal to serve. The refusal was the provision of a cake bearing messages in direct conflict with their own beliefs. Am I in agreement with their stance? No. But is it fair? Yes. Religious beliefs are as valid as sexuality, race, gender identity, whatever.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 3:27 pm

          See my response to Paula’s comment. Do religious beliefs trump sexual, religious (other than Christianity), and racial discrimination? If not, why should they permit gender identity discrimination at a retail establishment that serves the public. Should places of business be permitted to post signs saying that they refuse to serve (or cater to) blacks, Jews, Muslims, and gays? Do you honestly believe that’s fair?


          • Matt July 30, 2018 / 3:38 pm

            You have totally missed the point. I’ve checked several stories regarding this whole thing, and every single one clearly states that the baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. They did not refuse outright to serve anybody bases solely upon sexuality. And no, religious beliefs do not trump other beliefs. But nor do any beliefs trump religious ones. By forcing Christian bakers to cast aside beliefs for others, you are discriminating against them. Which is just as bad as what you claim to be trying to prevent in the first place.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 4:34 pm

              Sexual orientation is no more a “belief” than the color of one’s skin or one’s gender is a belief. But religious beliefs are, indeed, just beliefs. And belief shouldn’t be a reason to deny human rights and dignity. The baker refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, so how can you say that he refused to serve based upon sexuality? No disrespect, Matt, but I think it is you who has totally missed the point.


      • Matt July 30, 2018 / 3:24 pm

        And what if a black bakery owner refused to serve a white supremecist? What would be you stance on that?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 4:21 pm

          If a white supremacist wanted a wedding cake that said “congratulations,” then a black baker should bake it for him. But if the white supremacist wanted the cake to say “death to blacks,” then no. A white supremacist is expressing a racial ideology that targets people of color. A gay couple is not targeting anyone else. There is a difference, in my mind.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Matt July 30, 2018 / 4:43 pm

            But it is still based solely upon personal beliefs. If you believe it is acceptable against one group then it must be acceptable against all, or it becomes clear discrimination. You are still saying that one group has fewer rights than others.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Matt July 30, 2018 / 4:46 pm

              And I’m done beating my head against a brick wall. I have my view, you have yours. We disagree. I need sleep 😴

              Liked by 1 person

            • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 4:57 pm

              Maybe if you continued to beat your head against a brick wall, it would knock some sense into it. Hope you sleep well, Matt.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Matt July 30, 2018 / 5:02 pm

              I tried ending this civilly. You clearly couldn’t do that. I’m fine disagreeing with people, but that remark means I can hold zero respect. Ciao.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 5:05 pm

              Sorry if I offended you.


            • Matt July 30, 2018 / 5:15 pm

              You didn’t offend me. I’m disappointed. You resorted to a cheap insult and an attempt to place yourself in a position of superiority. It is disrespectful.
              I agree with pretty much everything you post, but such blatant disrespect is something I can no longer move on from.
              Keep blogging, keep doing your prompts and keep the discussions going. You’re great at it. But I’m taking my leave.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 6:26 pm

              I’m sorry that you believe I took a cheap shot. Perhaps I did, and for that I apologize. I was reacting to your accusation that I was missing the point, when I don’t think I was missing the point at all. You may not agree with the point I was making, but I thought it was somewhat disrespectful of you to say that I was missing the point. But be that as it may, I was wrong to lash out at you in the way I did. This is clearly a controversial topic that stirs strong feelings.


            • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 5:12 pm

              Maybe this will help you appreciate how that gay couple felt when that baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. I think they were offended.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 4:56 pm

              No, I’m not. I said that a black baker shouldn’t discriminate against a white supremacist by not baking a cake UNLESS asked to write hate speech on that cake. That’s where I would draw the line. But that is not equivalent to what this gay couple asked the Colorado baker to do, is it? They didn’t ask him to write “screw Christians” on the cake. No group should have fewer rights than any other. Except for those whose rights are being trampled by those who hold Christian beliefs (the majority of Americans), in which case it’s fine with you. That seems to be what you’re condoning.

              Liked by 3 people

  5. Richmond Road July 30, 2018 / 3:35 pm

    Gee …. I don’t know about that, Matt. Certainly, the colour of one’s skin is an undeniable fact, and I think there is a strong argument to view sexuality and gender identity the same way. Religious ‘belief’, on the other hand is, by definition, NOT a fact and is very much open to question. I believe that we must all respect one’s right to an opinion but it does not follow that we should respect the opinion itself.
    I suspect, also, that the people to whom Fandango refers are being fairly specific in reference to ‘religious beliefs’. I don’t think they have lost much sleep over the rights of Buddhists, Muslims, Rastafarians or Jediists, for example.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. V.J. Knutson July 30, 2018 / 6:49 pm

    Leave Jeff Sessions and his cohorts and come to Canada – we’re focused on practising acceptance here.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. writebrainwidow July 30, 2018 / 7:16 pm

    Wow on all counts. You hit the travesty called this administration square in the bullseye and it all sucks. And, as an aside about the baker’s ‘rights’ for me it comes down to the question of standing up against gay choice a a matter of Christian principle makes me wonder just what their version of ‘Christianity’ is if not acceptance of all.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 7:48 pm

      It seems to be acceptance of all as long as it conforms to their current beliefs, which, interestingly enough, are quite different from Christ’s teachings.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. Sight11 July 30, 2018 / 8:37 pm

    Sensei, just a piece of advice take it or leave it, up to you, people will always be against being politically correct.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 10:18 pm

      This has nothing to do with political correctness. It has everything to do with human rights, freedom of religion (or freedom from religion), and the right to be who you are.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sight11 July 31, 2018 / 1:59 am

        Sensei being politically correct has meant that people are less tolerant on both sides. Trust me, I have seen it close.


        • Fandango July 31, 2018 / 6:34 am

          “The term political correctness is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.” Wikipedia.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Sight11 July 31, 2018 / 7:22 am

            Yes, but that also curb the right to say anything as it might seem to be offensive to some. For ex. Take the example of Mozilla founder, he was not against Gay but gay marriages, he was at once deemed as an anti gay person, same goes for people who don’t want women to wear burquas, they will be deemed as anti-Muslim. Calling a black, n**r by a black man, isn’t the same as being called by a white or brown. So basically the world is being narrowly painted as black and white, not grey. Sadly life is.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Fandango July 31, 2018 / 8:03 am

              Good points, Sight. There is a lot of sensitivity these days.

              Liked by 1 person

    • Fandango July 30, 2018 / 10:26 pm

      They will surely say they are. But I am confident that it’s primarily to protect the rights of Christians, who some on the right believe are being unfairly persecuted.


  9. Osyth July 31, 2018 / 7:52 am

    Thing is France got it right in 1789. Separate politics and religion and never the twain shall meet. They do not belong in bed together, ever. And only heartache can follow when they do unite.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fandango July 31, 2018 / 9:06 am

      They tried to do that in the U.S. in the First Amendment by writing “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but that hasn’t stopped the Christian Right from declaring America to be a Christian nation.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Osyth July 31, 2018 / 9:16 am

        Nothng stops extremists from having their extreme views – the problem here is that the extremists have sway over government. And that is scary ….

        Liked by 2 people

  10. itseemedimportantatthetime August 1, 2018 / 12:47 am

    Honestly, as far as the ‘brave baker’ and the gay wedding cake goes, I tend to think private businesses should have the right to deny service to anyone for whatever cockamime reason they want. The flipside, though, is they are prone to whatever fallout they get from it, be it boycotts, protests, and hopefully enough lack of business to go bankrupt. The cynical side of me says their fellow bigots would flock, but the more pragmatic side of me realizes while there may have been a bump in sales in solidarity, it would not have sustained (and the majority of bigots would avoid the place for fear of being exposed…there is no greater coward than a closet bigot). And the optimist in me has a lot more faith in the public overall to do the right thing. Certainly a lot more faith than in the government.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fandango August 1, 2018 / 6:37 am

      “private businesses should have the right to deny service to anyone for whatever cockamime reason they want.” So a private business should have the right to refuse to serve black customers? Or Hispanic customers? Really?

      Liked by 1 person

      • itseemedimportantatthetime August 1, 2018 / 8:47 am

        Sure. Which isn’t to say they *should* exercise that right, but in this case, by and large, the market would take care of it. Assuming, of course, we’re not talking about essential services like hospitals or utilities or housing, I would argue it a First Amendment right. And should a company choose to exercise that right to discriminate, then I think Twitter has proven a far more effective change agent than government. Look at Starbucks, for instance, or even Chic Fil-A. Or Papa John’s.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Fandango August 1, 2018 / 9:24 am

          An employee doing a stupid, racist thing is one thing, but if a retail organization that is open to the public, as a policy or practice, refuses to serve someone based upon solely on race, that is something else. Should a restaurant be permitted to refuse to seat black customers because the owner is a racist? Well, perhaps they should be allowed to do that if you wear a red cap inscribed with the words “Make America Great Again.”

          Liked by 1 person

          • itseemedimportantatthetime August 1, 2018 / 10:03 am

            Absolutely. The First Amendment does not protect us from unpleasant speech, but more importantly, it doesn’t protect us from the repercussions of said unpleasantries. While we’ve still got a ways to go, and there undoubtedly is institutional racism that will take generations to undo, we’ve come a long way since the 50s and 60s. The public won’t stand for it. And better it be out in the open and exposed than to serve everyone and funnel money into bigotted causes that serve to harm their customers. I certainly get your point, and agree that discriminatory practices have no place in public business. We’re just disagreeing on the need for protections from them.

            Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.