DO LIBERAL DEMOCRATS REALLY THINK THEY ARE TOLERANT?

A picture of a lightbulb is often used to represent a person having a bright idea.
A picture of a lightbulb is often used to represent a person having a bright idea. (from here)

When Liberal Democrats tout diversity, we get lots of pictures of people who look different. What we don’t get is a picture of bunch of people with different ideas. Perhaps that is why Liberal Democrats can handle the appearance of diversity. They can picture our surface differences.  Whatever the reason, what Liberal Democrats cannot tolerate is people who disagree with them.

Here is an example.

Here is something to think about from the CNN article.

Phillips argued that compelling him to make cakes for same-sex marriages compels him to convey a celebratory message about the ceremony, in conflict with his religious beliefs.

The court disagreed.

“By selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, Masterpiece does not necessarily lead an observer to conclude that the bakery supports its customer’s conduct,” the court ruled. “The public has no way of knowing the reasons supporting Masterpiece’s decision to serve or decline to serve a same-sex couple.”

Here we have a private citizen, a businessman, trying to do what he thinks is right. From the court’s perspective, what that businessman thinks of his conduct doesn’t matter. It is what others think of his conduct that matters. Doesn’t that sound positively weird? Isn’t what we do when we think no one is watching the true test of our character? At least that is what I think. I guess that Liberal judge thinks I still need to be properly indoctrinated, that is, sent to a reeducation camp.

How about you? Do you have personal standards, or is it just a matter of what others think when they are watching you? Are you a Liberal Democrat?

57 thoughts on “DO LIBERAL DEMOCRATS REALLY THINK THEY ARE TOLERANT?

  1. “Excuse” for what? The Maddox reference did indeed serve my purpose, which was to say that the Insanitybytes comment up the thread reminded me of Lester Maddox, a rather distant figure historically. That’s admittedly a meager purpose, but it was all that was intended. What purpose did it serve for you? If I can offer a sentence or two that serves all our purposes, I feel I have been useful in some small way.

    Scout

    Like

  2. You folks are so easily distracted (of course we already knew that). I’ve said very little about Mr. Maddox, pro or con. He’s not particularly my cup of tea (Carl Sanders struck me as one of the great Georgia governors of the 20th century, and that all of his successors, including the one who became President, paled by comparison). But that’s neither here nor there since my reference was not to his governorship. If you folks want to emphasize other aspects of Mr. Maddox’s career, that’s fine. I’ll probably not get heavily involved, however.

    Lester popped into my head only because of the idea expressed by Insanitybyte’s 20 Aug 1214 comment that not only is one’s home one’s castle, a business is also. That struck me as a very Rip van Winkle moment, and hence the distant vaporous memories of Lester Maddox standing with axe-handle wielding supporters to bar Negroes from his restaurant in the early 1960s. I could have used any number of other examples from that period. Keith helpfully put it in perspective by volunteering a nice little sketch of the civil rights statutes affecting public accommodations, the need for which can be symbolized by Mr. Maddox, but I take the point that there were many others who held (and perhaps still hold) similar views.

    The subject at hand, however, was Tom’s about whether the Colorado appellate panel’s decision in a cake-selling case was a reflection of “Liberal Democrats” not being tolerant. I suggested (my morning comment on 17 August) that there was no evidence that the decision was a “Liberal Democrat” political action, that it appeared to be very similar to Justice Scalia’s reasoning in the Oregon Peyote worship case that spawned RFRA (Scalia, J., not being someone I would consider a “Liberal Democrat”, although that view might not stand up here, particularly since I am the one expressing it), that cake-selling is not a religious activity, and that there are real problems allowing people to self-exempt from the application of law by invoking self-professed religious beliefs, not least among them the problem of then having the secular courts make decisions based on an examination of either the sincerity of the professed belief and/or the validity of the belief under established religious doctrine. This latter outcome strikes me as one to be assiduously avoided as a severe threat to religious liberty and to our constitutional protections.

    Tom has said he is preparing a response. That will be interesting, I’m sure.

    Scout

    Like

    1. @*scout,

      You seem to wish to end religious liberty as you cannot tell what qualifies as a religious practice, and don’t want the courts put in the position of having to make this determination. And yet courts make decisions all the time; it is what they do.

      Your attempt at creating a one-person hypothetical to stand in for the billion or more who believe as Citizen Tom does isn’t striking me as very compelling.

      And your dogged insistence that participating in a religious ritual has nothing to do with religion also does not gain traction. Marriage may also be recognized by state and local jurisdictions, but it you are as foolish as “nothing to do with Islam” Obama if you think this means marriage has nothing to do with religious belief.

      Yes, attorneys have developed marriage and its impacts upon probate and divorce into gigantic revenue sources as they work to resolve issues that arise in their favor, and it is possible to enter into marriage outside of a church or temple or synagogue. This does not change the fact that the opening words “Dearly beloved, we are gathered here” does not arise from the secular spinoffs of matrimony.

      Many people feel strongly about this issue. And until laws are changed to protect people wanting to marry their siblings or pets or whatever the next phase is — and there are pushes already in both areas — people with religious objections to marriage services that go against their faiths should be left alone.

      There is a subtlety here that you keep misstating: The objection is not to persons, but to participation in religious ceremonies. These people have said repeatedly that they have no problem serving gays, they just object to what they consider to be the process of being forced into profaning what to them is a sacred ceremony. Your contrived chirality case does not work as an analogy.

      But back to your hypothetical, your left-handed complement to religious freedom: Should your new faith take off, however sinister it might seem and gauche in its impact upon your business, the actual effect upon the area’s commerce will be trivial. I’d say let you have your silliness; you demonstrate the right to it better than most.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Like

      1. I had not understood that the baker was be required to participate in a religious ceremony. That did not show up in the court’s opinion. I thought he was refusing to sell a cake. I agree that it would be a violation of one’s religious freedom to be forced to preside over or participate in a religious ceremony that one objected to. I’m not sure how the court missed that or how you knew about it. But, if that was the case, I’m on your side.

        BTW, I love your last paragraph. One could say describe it as verbally dextrous.

        Like

      2. One also might say that describing your last paragraph as “verbally dextrous” is a left-handed compliment.

        Like

      3. There is a subtlety here that you keep misstating: The objection is not to persons, but to participation in religious ceremonies. These people have said repeatedly that they have no problem serving gays, they just object to what they consider to be the process of being forced into profaning what to them is a sacred ceremony. Your contrived chirality case does not work as an analogy.

        Keith, this is quite helpful. Thank you.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. My fleeting reference to Lester Maddox seems to have struck a surprisingly resonant cord here. Such an outpouring of nostalgia. But I could not have done it had Insanitybytes not triggered the distant chords of memory with his thought that a man’s business is his castle. I probably hadn’t thought about Lester for thirty years, and, suddenly, there he was, resplendently standing proud against the incursion of Negroes on his premises, axe handle at the ready.

    Tom said very little about Lincoln and I’m not sure what relevance that little had. However, I do appreciate Keith’s addition to that fragment. Lincoln was a very skillful navigator of an extremely difficult political issue. He had to be particularly cagey even within his own state, where attitudes toward racial legal status varied considerably, particularly north to south. But, as Keith said, despite the political complexities of the issue, Lincoln had enough moral and intellectual integrity to be publicly resolute that he thought slavery to be an evil that could not be sustained in this Republic. That may seem clear enough today, but at the time it was not a common sentiment among politicians with national ambitions.

    Scout

    Like

    1. I probably hadn’t thought about Lester for thirty years, and, suddenly, there he was, resplendently standing proud against the incursion of Negroes on his premises, axe handle at the ready.

      With his black employees standing shoulder-to-shoulder with him, some of whom became lifetime friends. That aspect of Maddox strikes people as odd. But similarly, most people don’t realize that Strom Thurmond fiercely defended blacks, provided education, jobs, and opportunity for them, and was perhaps the major player in ending the practice of lynching.

      On a related topic, to this day “states’ rights” is treated by the left as code words for “bring slavery back!” In reality, states’ rights issues in the lead-up to the Civil War led to the departure of the South, as they complained that states in the North were using states’ rights beyond their legal ability when they refused to implement slave-return laws. Southern states felt that they didn’t have that much power; in order to keep slavery against the impending inauguration of Lincoln, they had to depart the Union they had helped to form three-fourths of a century earlier. Over and over again, states’ rights were used against slavery, not for it, and the secession documents spell this out.

      I have a fairly broad view of states’ rights, but this hardly makes me a slavery supporter — and the rewritten modern understanding of this issue (states versus federal government power) is historically and Constitutionally wrong.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Has it occurred to you that when you speak of Maddox, it is your own bigotry speaking. Except for the caricature of the man presented by a biased news media, you don’t know anything about him.

      State’s rights stand in the way of big government. Therefore, in the minds of
      “Liberal” Democrats, states rights have to go, and any who support or supported states must be demonized and/or made to look the fool. So the American news media went after Maddox to make him look like a demon and a fool. That’s why, even though it leans left, I referenced a British paper. When something is far away, we tend to be a bit more objective. Hence, the Brits spoke of Maddox more tolerantly. Because he is a dead American, the guardian had little to gain by exaggerating either Maddox’s virtues or flaws.

      Like

  4. Keith’s recounting of why we enacted laws forbidding discrimination in public accommodations is useful. In addition to the federal laws, many states enacted similar laws addressing similar concerns to cover intra-state issues. It was a Colorado state law that was interpreted by the appellate court ruling described in Tom’s post.

    Scout

    Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Because The Bible Wasn't Written In English

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Fr. Pietraszko's Corner

Discovering Truth and Love

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

The Wesleyan Tribe

A lifelong United Methodist Speaking Into The Chaos Of Today

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Healthy Mind Ministry

A Ministry Devoted To Mental Wellness Through Jesus Christ

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Why be stagnant?

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

Communio

"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

TLP

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: