Liberty Commentary

Condone, or else…

by Life of Illusion, SU4A

Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about this opposition.
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

Something sounds wrong there, how does “support traditional marriage” get turned around into “oppose” anything?    I have always been told it’s a good thing to cheer for your team, but rude to boo your opponents.  Is it now turned around so much that you have to either be silent or cheer them, ignoring your team?  Maybe Mr. Webster can help….


a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of:

b. To argue in favor of; advocate:


1. To be in contention or conflict with:

2. To be resistant to:

And to be fair, it is accurate to think Mr. Cathy would and does oppose gay marriage.  But he did not say that, he said the opposite, that he supports marriage as defined in the Bible.   A positive statement was turned into a false negative by the agenda driven media.  Has or is he speaking against gay marriage or homosexuals?  His “crime” is publicly stating what gays don’t want to hear?  Liberal mayors have threatened to deny business licenses…And been rebutted by liberal newspapaers!

While many liberals cheer the harsh words that Democratic Mayors Thomas Menino (Boston) and Rahm Emanuel (Chicago) have had for the Chick-fil-A fast-food chain as a result of its conservative, pro-traditional marriage president, editorial boards at liberal newspapers in those two cities have come out with strong criticisms for the anti-conservative bullying.

“[W]hich part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license,” the Boston Globe complained in a July 25 editorial. ”History will render judgment on the views of Chick-fil-A executives. City Hall doesn’t have to,” the editorial board concluding, having noted that there’s no evidence that Chick-fil-A breaks any anti-discrimination laws.

Mayor Emanuel should “back off” thundered the Chicago Sun-Times. “Government has no business withholding zoning permits and licenses just because it objects to a businessman’s religious or political views,” the editorial board added in its July 25 opinion. It’s one thing for private organizations to boycott or pull out of business arrangements, but it’s another thing entirely “for government to put on the squeeze.”

Other liberal outlets like the Los Angeles Times and Time magazine’s Michael Scherer leveled attacks on the liberal mayors for, well, acting against the liberal value of free speech. Wrote Scherer (emphasis mine):

The only issues at play are the personal view of the owner of the restaurant chain and the philanthropic efforts of the private company.


Robust public disagreements over issues like the definition of marriage are a symptom of a functioning democracy, not evidence of its dysfunction. A recent poll in Massachusetts found that 30% of the state believes same-sex marriage should be illegal. In the Chicago area, 42% of residents support same-sex marriage, while the same number, 42%, oppose it. (Indeed, Emanuel’s depiction of “Chicago values” is misleading; the city is divided on the issue of marriage.) Presumably, many business owners in both states are among those who oppose same-sex marriage. Should those businessmen and women worry that their hopes for city permits or mayoral cooperation could be jeopardized if they express their opinions publicly?

Consumers have every right to patronize or boycott any restaurant they choose for any reason. But a government’s responsibility is different. It is one thing for big-city politicians to voice their own views. It is another thing for them to threaten businesses with the power of their elected office for not sharing those views.

In fairness, Menino has since backpedaled a bit and insisted that he won’t actively seek to block Chick-fil-A. However, his July 20 letter to Chick-fil-A’s president was sent on city stationary in his official capacity as mayor AND was CC’d to the real estate broker who would sign off on a lease for the Chick-fil-A franchise that was hoping to open in Boston. The message to Chick-fil-A, and the real estate brokerage, was clear: political considerations on controversial social policy issues could play into how easy or how difficult it is to navigate the regulatory hoops of the Thomas Menino administration.

Menino has not, and appears unwilling to, admit that that tactic was bullying and an abuse of power rather than an innocent, overzealous “mistake.”(1)

So many think the 1st Amendment doesn’t allow a business owner to speak FOR something if others hold a different viewpoint.  I have been refused service before, still strikes me as strange.  I had a perscription for oxygen that I was getting refiled for my father.  A medical supplier refused to fill or sell me oxygen!  I knew any business could refuse service to anyone, anytime, for any reason or no reason.  I went elsewhere and obtained the oxygen.  Others have a more “progressive” view….

What Cathy is experiencing is the tip of the iceberg.  Right now, people are in court and being severely fined simply because they wish to exercise their faith convictions in how they run their businesses.  Elane Photography is in court because the co-owner of the small New Mexico photo company couldn’t in good conscience user her artistic skills to beautify a same-sex “commitment” ceremony.  Hercules Industries is in court in Colorado because the Obama administration wants to force its owners to abandon their faith convictions when it comes to providing health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception.  Hands On Originals, a T-shirt company in Kentucky, has been dragged before a human rights commission because it wouldn’t print T-shirts to promote a “gay pride” festival.  The list goes on and on.

Never mind that none of these events has caused anyone a problem in getting the goods or services he or she wanted.  The goal is strictly to punish those who won’t go along and approve of leftist orthodoxy.

Just ask the Susan G. Komen Foundation, after it incurred the wrath of Planned Parenthood for simply saying that it wouldn’t fund the abortion giant anymore with a small amount of grant money to which Planned Parenthood has absolutely no right.  Of course, that didn’t stop the liberal politicians whose campaigns Planned Parenthood supports from demanding that Komen bow to the abortion agenda.

Sadly, Planned Parenthood at least partially succeeded in bringing about a concession from the Komen Foundation.  Let’s hope Dan Cathy continues to stand strong and resist whatever pressures are wrongfully applied to him for staying true to his convictions.  He has a great record of charity and community service to millions that people should not ignore just because a few on the left put their social agenda above all else.(2)

The Boy Scouts of America have again voted not to allow gay members.  Liberals are screaming, Charlie says it’s nazi like behavior…I’m at a loss.  I was a boy scout for a short period of time, did not do the merit badges or anything.  Later I was an explorer scout, again, no badges, but we did a lot.  Raised money, went on trips like the Grand Canyon, canoeing, trap shooting, some good times.  Explorers had both sexes and included high school seniors, so sex was on many minds, but was not what we did as a group.  No merit badges for sex of any sort, no instruction manuals, just no, no, no…(damn, should have gone to band camp)  For the record, they don’t hire porn stars either, so a organization that offers/allows no sex is treated to abuse because they will not allow anybody that makes their sex life part of their public persona….(3)

The Boy Scouts of America will keep their controversial policy banning gay scouts and leaders after a confidential two-year review, the organization said Tuesday.

The announcement comes amid a stepped-up campaign from activist groups urging an end to the membership standards.

“The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting,” said Bob Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive of the Boy Scouts. “While a majority of our membership agrees with our policy, we fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society.”

And  I have to think this is a media driven, if not created controversy.  One that ties in with Obama and the Democrat’s election hopes.  Economy, jobs, budget, Post Office default, not newsworthy…

CNN Encourages Gay Activist to Fight Boy Scouts on Including Openly-Gay Scouts, Leaders(4)

And it’s not just the media or a few mayors mouthing off.  Anyone would take a visit by two FBI agents as serious.  What would prompt that in post 9/11 America?  Being Pro-life?

The unscrupulous Eric Holder is at it again’

Matt C. Abbott

If you’re a (peaceful) pro-life activist, watch out for the feds!

To wit: On July 13, two FBI agents paid a home visit to Andy Moore, the son-in-law of noted pro-life nurse-turned-activist Jill Stanek. The agents questioned Moore about his pro-life activities, but they also questioned him about-and were perhaps even more interested in-Stanek’s activities.(5)

Everyone feel safe and protected?  The FBI is protecting us from non-violent, pro-life protesters.  They must have 99.98% of the really bad people already in prison.  Maybe if I look, I can find one they’ve missed, that slipped thru those damned cracks or something….

I think the argument on gay marriage has been wrongly framed by both extreme’s.  The religious right want to ban homosexual behavior, as if failing for thousands of years is because they just didn’t properly word the laws.  But then those on the gay extreme demand the same name, acceptance and rights as traditional marriage.  And I think they could get their way on everything except the name.  But they demand not just the same legal rights, but the same respect.  They demand I condone their behavior, attempting to deny me the right of free speech and free thought.  What is this the liberal vision of America?  Free love like in the 60?s? Anything goes, anywhere?

in ancient Rome, despite adulterous and homosexual acts being illegal between citizens—adult and pedophile activities were rampant between Roman men and their slaves. This occurred since slaves were not persons, but things (res) that could be treated however the owner chose. Obviously, such corrupt practice degraded the entire nation, helping lead to its demise. In the same manner, the US is also in grave peril from our increasingly unfettered approach to dating, procreation and family life. When even our president advocates for easy and late-term abortions for his own daughters, we realize how savage and short-term our values have become.

So how is America’s character revealed in its sexual mores? The American family has endured much destruction the last few decades. For example, the NY Times recently reported half of all children born to women thirty and under are now born out-of-wedlock.(6)

A study says some six year old’s think of themselves as sex objects?

Toddlers & Tiaras