As many know (if you follow the real news), Chelsea Handler has twice body shamed Sarah Huckabee Sanders in a very vulgar and hateful way, on television. And to think, it's those Hollywood liberals who supposedly "stand up for women". Actually, they only stand up for those who agree with their ideology.
That is not news. But this is:
This morning I posted the following Tweet in defense of Sanders, and calling out Handler for her vulgarity and hate:
"@chelseahandler AGAIN body shames Sarah Sanders, proving Handler and her hypocrite Hollywood liberal supporters are among the ugliest people on the planet, on the inside, where it counts. Handler is vulgar, crude and crass, as are those who condone her crap"
Twitter's response was IMMEDIATE - even before I hit the TWEET button my account was locked! The reason? According to Twitter, my post "threatened violence against someone based on race, ethnicity etc. etc.".
Maybe I'm missing something, but I simply do not see any threat of any kind. What I see is someone who actually IS standing up for a woman who is being degraded by a "never was" comedienne in front of millions on TV.
And it calls out all her Hollywood liberal friends and supporters who condone Handler's hate and abuse of other women. They could stop it by calling her out. But they don't, because they are just as hateful as Handler, herself. And that makes Chelsea Handler, and all who support her, among the ugliest people on the planet.
If Handler should ever decide to actually become a comedienne, and actually makes a stab at being funny without resorting to slamming others on a personal level simply because they disagree with her ideology, then maybe she can become relevant. But if she feels she can only achieve relevance by hurting others, then she will never have any relevance except in her tiny little circle of other haters.
And it seems her circle of hate includes Twitter, which covers for them...
/
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Gay Rights vs Religious Rights
As I write, we are hours away from SCOTUS reviewing a case to determine whether a baker can refuse to serve gays based on the baker's religious beliefs. And I can say with absolute conviction that IF the justices are honest brokers and protectors of the Constitution, they MUST find in favor of the baker (though I seriously doubt if the liberals on the court would agree).
Here it is in a nutshell...
The right to not be discriminated against is a right provided by the laws of Man. But according to the Constitution, the Right to free exercise of religion is a GOD-given right. And God's law supercedes Man's law, every time. Furthermore, the government has no right under the Constitution to dictate to a privately owned business who it can and cannot do business with. Think about this - if a government has the power to tell you who you can do business with, then they also have the power to tell you who you cannot do business with!
The First Amendment is very clear - every person has an inalienable right to the free EXERCISE of religion. Not just the freedom to believe, but the freedom to exercise it in every aspect of your life. Ergo, if your religion says homosexuality is a sin, then that is a tenet of that religion, and the follower must live accordingly. And if, as is the case in Christianity, the religion declares that you are just as guilty of the sin as is the actual sinner if you do anything to condone it OR if you fail to oppose it, then the free exercise of that religion would require the baker to refuse to bake a cake for gays if it is specific to them.
In short, no government has any right, legal or moral, to force someone to violate their religious beliefs. In this case, the man-made right of gays cannot supercede the God-given right of the business owner.
It should be noted that the baker in question is not refusing to sell a cake to gays, or refusing to do business with them - they are still free to buy any other cake in the shop and decorate it themselves. He is only refusing to CREATE a SPECIAL cake for a gay marriage - something he cannot support, and cannot be forced to support by government decree without violating the bakers First Amendment right.
Even without the First Amendment, the first official document that formed our Republic, the Declaration of Independence, makes it clearer still. It states, "...that [we] are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." In other words, the right to choose our own path - a path that makes us happy - is a God-given right that no man or government has any right to infringe.
Personally, I couldn't care less if gays marry, or if a man wants to become a woman. And my Bible says homosexuality is an "abomination", not a sin. And the definition of "abomination" is simply that it is not normal or natural, just as a two-headed calf is an abomination. But that calf has not sinned.
But I DO care when anyone uses the power of the government to force others to join them in their choices, thereby violating the rights of others. Certainly, gays have the same rights as the rest of us, but no one has a right to violate the rights of others.
And that is why the Supreme Court of the United States should clearly find in favor of the baker - that the baker cannot refuse to do business with anyone based on sexual orientation, but shall not be required to violate their religious beliefs by creating a special piece specific to them. There are other bakes, some without such religious convictions.
/
Here it is in a nutshell...
The right to not be discriminated against is a right provided by the laws of Man. But according to the Constitution, the Right to free exercise of religion is a GOD-given right. And God's law supercedes Man's law, every time. Furthermore, the government has no right under the Constitution to dictate to a privately owned business who it can and cannot do business with. Think about this - if a government has the power to tell you who you can do business with, then they also have the power to tell you who you cannot do business with!
The First Amendment is very clear - every person has an inalienable right to the free EXERCISE of religion. Not just the freedom to believe, but the freedom to exercise it in every aspect of your life. Ergo, if your religion says homosexuality is a sin, then that is a tenet of that religion, and the follower must live accordingly. And if, as is the case in Christianity, the religion declares that you are just as guilty of the sin as is the actual sinner if you do anything to condone it OR if you fail to oppose it, then the free exercise of that religion would require the baker to refuse to bake a cake for gays if it is specific to them.
In short, no government has any right, legal or moral, to force someone to violate their religious beliefs. In this case, the man-made right of gays cannot supercede the God-given right of the business owner.
It should be noted that the baker in question is not refusing to sell a cake to gays, or refusing to do business with them - they are still free to buy any other cake in the shop and decorate it themselves. He is only refusing to CREATE a SPECIAL cake for a gay marriage - something he cannot support, and cannot be forced to support by government decree without violating the bakers First Amendment right.
Even without the First Amendment, the first official document that formed our Republic, the Declaration of Independence, makes it clearer still. It states, "...that [we] are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." In other words, the right to choose our own path - a path that makes us happy - is a God-given right that no man or government has any right to infringe.
Personally, I couldn't care less if gays marry, or if a man wants to become a woman. And my Bible says homosexuality is an "abomination", not a sin. And the definition of "abomination" is simply that it is not normal or natural, just as a two-headed calf is an abomination. But that calf has not sinned.
But I DO care when anyone uses the power of the government to force others to join them in their choices, thereby violating the rights of others. Certainly, gays have the same rights as the rest of us, but no one has a right to violate the rights of others.
And that is why the Supreme Court of the United States should clearly find in favor of the baker - that the baker cannot refuse to do business with anyone based on sexual orientation, but shall not be required to violate their religious beliefs by creating a special piece specific to them. There are other bakes, some without such religious convictions.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)