“Now the contest begins to see who’ll be the angriest winner.”

by Skip

OF OBERGEFELL AND OSTRACISM: After the Supreme Court’s decision on Same Sex Marriage, Dan McLaughlin of Red State was quoted as saying, “Now the contest begins to see who’ll be the angriest winner.” Last week it was George Takei of Star Trek making racist slurs against Clarence Thomas. This week, Max Lindenman of Patheos spots Sally Kohn tossing her name into the ring (emphasis mine):

Just as I was learning not to hate the term “national conversation,” gay marriage supporters have decided to quit speaking to us. That would, at any rate, be the earnest wish of Daily Beast columnist Sally Kohn. In last Sunday’s piece, “The New, Post-Homophobic Christianity,” she ticks off all the denominations that have changed their teachings on homosexuality and asks “Will anti-gay Christians be politically and socially ostracized?”

Her answer: “I sure hope so.”

… Or is she convinced that offering us the cold shoulder is the best way to make us change our minds?

The cross at EasterThat what Totalitarians are all about.

It is NEVER about winning as that is not enough – it is about subjugation and destruction.  As Erick Erickson has said “You will be made to care”.  Giving Bible believing Christians, at this point, the cold shoulder is a best case scenario.  We are already seeing governmental moves (within the Obama Administration) to force Christians to bow down before him (e.g., the HHS mandate and it seems there are plans afoot to exclude organizations that do not support homosexual marriage (as in contracts and services to the Feds), tax exemptions being withdrawn from churches and religious schools, pastors risking arrest for “hate speech” if they preach Biblical morality as civil regulations that are being pursued for silencing Christians, even with gag orders (the Oregon baker, Sweet Cakes, will lose her home with an over-the-top $135K fine that will bankrupt her family – govt overreach?) and now, liability insurers are getting hinky about insuring those same pastors and churches.

 For Churches That Won’t Perform Same-Sex Weddings, Insurance Begins to Look Iffy

In the aftermath of Obergefell v. Hodges, pastors and church members are experiencing a wave of anxiety over what many of them deem the “nightmare scenario”: lawsuits or government action designed to force them to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. While there are — so far — no meaningful judicial precedents that would permit such dramatic interference with churches’ core First Amendment rights, lawsuits challenging church liberties are inevitable.

Indeed, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission has declared that prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity “sometimes” apply to churches and has stated that a “church service open to the public” is not a “bona fide religious purpose” that would limit application of the law. In 2012 a New Jersey administrative-law judge ruled that a religious organization “closely associated with the United Methodist Church” wrongly denied access to its facilities for a same-sex wedding.

Churches, like virtually every functioning corporation, protect against liability risks and the potentially ruinous costs of litigation through liability insurance. With same-sex marriage now recognized as a constitutional right — and with news of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries awarding a lesbian couple $135,000 in damages for “emotional, mental and physical suffering” after a Christian bakery refused to bake their wedding cake — pastors are reaching out to insurance companies to make sure they’re covered. And at least one insurer has responded with a preemptory denial: no coverage if a church is sued for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.

In other words: Churches, you’re on your own.

THis too:

 I asked Baldwin [Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)  -Skip] if that logic applied even to religious wedding singers. Could they be compelled by the government to sing religious songs at a same-sex wedding ceremony if they offer their services to the public? Baldwin wasn’t sure. “I don’t know that we have any specific case law that applies,” she replied.

Yeah, don’t worry about that dodge – there soon will be.  I think “Christianity will be driven out of the public square, in the land that was created on the Freedom of Religious Expression” will be a true statement.  After all, that is how the Communists / Socialists work – attack the civil institutions that provide for buffer zones between the Government and individuals.  Well, thanks to Progressives, that LARGE buffer zone formerly called Civil Society (which the Founders hoped would always be there to keep Govt at bay) is all but disappearing thanks to their mantra of “The political is personal, the personal IS political”.  With gay marriage now passed, expect that the institute of marriage will disappear as Steve’s post alludes to and links to.

And throughout the last 150 years, it has ALWAYS how Marxists have operated – attack and overcome the institutions that presented roadblocks to their world vision.  Freedoms, religion, family – remember, Obama said a “fundamental transformation” was coming and it has come fast and furiously.  We observed, right from the start, how could he be doing all these things so fast??  It has been planned for years, just waiting.  Yes, Obama was not the Manchurian Candidate – he was the Progressive candidate (and yes, I’d probably lose the argument that one is not the other).

Yes, the “Tolerance for us but not for you” bunch will do such, I’m afraid.  No, not just the militant gays but the Progressive forces behind them.  After all, this is a crisis of their making – and be sure, it will not go to waste.  There will be nothing of the remnant formerly known as Free Speech.

That is, if we are not steadfast and determined.

(H/T: Instapundit)

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: