doublegunshop.com - home Forums Morality and the Right to Choose

Eight years ago I was the owner of a video production company. I've since retired and sold the business. During my tenure we produced all types of videos but primarily concentrated on legal work. I was often approached in regard to producing pornographic video and I refused all requests to do so based upon my own moral values.
I wonder what would happen today if I was confronted with this situation and the requestors sued me for refusing to provide services? (Read Below: Take Tolerance)
Jim


Tolerance, Health and Fascism
Townhall, by Dennis Prager
I cannot count the number of times I heard liberal professors and liberal writers quote the phrase: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

The phrase is brilliant. There is actually no threat to America of fascism coming from the right. The essence of the American right, after all, is less government; and fascism, by definition, demands ever larger government.

Therefore, if there is a real fascist threat to America, it comes from the left, whose appetite for state power is essentially unlimited. But because the left has so long dominated American intellectual, academic, artistic, and media life, it has succeeded in implanting fear of the right.

I have never written that there is a threat of fascism in America. I always considered the idea overwrought. But now I believe there really is such a threat -- and it will come draped not in an American flag, but in the name of tolerance and health.

Before explaining what this means, let's be clear about what this does not mean.

First, it does not mean, or have anything in common with, Nazism. Nazism may have been a form of fascism. But Nazism was a unique form of fascism and a unique evil. It was race-based and it was genocidal. No other expression of fascism was race-based. And not all fascism is genocidal. So my fear that the American left is moving America toward an expression of fascism in no way implies anything Nazi-like or genocidal. (Unless, of course, one considers William Ayers� version of fascism, which includes slaughtering 25 million Americans.)

The left now has a president who is a true leftist who is asserting unprecedented presidential power through his cabinet and myriad other agencies (such as the Environmental Protection Agency) and through presidential decrees. The left has taken over the universities and, increasingly, high schools and elementary schools. It dominates the news and entertainment media. And many judges and courts are leftist -- meaning that their decisions are guided by leftism more than by the law or the Constitution.

Take tolerance.
Last week, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an event photographer's refusal on religious grounds to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple amounted to illegal discrimination. The photographer had never objected to photographing gays. She did not, however, wish to be part of a ceremony to which she religiously objected. In America today, thanks to myriad laws and progressive justices, people can go to prison for refusing to participate in an event to which they object.

This is what happened to a florist in Washington state who had always sold flowers to gay customers but refused to be the florist for a gay wedding: sued and fined.

This is what happened to a baker in Oregon who had always sold his goods to gays but refused to provide his products to a gay wedding: sued and fined.

This is what happened in Massachusetts, Illinois and elsewhere to Catholic Charities, historically the largest adoption agency in America. Their placing children with married (man-woman) couples, rather than with same-sex couples, was deemed intolerant and a violation of the law. In those and other states, Catholic Charities has left adoption work.

In the name of tolerance -- and fighting sexual harassment -- five- and six-year-old boys all over the country are brought to the police for innocently touching girls. In the name of tolerance, girls' high school teams in California and elsewhere must now accept male players who feel female. In the name of tolerance, businesses cannot fire a man who one day shows up on the sales floor dressed as a woman.

Meanwhile, in the name of health, there is a similar intrusion into the life of the individual. We saw it in New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's call for a law limiting the amount of soda a person can order at one time.

In the name of health, people are banned from smoking outdoors, cigar stores are prohibited from allowing customers to smoke inside, and, incredibly, California is about to ban electronic "cigarettes" as if they were real cigarettes, even though they contain no tobacco, nothing is burning, and they emit only water vapor.

In the name of safety, first-grade boys are suspended from schools for playfully aiming a pencil at another boy and "shooting" him.

And then there are the ubiquitous "re-education" and "rehabilitation" seminars that the allegedly insensitive need to take at both private and government workplaces and the speech codes at nearly all universities.

The only question is: Will Americans awaken to the increasingly rapid deprivation of their freedoms -- not draped in an American flag but draped in tolerance and health?
***
We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold

This same perversion and dementia has been seen before.

And led to millions of deaths and the ruin of great nations.

It too came wrapped in a flag... and a twisted cross.

I think it's a huge potential expansion of the slip and fall industry due to pc legislating from the bench. It's another oh well pass it on to the consumer cost of business to settle legal attacks, when in fact it'll shut down small businesses who don't have the financial cushion.

I don't see how you can force a business to satisfy a possible client. Someone's best work will be given away for free to pcer's who play the system and threaten legal action for some trumped up slight. How can you compel someone to do a job, when their expert opinion of their capabilities tells them to turn it down.

Ever notice the Liberals that try to preach about "Morality" are the ones that apparently know the least about what morality actually is?

Jim, these are only early days for our countries trying to accommodate rapidly changing demographics and mores. On the evidence of the last 50 years, even law concerning discrimination has hardly made a dent. Morals can't be legislated. Imagine whites in a minority in the lives of members here.

Canada as a multicultural national experiment is trying to find a formula for reasonable accommodation of secular and spiritual values. Predominantly Roman Catholic Quebec plans to ban religious headgear and other visible religious symbols everywhere from day-care centres and hospitals to government offices.

It seems a bit much to me. To resonate more strongly with Quebeckers, the provincial minority government shifted from referring to its plan as a secular charter to a campaign appealing to values. To Mr. Prager's question of waking up it seems not likely, again on the evidence of the last 50 years.

I'll be gone, Jim. You'll have to wrestle with it.

I posted his article to get the point across that we, the real "mainsteam", of this Country are more and more being forced to accept values we don't want to embrace.
This goes right to his Obamination forcing religious institutions to fund abortion and birth control two topics that many Christian find reprehensible and abominations. I guess the real question is just what is it going to take to force the majority of Americans to say "that's enough" and they foment a revolt?
I personally could give a Sh*t less about that abomination that's being forced on us labeled "multiculturism". In a truly FREE COUNTRY you should be free to live among and associate with who you want. To the Libtard dreamers who think "multiculturism" is viable go tell the Iranians that the have to embrace their Christians, Jews and Baha'is for that matter.
My mother's side of my family is French/Canadian and I have my own opinion of the occupants of Quebec but since I'm not a resident I'll keep these to myself.
Jim

King, I think you missed the topic posting. I believe progressives know they can't carry their agenda through legislation, or the will of the people. So, they turn to unilateral decisions by a select few appointed by ideologues. Now, on a less than civil thought, are you implying racial prejudice is a given, by that last comment.

Truly 'FREE COUNTRY' is utopian dream never to be realized by common men. It only exists for wealthy and well connected who enjoy freedom regardless what country they live in.

I would not worry religious minorities in Iran the US military will soon help them. The Syrians will be liberated first because their government pursues independent policies with close ties to Russia and Iran so naturally they must be dispensed with. The stupid public will be told we are going there to help prevent unfortunate chemical attacks.

You qualified with "should" what a truly free country is, Jim. I don't know of any. The US is not different from Canada in majorities telling us through our legislatures how to live, like it or not, and most of the people I talk to don't like it. Laws you mention weren't made by telephone poles. There appears to be a dichotomy when you mention the "real" mainstream of your country. My guess it's the same as ours. But which majority are you referring to: the one that gets out and votes or the one that bitches and stays home? Whether multiculturalism is viable or not, by any name that's the consequences of changing mores and demographics, and that's how it will be promoted.