Rick Santorum gets angry on CNN about "gay cupcakes"
-
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28WPINfKa-A
I'm not sure why he's so upset about gay cupcakes, but it is what it is.
-
Factually, Santorum is correct about the bakery. Morally, he's totally wrong.
In the US, certain "freedoms" are enjoyed by specific groups. Religion is one of those groups. They are allowed to use "but my religion" to treat others like shit.
HOWEVER, gays do not enjoy the same right of "freedom of association" when it comes to religion and whatnot.
Not surprisingly, the left demand "freedom of association" to "de-person", "deplatform",etc, etc those they don't like, while ignoring how harmful it has been for LGBT people for ages.
Freedom of Association is an all or nothing deal. Either everyone gets that right or it's a special right. The biggest "no fuckin' duh" thing is that leftists are just as bad, if not worse than the so-called nazis they hate when it comes to using freedom of association against their enemies.
-
Santorum is going off over this:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-against-gay-wedding-exemptions/1052989001/ A ruling which IMO was HEAVILY flawed and contradictory. Religious freedoms are protected in the US, however this was not a church, these people were offering goods and services. They were not specifically designated as a "Religious" bakery, where the casual consumer (gays) might pause before doing business there. "Masterpiece Cake Shop" does not convey any such thing.
BUT even if it did, common sense and fear that your shop might get torched would keep you from putting up a sign that reads "Sorry, but due to our religious beliefs we do not decorate for GAYS." Because of course that would evoke the mental image of the "Whites only" days. As well it should, as it is just as glaring discrimination.
"Kennedy acknowledged that business owners generally cannot deny equal access to goods and services under a neutral public accommodations law. Otherwise, he said, "a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws."
Yet the ruling does effectively open the door quite widely for exactly THAT,and IS in effect in total contradiction of that law - which is the point Tubin was making. It was pissing Santorum off. Because discrimination is exactly what got protected in that ruling and Santorum fucking well knew it, and as any other time that religion looks like it is even vaguely under attack, people who USE IT as their almighty sword in DEFENDING acts of discrimination get VERY worked up. It is their last line of THINLY VEILED defense for their "God given" right TO discriminate.
I'm afraid once again this depicts a legal system that is no way in step with our evolution.
Separation of church and state. … Many view separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment (see also First Amendment). The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion ... UNLESS it involves a cake shop and gay guys.
-
Santorum is going off over this:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-against-gay-wedding-exemptions/1052989001/ A ruling which IMO was HEAVILY flawed and contradictory. Religious freedoms are protected in the US, however this was not a church, these people were offering goods and services. They were not specifically designated as a "Religious" bakery, where the casual consumer (gays) might pause before doing business there. "Masterpiece Cake Shop" does not convey any such thing.
BUT even if it did, common sense and fear that your shop might get torched would keep you from putting up a sign that reads "Sorry, but due to our religious beliefs we do not decorate for GAYS." Because of course that would evoke the mental image of the "Whites only" days. As well it should, as it is just as glaring discrimination.
"Kennedy acknowledged that business owners generally cannot deny equal access to goods and services under a neutral public accommodations law. Otherwise, he said, "a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws."
Yet the ruling does effectively open the door quite widely for exactly THAT,and IS in effect in total contradiction of that law - which is the point Tubin was making. It was pissing Santorum off. Because discrimination is exactly what got protected in that ruling and Santorum fucking well knew it, and as any other time that religion looks like it is even vaguely under attack, people who USE IT as their almighty sword in DEFENDING acts of discrimination get VERY worked up. It is their last line of THINLY VEILED defense for their "God given" right TO discriminate.
I'm afraid once again this depicts a legal system that is no way in step with our evolution.
Separation of church and state. … Many view separation of church and state as required by the First Amendment (see also First Amendment). The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion ... UNLESS it involves a cake shop and gay guys.
Santorum in general is a homophobe who thinks that his religious affiliation enables his bigotry. It's quite frustrating tbh.
-
I'm afraid once again this depicts a legal system that is no way in step with our evolution.
The legal system is always behind society.
It took decades for videoing through someone's window to be criminalized, like taking photos. The digital took decades to become illegal.
