What Part of Live and Let Live Do the LGBTQ Activists Not Understand?

Am I the only one who believes that the homosexual lobby the LGBTQ militants, would find more acceptance if they’d just leave people who don’t agree with their lifestyle and beliefs alone?

California court rules in favor of Christian baker who refused to bake cake for lesbian wedding

Jon Brown | Sunday, October 23, 2022

A California court ruled in favor of a Christian baker Friday following a years-long legal battle after she refused to bake a custom cake for a lesbian wedding in 2017, citing her religious beliefs.

“We applaud the court for this decision,” Thomas More Society Special Counsel Charles LiMandri said in a statement. “The freedom to practice one’s religion is enshrined in the First Amendment, and the United States Supreme Court has long upheld the freedom of artistic expression.”

Cathy Miller, a cake designer who owns the popular Tastries bakery in Bakersfield, California, won what her lawyers at the Thomas More Society called “a First Amendment victory” when Judge Eric Bradshaw of the Superior Court of California in Kern County ruled against California’s Department of Fair Housing and Employment, which had brought the lawsuit against her.

Miller was subject to multiple lawsuits after she referred a lesbian couple to another baker when they requested a cake for their wedding. Because of her Christian belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, Miller declined to design a custom cake for their ceremony, believing it would be tantamount to a tacit affirmation.

There’s more at the original.

Given that the bakery referred the couple to another baker who would — we assume; it isn’t specified in the article — bake the requested cake, there was no denial which would have prevented them from getting their ‘wedding’ cake. Rather, this was an attempt to force the Millers to go against their religious beliefs, or go bankrupt for holding them, because the homosexual activists want to use the power of government to compel compliance and obeisance to their lifestyles and belief. What part of live and let live do the activists not understand?

Oh, I’m sorry: it’s not that they don’t understand it, it’s that they feel that they have the power to force compliance, to force unquestioning acceptance, and they are damned well going to use it.

This was the problem with Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018): Rather than ruling broadly that religious liberty protected the owners of the bakery, the Supreme Court ruled on more narrow grounds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not use religious neutrality in taking their decision.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas addressed the real issue:

Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are “weddings” and suggest that they should be celebrated—the precise message he believes his faith forbids.¹

Sadly, the Supreme Court did not rule on the baker’s freedom of religion and speech, but only on the failure of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to employ religious neutrality in taking their decision. Had the Court ruled more broadly, that it was Jack Phillips’ right to his free exercise of religion, subsequent cases trying to find edges in the law would not arise.

It was not that long ago that homosexual activists claimed that what they did in their bedrooms was nobody else’s business, a position with which I agree. But, as Justice Thomas predicted, the decision in Obergefell v Hodges which required all states to allow homosexual ‘marriages’ would lead to real conflicts with the freedom of religion:

It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.²

The activists could have avoided all of this if they would just live and let live, as they so loudly demanded before Obergefell and various other decisions protecting homosexual rights. But, for activists, allowing others to live as they wish is just not something of which they can approve. There’s an old maxim which holds that, eventually everything which is not forbidden becomes compulsory; that’s what the activists want, and that’s what we must deny them.
¹ – Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Page 8 of Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion, page 45 of the .pdf file.
² – ibid, Page 14 of Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion, page 51 of the .pdf file.
Follow me on Twitter! Check out my website, The First Street Journal, for stories not on American Free News network.

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA


6 thoughts on “What Part of Live and Let Live Do the LGBTQ Activists Not Understand?”

  1. Excellent post. “What part of live and let live do the activists not understand?”

    They, unfortunately, don’t appear to understand any part of it. I used to work with two homosexual colleagues who were great teammates and ultimately became friends. They got along fine with others, including the client’s team that we worked with.

    At the end of the assignment, we three had a frank discussion (at their request) about my ‘acceptance’ of their preference / orientation. I told them that I respected their work ethic and the results they produced – it was a very successful engagement. I liked them as people and friends. While I knew they were homosexual (my boss asked me if I would have a problem if they joined the team), they never advertised it or made it overtly an issue. Their off-hours behaviors and preferences of partners were none of my business. I viewed them only as team members and didn’t care about their sexual orientation. They agreed that they had ‘won’ me over as one said to the other, ‘one person at a time’.

    They construed my tolerance for their personal beliefs and lack of outspoken / verbal judgement of their lifestyle as acceptance of that lifestyle, which it never was. I did and still do accept them as friends, but without support to their choice of partners.

    I later concluded, (after some reflection about what was said) that for them, it appeared (at least to me) that everything in their lives revolved around their orientation; everything in their lives was viewed through a lens of ‘acceptance’ or ‘non-acceptance’ of the lifestyle they live. When a person feels that they are constantly in a struggle for acceptance of their sexual preference, does everything else become meaningless? Was my simple acceptance of them as human beings, co-workers and friends, while they appreciated and returned my friendship, ‘enough’? I was, and still am willing, to live and let live. For those in their particular tribe, I am not sure that that credo is enough to satisfy their souls.

    • When I worked in a hospital, as the ward clerk, I was decent enough friends with the floor pharmacy tech, who happened to be homosexual. Even though he kept that completely to himself, everyone knew. I never gave him any reason to think I somehow didn’t like him or disapproved of his after-work life, because it never affected me. There was no reason for me not to treat him in a civil and friendly manner.

      He didn’t try to push it, he didn’t demand that I somehow “accept” his lifestyle, he simply behaved as a normal human being.

  2. Marriage is defined at the State level only, and there it stays.
    Religion goes to the Constitution for its ultimate secular definition.
    If these two clash, deference about a cake goes to the higher authority.

    Neither of these two topics need be bothered with to the extent they are, but will continue to be; these topics, while very forceful, important, and worthy, should not be challenged over a non-issue. My point is they are defined by history and challenging them is for the challengers to accept the challenge to change them ( a Harris word salad ? ) and not for tradition to defend itself over a non-issue which is what not making a cake is.

    Not making a cake is not discrimination worthy of the courts time. However, other tests involving religion could be made to not do something, which could open up further claims and counter-claims to choke the meaning of everything challenged. Could other items be denied sale or only cakes with same gender figures and same gender names ?

    Unions are just that, the joining of two, which marriage is. Man and woman are creators, or potential creators, with their union unique. Acceptance of other unions are up to the states in accepting those unions, however, even this can go beyond reason when in light of the recent gender deluge problems, where, if any, will restraints be imposed.

    For the courts to find “Jack Phillips’ right to his free exercise of religion” would have been redundant and obvious, but would certainly have been a better decision by re-enforcing our natural rights and the Constitution.

  3. From the love that dare not speak its name to the love that, like a mariachi band, won’t shut up until you give them a hearty round of applause (and a big tip).

  4. BJ Clinton started by lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military. The enormous backlash forced him to implement “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. The camel’s nose was under the tent. Barack Hussein used his Black Privilege to ban the ban on homosexuals and transgenders in the military with little to no pushback due to the potential for charges of racism. We have gone from CPL Klinger wearing a dress to get out of the military to approval of male soldiers wearing dresses in order to stay in the military. How do we put the genie back in the bottle. Now, public sexual abuse of children in drag show is labeled “family friendly”, when in the past, these pedophiles and groomers would have been locked up instead of accepted as MAPs (minor attracted persons). It’s sick and getting sicker.

  5. “Am I the only one who believes that the homosexual lobby the LGBTQ militants, would find more acceptance if they’d just leave people who don’t agree with their lifestyle and beliefs alone?”

    Maybe, if you believe that the militants are genuine and like that homosexual you knew while in the hospital. The key word is “Militant”, Dana. It is a political organization. Separate the two and you might find more that share the same views as you. I couldn’t care less what two men do, behind closed doors, so I agree with you. The problem is when the militant decides to invade the classroom and begin to groom others for something that those same militants said they were born with.
    If only they were representative of all those we may have known who weren’t so militant.

    Setting aside the Bible, for the sake of discussion about homosexuality, the only way two homosexuals can multiply is off the backs of heterosexual couples who place their fruits for adoption. So, how is there a perception, so loudly, that homosexuals are so great in number as to be able to expect the privileges they currently expect? Don’t worry. I’m agreeing with you. It’s the part about the noise that ticks me off about their reach into political levels, as to thwart other’s rights, like that bakery owner.
    If they got rid of the militancy, they might have seen a different picture. But they painted this one, so I don’t care one wit about any of them, and their successes at grooming our children is evil and rotten to the core, which makes it much worse than anyone can sing cumbaya about and try to get along with.
    Any homosexual who attaches themselves to the militant group is no friend of our society. And since they can’t reproduce, it is the militancy that is the problem.

    An aside: Among some of that tribe, known as LGBTQ(and whatever the latest cutesy letter they add) they claim to be gay, which means happy, or it used to. So why is that group so riddled with such a high suicide rate?

    That was such great news about the bakery decision. I hope more follows. It was just an egregious example why the homosexual groups are anything, but gay. They want to force everything on everyone else.

Leave a Comment