The contradictions of the secularist mindset have been exposed numerous times, but it is a rare opportunity when this happens while millions of people staring at it.
Put another way, the rhetoric of tolerance and mutual respect as preached by these intoleristas is a sham, a farce, a lie, a trick, a subterfuge, a whopper — it turns out we have a lot of words for this activity — a fabrication, a deceit, a mendacity, an inaccuracy, and a warehouse full of guile.
They constantly practice their form of the bait and switch, and every once in a while they get caught. And every once in a great while, they get caught with half the country looking on. When this happens, their attempts to explain themselves usually attain to the level of “Uh, aliens kidnapped me. What year is it?”
After my first post on L’affaire Robertson, one of my commenters raised a point which I then passed on to my Twitter feed, to wit, “Why does A&E get to refuse to do business with someone based on their views on sex, but bakers and photographers can’t?” This got retweeted a bunch, and this is how I think the question came swimming into the ken of folks who usually don’t have to try to answer these things. But millions are looking at this tolerance face plant . . . let’s have a try.
So one responded, “Easy, the baker, and photo people are retail, and must accept anyone.” So I replied, “Ah, got it. So Chick Fil A could refuse to buy from a wholesaler run by homosexuals, for that reason?”
Someone else argued that A&E had the right to choose who would represent them. I then replied, “So then, a restaurant owner can decline to hire homosexual waiters because he doesn’t want to be represented by them?” Before posting this, I went back to get the exact wording of the tweet I was responding to, but it had been taken down. I don’t remember whose tweet it was either, but I think it must have been brave, brave Sir Robin.
These people are in a bad jam. They want to pretend they are creating a society where all ideas are equal, but they are now caught with the necessity of saying that some ideas are more equal than others, those ideas turning out (conveniently) to be theirs. But this makes them sound like something out of Animal Farm, and not in a good way either. What to do?
So another commenter fell back on the old reliable of vituperation. “You are just a bigot preacher that preaches a message of hatred and division . . . ”
So keep your eyes fixed on this one thing. The mantra of secularism is that we can all believe, say and do things that others of us find reprehensible, but in the public square, the genius of secularism is that they have found a way for all of us to function with an admirable neutrality. The Christian photographer may personally disapprove of homosexual behavior but because he has stepped out into the marketplace with that camera of his for hire, he must set that personal conviction aside. And everyone must do this, or so the theory goes. But A&E didn’t do this. Robertson said something on his own time, and he was handed his hat about as quickly as Katherine Sebellius hasn’t been. A&E said that they had been ardent supporters of the whole LGBT thing ever since forever, darling.
I don’t want to get distracted from my main point here, but I would like to enquire what deep hatreds are making those execs leave off the Q. It is LGBTQ, people. But perhaps this is an indication of A&E acting in self-defense? They had been broadcasting Duck Dynasty for too long, and the sexual normativity was starting to spread? One day they noticed that Q was gone . . . They had to act fast.
So here is the bottom line. Every society must have standards, and must have a god of those standards. This is precisely what secularism has, because it has to, and a good part of the reason for the success of this scam has been their ability to pretend that in this society, their society, this inexorable law need not be true. But it is true, as millions of people can easily see for themselves. Want to prove me wrong? Then treat A&E like an evangelical baker or photographer.
Hold up – googling “vituperation”….
ah ah got it. Excellent post sir!
Doug, I’m a bit mystified by this post since I already answered this question in the thread below. The difference is that A&E does not offer a reality show to anyone who walks in off the street and wants one, unlike the baker who normally sells baked goods to anyone who walks in off the street and wants one. A&E has a very few highly competitive, highly coveted television slots, unlike the baker, who has to sell lots and lots of cakes in order to stay in business. In answer to your new questions, yes, Chick Fil A could refuse… Read more »
Such an awesome and on point post Doug! Wonderful. Thank you :)
“Why does A&E get to refuse to do business with someone based on their views on sex, but bakers and photographers can’t?”
Phil isn’t a customer. He’s an employee, and the supposedly conservative position is that employers can fire their employees without cause, and they can certainly fire them if they impact their bottom line.
That being said, I’m doubting that many blacks or gays watch Duck Dynasty.
I do wonder if he’d be getting such support if he lumped Jews and heterosexual divorcees in the same group as terrorists instead of the fundies’ favorite scapegoat (The Gays).
Eric the Red, it’s so cute to watch you drawing arbitrary lines willy-nilly with that crayon in your fist.
Eric, I’d like to see that Waiter/waitress thing tried. . . just once. What you say is an interesting theory, but businesses haven’t REALLY been able to operate that way for sometime. That would be a quicker lawsuit than Phil could win. Your scenario was much more libertarian than secular, and yes, there is a difference.
They hired a Christian to be a Christian on a reality t.v. show and then suspended him because he acted like a Christian. How does that make any sense to anyone? Furthermore, if non-Christians don’t believe that the Bible is true and God keeps his promises, what do they care what we think and believe? He believes homosexuality is a sin. All Christians believe that. Did A&E not know this? The suspension is an act of intolerance, a power play, an “I’m going to take my tv show home, because you didn’t say what I wanted you to say…” It… Read more »
Wonderful post, sir. Just one picky detail to fix. A&E isn’t being merely anti-“q”; they’re certainly leaving out more letters than that. I believe the most current cocktail of alphabet people is LGBTQQIAA. L and G often fight for first place, and simply also bicker over the order in which the double Q and double A should come. (For the record, Q=questioning and queer, A=ally or allied, and asexual, I=inter-sexed).
Gregory, it’s not arbitrary if I can articulate a rationale for it. Care to actually engage the rationale I offered? I do, by the way, agree that it was stupid of A&E to give a reality show to Christian rednecks and then be surprised when they acted like Christian rednecks. But that’s a separate issue from whether A&E can be distinguished from the bakery, which it can.
I was in a discussion on another site concerning if Robertson should file federal or state criminal charges for civil rights violations. Thoughts?
Eric, Would you not distinguish between the baker selling goods out of the store and the baker catering a public event? I mean, do you honestly think that the bakers who refused to cater gay weddings refuse to cater gay customers in general? As if they ask every customer that walks into the shop what their “sexual orientation” happened to be before serving them? Of course not. As a baker, I would not ask any of my walk-in customers what their opinion on racism is, but if the Illinois Nazi’s come calling on me to cater their next event, would… Read more »
I agree with Greg Dickison that Eric the Red’s replies are arbitrary and are basically like a moving target. Eric, you’re all over place, and you show very little coherence or consistency in your positions. But alas, your true feelings came out, which was not surprising: “…it was stupid of A&E to give a reality show to Christian rednecks and then be surprised when they acted like Christian rednecks.” This type of comment is standard fare from most of the hosts at MSNBC. Deep down, you think you’re superior (morally and intellectually) to those “Christian rednecks” as well as anyone else who may… Read more »
Eric, I’m not sure I am following your rationale. You stated that A&E have a few, highly coveted slots, one which they sought out and knowingly hired a Christian to play himself. He did so. And he was fired for it. He was fired for being himself which is why they hired him. His Christianity was relevant , yes, and presumably it was relevant during the hiring process as well. I agree they can fire him if they choose to do so, but if an openly unrepentant gay man was hired to be himself on a reality tv show and… Read more »
Eric, back in my first post I said that I believe that A&E has the right to hire or fire how they please (within the terms of whatever contract there was). They have a right to control who represents them. But not in your world. In your world, the government decides whether or not your concerns about “testimony” are appropriate. Thus, a Christian restaurant owner is not permitted to care if his serving staff are flamers. He doesn’t like being represented by that, but you have determined that his concern doesn’t matter. But A&E — surprise! — well, their concerns… Read more »
Both restaurants and A&E care about how they represent themselves to customers. Therefore race, creed, color, ect. are relevant to both.
“Never try to teach a pig to sing- it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” – Robert A. Heinlein
Not that I’m saying liberals are pigs, or anything.
Keith, yes, there is a difference between a baker selling from a shop and a baker catering events, but that’s not the issue here. Whatever services a baker offers can’t be based on the sexual orientation of the customer or the event. Dan, I called them Christian rednecks because they call themselves Christian rednecks; I haven’t said, nor do I believe, that all Christians are rednecks. Carole, I think A&E acted badly and stupidly; they knew what they were getting when they gave the ducks a reality show and should not now complain that they got what they bargained for.… Read more »
Eric,
Have you considered the possibilities that you are both spiritually blind and not that bright?
Your arguments are pathetic.
“Doug, and Christopher, restaurants are not in the religion business; they are in the food business.”
What about a Christian who opens a restaurant as a way to glorify God (as a way to serve others, earn money so as to be able to help others, enjoy his creative gifts that God has given him etc)? Is he not allowed to say he is both in the restaurant business and the religious business? Who makes that judgement call and why?
Brave, brave Sir Robin!
Ahhh, ’tis a beautiful thing to see us fly-over country, unsophisticated, redneck, hicks getting plumb fed up! And we’re not particularly concerned that we’re considered contemptible by the elites, cultural Marxists, and other self-styled arbiters of social proprieties, along with racist, homophobic, narrow-minded, etc. Who cares! We’re numb to it! It’s looking like enough is finally getting to be enough!
Eric, I agree I lost the plot there for a moment, but I do think the point is significant in their argument. Why suddenly do they not want to be represented by Christians? The family is making them a lot of money, so why now? Did they become too Christian? However, your argument that Restaurant servers only serve food isn’t reasonable. All business owners need people who represent their company. That is vital to the success. That is the point of advertising. No server just serves food. Why have uniforms or any standard of dress. If a competent middle aged,… Read more »
Eric the red said: “Keith, yes, there is a difference between a baker selling from a shop and a baker catering events, but that’s not the issue here. Whatever services a baker offers can’t be based on the sexual orientation of the customer or the event.” So… wait. You’re saying that there is a difference in the services, but it doesn’t make a difference in terms of the customers. .. Since the current argument is that the difference in service should make a difference in terms of the customer, why bother admitting that there is a difference in… Read more »
A loud, bullying mob, with government backing.
Well, it looks like the spark has been lit at The National Review as well: <a href=”http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366943/re-education-camp-mark-steyn”>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366943/re-education-camp-mark-steyn</a>.
Bravo for Steyn.
Eric, How is what A&E different from what you stated, “Anyone who wants to discriminate simply says they don’t want to be represented by minorities.” Substitute Christian. A&E simply said they don’t want to be represented by Christians. Fine. We all accept that, now will you accept when other business owners don’t want to be represented by homosexuals?
Carole, A&E did not say it doesn’t want to be represented by Christians, and not all Christians agree with papa duck’s views on homosexuality; there are Christians who are pro gay. What A&E said is that they don’t want to be represented by someone who says things that offend A&E’s base. Going back to the analogy of the restaurant owner, restaurants are in the business of selling food, so Christian restaurant owners will not be exempted from laws against anti-gay discrimination. However, if one of the gay waiters that they hire makes anti-Christian comments, they can absolutely fire him for… Read more »
Josh, what if a white supremacist, who happens to be in the food business, decides he doesn’t want to be represented by blacks so he won’t hire any; should he be given an exemption from anti-discrimination laws? I’ll go back to what I said earlier: If you accept the premise of those laws, you can’t start carving out exceptions, or eventually anyone who wants to discriminate will simply demand a carve-out. If you take the principled position that anti-discrimination laws should be repealed and businesses should be free to practice whatever discrimination they like, fine, that’s a principled position to… Read more »
“They hired a Christian to be a Christian on a reality t.v. show and then suspended him because he acted like a Christian. How does that make any sense to anyone?”……………………I know this is just a rhetorical question not looking for an answer, but in case anyone is confused, “reality” t.v. shows are not reality. They are carefully designed and edited to fit a certain niche and produce a certain product. AMC didn’t create Duck Dynasty so the Robertson’s could just “be themselves” or “be a Christian” (generically), they’ve been carefully streamlining the content to fit the exact message they… Read more »
“As a baker, I would not ask any of my walk-in customers what their opinion on racism is, but if the Illinois Nazi’s come calling on me to cater their next event, would you fault me for refusing their business?”………………………..couldn’t an option be, applaud you for refusing their business AND being willing to face whatever legal consequences you had to in response? I am quite fond of the people who are actually willing to face consequences for their beliefs (like the very rare church that refuses tax exemption) as opposed to the people who spend all their time and energy… Read more »
Okay, so if my employee, off work, says something that “offends my “base,” I am free to fire him? Is my “base” allowed to be the Bible? Or are only some people allowed “bases?”
And I am assuming that when people call themselves Christian, they are Bible believing Christians. I don’t know what to call a person who professes to be Christian and does not use the Bible as their standard, but that IS another subject.
A&E is in the business of entertaining. Clearly the Ducks have been doing that well. According to your argument, A&E are the ones who have made an exception. Yes, the Ducks do their jobs well, but A&E doesn’t like their religious beliefs are, so they fired them… How is it, that this exception is allowable but not others?
And the further important point is, that for years, Gay lobbyists have been arguing for tolerance. Is this suspension an act of tolerance? Or is is hypocritical?
Eric – I have been pointing out the differences between Baker Bob and A&E (actually, McDonalds, Nike, Intel, etc.) for the last three weeks, in comments to posts related to the “generic, mass produced, wedding cake” fiasco, and the opposition view insists that they are indeed the same, in every way. Maybe you should all get together and decided what the party line really is. Whichever they are, the same or different, it would be nice to see some consistency, and not just the week-minded habit of grabbing whichever position best suits the crisis of the moment. Your position is… Read more »
Carole, yes, people get fired all the time for stuff they put on twitter and facebook. The law forbids employers to discriminate based on an employee’s status, such as race, sexual orientation or gender. That doesn’t mean employers aren’t allowed to control conduct that impacts their bottom line. If your base is Christian, and your employee calls up the local radio talk show to say something offensive about Christians, you’re free to tell him you no longer need his services. And if he’s gay, that won’t help him keep his job or win a lawsuit. Which is why some employers… Read more »
I’m tackling just the baker side of the question, as this has been settled in the courts. (I would not be surprised if A&E lost a lawsuit in this situation.) Imagine a baker says, “I will sell cakes to anyone, but I will only cater events for non-sinners”. Then she won’t be catering any events. But maybe she says she will only cater events for non-fornicators. Well now, this is an interesting case, because fornicators are not a protected class. She might prevail in a lawsuit over this. But when she decides to only refuse to cater weddings for gay… Read more »
Great, so we agree, this should be the legal right for all. I’m good with that. Now to address the tolerance issue. Do you agree that we have heard a lot of tolerance talk from the Gay activist community…but when it comes down to it, they, like most people want everyone to think the way that they do. They do not want tolerance for all varying points of view. They want their view to be the dominant, controlling, government backed view. This suspension is in fact, like the wise Pastor said, “A tolerance face-plant.”
Someone in the blogosphere said that A&E may have hoped that duck Dynasty was conceived as a program with the goal of mocking Redneck Christians. Now they have made a martyr. Bye Bye A & E ratings.
The “brave Sir Robin” comment cracked me up. Yes the tolerance brigade will always sound hypocritical but that’s only because their default position is so. But we must remember as Christians that for all of our fowl fellowship of Chickens and Ducks, we must remember the dove first.
You say, “Every society must have a god of these standards.” Can this god be secular progressivism? I would liek to know more about the ‘gods’ of this world. N. T. Wright has spoken about mammon, etc. What about gods more particular to a nation or civilization? It was quite apparent in Rome that emporer worship eventually bevcame the god that had to be disobeyed.
Carole, nobody likes being insulted, so of course gays and lesbians are going to respond in anger when someone says bad things about them. So do Christians. That’s human nature. And of course everyone thinks their own views are correct and should be used to make policy; that’s human nature too. Which is why, quite candidly, I’m inclined to take outrage with a grain of salt no matter which end of the spectrum it’s coming from.
I would like to return to Eric’s comments about Uganda’s draconian new anti-sodomy legislation, enacted with generous help from some high profile American Christian evangelists. I think there is a connection between Ugandan gays facing death or life imprisonment and American gays using the courts to as a remedy for discrimination. It is difficult to understand why American-born white Christians thought they were doing the Lord’s work in meddling in the affairs of an African nation for the purpose of enacting sufficiently harsh penalties for gay sex. One is tempted to believe that these evangelical leaders, realizing the unlikelihood… Read more »
Doug, and Christopher, restaurants are not in the religion business; they are in the food business. However, the larger point hovering above that is that if you accept at all the premise of anti-discrimination laws — that discrimination against certain groups was sufficiently wide spread to require a government solution — then you can’t allow employers to defeat the law simply by saying they don’t want to be represented by minorities. Discrimination against certain groups is still widespread. I’m not optimistic about government solutions – past or present. On another note are christian business owners supposed to be more capitalistic than… Read more »
Good thoughts, sir.
Mr. Doug, do you knowingly advertise for apple, or is it a link error? On the sidebar, with your sharing buttons, you have an apple icon that simply links to apple.com/iPhone
I found that kind of strange.
Jeffrey, the link goes to an app for this blog. Among other things, you get notifications when a new post goes up, when I remember, which I usually do.
Jill,
Do you have a link by the Ugandan government stating their rationale for the law so we can get both sides of the story? Perhaps I have bad information, but some have said that they are trying to prevent the deaths of innocent children because of the belief of Ugandan homosexuals that having sex with a child will cure them of aids.
ok but Eric, if a group of people responds angrily when group B says they believe something differently, and if that group A of people want policy to be based on what they solely believe and no other beliefs have the same rights, then their mantra should not be we want tolerance for all. That is the point. When one group shouts down anyone who does not agree with them, it is difficult to believe that they value all ideas…
Carole, you hit the nail on the head. The Left does not want – nor practice – tolerance for all ideas or tolerance for all people. They only tolerate those who believe exactly how they believe. And if anyone strays off that reservation, then that person is simply classified as a racist, bigot, homophobe, ignoramus, etc. The Left has no need to defend their lack of tolerance; they only need to demagogue the issue and label the opposition. But it’s fascinating how they do this in the name of their “tolerance” and “diversity”. As I’ve said in prior comments, it demonstrates both incoherence and… Read more »
Pastor Wilson,
Since the Patriarch Robertson spoke up for the Lord, it seems the beard on your caricature has grown longer. I must say it suits it; perhaps you should adopt it as well (:
Eric: “And no, a restaurant couldn’t say that they don’t want gay (or black or Christian or female) waiters representing them, because the business that they’re in — serving meals to customers — has no relationship to the race, creed or color of the server…” [paragraph]
Aaron: “Eric, I’d like to see that Waiter/waitress thing tried. . . just once.” [paragraph]
Hooters tried saying men need not apply for waitstaff positions. Dude sued, settled:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/04/21/texas-man-settles-discrimination-lawsuit-against-hooters-for-not-hiring-male/
“Josh, what if a white supremacist, who happens to be in the food business, decides he doesn’t want to be represented by blacks so he won’t hire any; should he be given an exemption from anti-discrimination laws? ” I’d personally prefer to know who the racists are so I can avoid shopping there. I assume that blacks would prefer to know who the racists are so they can choose not to work there (or rather, know that the reason they weren’t employed was because the employer was an idiot) and instead work in the shop which is now doing great… Read more »