Some Festive Juxtapositions

In the web uproar following my comments about sodomy being a far worse sin than slavery, we have noticed a few festive juxtapositions. I am merely a ten-year-old boy throwing a few pine cones at the homohive, and so it is understandable that I follow the subsequent behavior of the bees with some interest and attention. Some of the juxtapositions are striking contrasts between ideological foes, but most are simply representations of the fundamental incoherence that lies at the heart of their worldview. Let me begin with the latter.

She can't be a slave if all I am doing is making her mend my hoop skirt . . .
She can’t be a slave if all I am doing is making her mend my hoop skirt . . .

1. Now when the adjectivally challenged launch into an attack on my moral probity, one frequently hears something like “you bleepity effing piece-of-bleepity blapping,” followed by the noun. But then it is the noun that provides the nice juxtaposition. I love it when that last noun, the thing that clinches their argument, is “hater.”

2. Another nice juxtaposition has to do with the sudden concern that the mob in front of Lot’s house (angel-rapers, let us call them) have for the reputation of moderate conservative Christians — e.g. the ones who don’t publish blog posts with cayenne pepper in them. Now these very nice Christian people have for a number of years been dismissed as brim-full-o-hate, and their carefully chosen words of love and moral concern are always dismissed as mere hypocrisy. People in this class are fined megabucks for politely declining to bake the cake. “No, thank you.” That’s just the worst, capable of causing over seventy forms of trauma in lesbians made out of rice paper.

Well, that is the worst until the actual worst shows up in the form of a blog post called Goan Duck Vindaloo in Hot-and-Sour Cayenne Confederate Surprise. And all of a sudden the homo-haters are calling up all and sundry respectable Christians to denounce me and my hate peppers. If they don’t denounce me, they might ruin their standing and well-established reputation as hypocritical bigots. Quite a sight, let me tell you.

3. I also was struck by the spectacle of an enormous outcry against the Confederate flag happening just a few days before the Obergefell decision, a decision that marked the most egregious assault on state sovereignty in a half century — and mind you, that’s saying something. If I were editing a movie script that had this particular juxtaposition in it, I would red pen it, and send it back to the boys in the basement with comments like “Heavy-handed. Too obvious. Lighten up, boys.” But then the celestial movie producer would overrule everybody with His divine stet. Turns out that He thinks that things are not obvious when nobody can see them.

4. Another striking juxtaposition was watching everybody go nuts over their lurid versions of what they thought I must be maintaining about slavery. The very idea of anybody “owning” anybody else is reprehensible and beyond unspeakable to them. There has been more than a little pearl clutching about it. But the juxtaposition is found in the fact that these are all the same people ardently supporting the right of society to come into a florist shop, a bakery, or a photographer’s business in order to force them to do work that they don’t want to do. Anybody have a name for that?

In short, they despise my views of 19th century slavery because I wanted to get rid of it without slaughtering 600,000 men, and they love their 21st forms of coerced labor. In short, they are like an ante bellum belle arguing that it isn’t really slavery if the slaves are being forced to mix mint juleps for the ball.

5. Last thing. This is the juxtaposition of two views that are in direct opposition — representing two views of humanity, two views of the world, two views of reality. This is not a contrast between those who want slavery and others who don’t. It is a contrast between different reasons for opposing slavery.

To the extent the secularists oppose slavery, they do so because they believe man is god, and that slavery is therefore sacrilege. Thus they argue that no man deserves to be owned (excepting of course the florists, bakers, et al.). Christian opposition to slavery is quite different. We are a fallen race, and are radically corrupt. It follows, therefore, that no man can ever really be trusted with ownership of another, and this is why Christians should always be laboring in the direction of maximum liberty. This will sometimes require establishing the preconditions of liberty first, but the Christian faith is necessarily the fountainhead of liberty for everyone — through reformation, not revolution.

So the secularists believe it is sacrilege for a man to be owned. We believe it is presumption and arrogance when a sinful man presumes to own. When the owner is perfect, as the Lord is perfect, then that problem disappears. “And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her” (Luke 1:38).

Not only does the problem disappear, but the Lord accepts our bondslavery to Him with His greater and more glorious purposes in mind. “Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God” (Gal. 4:7, NASB). We begin our tutelage with Him in conditions that are hard to distinguish from slavery — but it only seems that way because of the hardness of our hearts. As we spend time in His service, we begin to gain an understanding of His larger and most gracious purposes. He intends for us to rejoice in the glorious day of resurrection, the day of our adoption as sons and daughters.

Because the secularists will not tolerate the idea of anyone outside them owning them, they are therefore cut off from the hope of the gospel. This is because there is no possible salvation for those who refuse to be bought. The blood of Jesus buys. It purchases. That is what redemption means.

“Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (Rom. 6:16–18, NASB).

And so I would end with an invitation, extended to all my enemies, and I do it with all my heart. I will fight you with everything I have, but I also love you with everything I have. Stop calling other people haters. That acid taste in your mouth is the taste of your vituperation, not theirs. Turn away from all of it in repentance, and acknowledge that you are anything but free. You are a slave to your lusts, and your lusts will never adopt you as a son or daughter, and will never crown you with glory and honor. Your lusts have other plans for you. But if you abandon that slavery in repentance, and bend your neck to the Lord Jesus, you will discover that His invitation to you is gracious all the way through. “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:29–30).

308
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
32 Comment threads
276 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
74 Comment authors
JohnDavid RAlex in WonderlandholmegmEvan Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
AMA
Guest
AMA

Great post. Slavery to a perfect Master is true freedom.

Phillip A
Guest
Phillip A

War under a perfect General is true peace. Ignorance before a perfect Teacher is pure strength.

AMA
Guest
AMA

Did they provide the bridge when you took this troll job?

Phillip A
Guest
Phillip A

It’s a labor of love.

AMA
Guest
AMA

#LoveWins

bethyada
Member

Did you not read the post. All men are slaves. So if you are a slave you have to have a master. Better a perfect master who makes you into a son so you can have true freedom, not freedom to be anything without God which is just slavery to sin, freedom from sin to be who your creator made you to be.

Keith Ziegler
Guest
Keith Ziegler

The problem is that all men are NOT slaves…so that was an ignorant claim. I’d also like to point out a simply truth…the bible is demonstrably false, therefore no claims the bible makes can be taken as truthful

bethyada
Member

I don’t accept the claim that the Bible is demonstratively false, you may need to clarify.

I believe we are slaves to our passions, that we struggle not to do what we want to but know we should not do. If that is the case for you then your are a slave.

Aram Vartian
Guest

You believe that bullshit if you want to – the rest of us don’t have to. You are enslaved by your own ideas. The only master is the reflection in your mirror.

Steven
Guest
Steven

“You are enslaved by your own ideas” – Bad?

“The only master is the reflection in your mirror” – Good?

Raymond
Guest

The only time you’re going to see someone going in more circles is as a NASCAR track.

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

Wow, missed that entirely. Good catch.

bethyada
Member

Said the serpent to the woman.

drewnchick
Member

AMEN!
You had me chuckling at first such that I had to close my office door to avoid breaking petty little corporate rules, like having fun whilst working (and reading blog posts whilst sitting at my desk). But then the tone turned sober and pointed, and I nodded with more introspection and reopened my office door. Finally, with the last point, I found myself in need of prayer. And the office door was once more closed.

Pastor Wilson, you are a true gem.

Heather
Guest
Heather

Petty little corporate rules, like giving an honest day’s work to your employer?

drewnchick
Member

If by “giving an honest day’s work” you mean “spending exactly 100% of every day glued to 1) my chair, 2) my computer screen, and 3) my task list” then yes, that petty little corporate rule.

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

Heather, I’m sure, never even goes to the bathroom on the clock, nor gossips, nor stretches her legs.

Bryan Hangartner
Guest
Bryan Hangartner

As you draw the enemy’s fire, hopefully you’ll give the nicer-than-Jesus Christians some breathing space to gather their wits. Keep it up!

RFB
Guest
RFB

Sir,

I propose that “nicer-than-Jesus Christians” be considered as an official category, with the codicil that being accused of “nice” become a high-dudgeon inducing pejorative.

A. James
Member

Yep, they’ll even redefine “nice”, too…

Gigi
Guest
Gigi

Your writing is so refreshing. Thank you for talking sense. It makes me love you to the moon and back. Keep ’em coming.

Alyosha
Guest
Alyosha

Kind of odd that we’ve perfected slavery — laying years of debt on people who haven’t even been born yet.

Joe_WA
Guest
Joe_WA

I love your sarcasm

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

Plantation owners were pikers compared to us.

Brandon Klassen
Guest
Brandon Klassen

In this time of American church history, where she is exhausting herself dancing to every belligerent demand from the world around her, you are that bit of backbone we so desperately need to stay the course. May God continue to imbue His people with the spirit of Elijah and Elisha so that we too may stand with God in His mockery and ridicule of His rebellious and petulant creatures. Even as we proclaim His glories and call them to repentance.

Max Focus
Guest
Max Focus

Thanks, Pastor Wilson. I will anticipate a complete and thorough “missing of the point” by your detractors but all I can say is, “wow”. Way to make us consider our Master Jesus once again.

swdenton
Guest
swdenton

Grateful for a mac, and [right-click] -> “Look up in Dictionary”

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele
Ian Miller
Member

A very nice summation.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

“I also was struck by the spectacle of an enormous outcry against the Confederate flag happening just a few days before the Obergefell decision, a decision that marked the most egregious assault on state sovereignty in a half century — and mind you, that’s saying something.”

Wow. A half century ago was Loving v. Virginia, the SCOTUS decision that flouted the will of 80% of Americans and trampled states’ rights. Is Rev. Wilson getting ready to get serious about explaining how we got here, and that we can’t overturn Obergefell unless we’re also willing to overturn Loving?

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

It is entirely possibly that he is referring to Roe v.Wade which was also a half century ago.

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

It is entirely possible that he’s referring to Roe. But if he is, he’s being sloppy. 1967 was 48 years ago, and calling that half a century is pretty accurate. But referring to 1973 as half a century ago is not really accurate. If he meant Roe, Rev. Wilson should’ve said “in nearly a half century.” But I’m inclined to think you’re probably right and he meant Roe, because 1) most Christian leaders are trying to trace Obergefell back to Roe and ignoring Loving, making complete fools of themselves and 2) Christians seem to tie *everything* back to Roe.

CB22
Guest
CB22

Obergefell has absolutely nothing to do with Loving. Loving made legal a practice that most of the world has approved for most of history and didn’t redefine anything. It used sound legal logic and rightly applied the constitution. Obergefell made legal a practice the world has never been approved prior to the past 20 years legitimizing an activity that has zero benefit to the republic and undermines, Ya know, actual families that would produce actual stable Children who would then be the future of the republic. It radically redefined marriage essentially opening it to any two consentingish sentient beings. The… Read more »

A. James
Member

This might take me all day to respond to. This is such a crucial pillar in being consistent with our concerns and solutions and message. We need 20/20 hindsight on several key issues, and this is one of them, though, so I’m glad you were blunt and straight up about your “absolutely nothing to do with” opinion. Some things you say about Ober could be said about Loving and some things you said about Loving could be said about Ober. They are VERY similar issues except for the “shock and awe” factor of it being about homosexuality. I’m getting more… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

“Obergefell has absolutely nothing to do with Loving. Loving made legal a practice that most of the world has approved for most of history and didn’t redefine anything. It used sound legal logic and rightly applied the constitution.” First, you’re wrong about it being practiced and approved around the world for centuries. For most of history white people had little or no contact with large numbers of black people. When they did begin having contact, the black people weren’t free, but slaves, so ineligible for marriage to whites. Through exploration and commerce, a small number of free Africans did wind… Read more »

Jane
Member

1. Black people and white people are not the only races. Interracial marriage existed and was permitted between white people and other races, and black people and other races, and between other racial groups, all around the world through most of history. 2. It’s true black and white contact was limited, but it was not non-existent. The Crusades flooded the Middle East with Europeans, and black people had a significant presence in the Middle East. Interaction with black people was not all but unknown prior to the modern slavery era. No one claimed that most of the world has approved… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

1. Black people and white people are not the only races. Interracial marriage existed and was permitted between white people and other races, and black people and other races, and between other racial groups, all around the world through most of history. ************* I never claimed otherwise. 2. It’s true black and white contact was limited, but it was not non-existent. The Crusades flooded the Middle East with Europeans, and black people had a significant presence in the Middle East. Interaction with black people was not all but unknown prior to the modern slavery era. I never claimed it was.… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

Your followup questions are beside the point. I’m not that interested in your take on the Loving decision. CB22 made the simple historical point that interracial marriage is not something that has been widely objected to throughout the world and throughout history. You objected on the basis, apparently, of incredulity. It’s really hard to come up with proof that laws that did not exist, did not exist. I suggest that if you wish to pursue this, and you wish to be accurately informed, you continue the research and find all the anti-inter-racial marriage laws that existed all over the world… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

I understand, Jane. You’re in a very bad spot, intellectually and morally. You want to condemn SCOTUS for ignoring the will of the people, states’ rights, and the Constitution in Obergefell because you don’t like their ruling on gay marriage, while at the same time you want to find a way to avoid condemning SCOTUS for ignoring the will of the people, states’ rights, and the Constitution in Loving, because you like their ruling on interracial marriage. But you can’t have it both ways. If there’s nothing in the Constitution to justify Obergefell, there’s nothing in the Constitution to justify… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

And you want to make this about my position on Loving, which I haven’t even stated, so you don’t have to admit that you don’t understand or are in willful denial about the long-term historical situation with respect to inter-racial marriage. If you hadn’t acted like CB22’s simple statement of fact was preposterous, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. I’m not interested in defending or disputing Loving. If Loving had never happened, I’d still be arguing that banning inter-racial marriage was sinful, so if you want to believe that Loving was a wrongly decided way of ending a wicked… Read more »

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

It’s an obsession with him.

Neither Wilson, you, me, nor anybody else here so far as I can tell has defended the legal reasoning of the Loving decision. But he doesn’t let facts stop him.

A. James
Member

Actually, it’s an obsession with me, too. And actually throughout most of my adult life, I have wondered why people were missing this piece of the puzzle, or that it was a Christian taboo to speak of it. This is the first site that I’ve happened upon that is allowing this to be vented out. I’m not doing much talking on it because 1) McD has surprised me in that someone else noticed the strangeness of it all and 2) there is allowance for discussion of it and 3) I’m not so good at ordering and expressing my thoughts. No… Read more »

marc otto
Guest
marc otto

Psst…Arwen, it’s Miranda. I’m stalking you and can’t find your email. I know, what was I to do? Send me a note, I’m going to be in town. Thanks*M [email protected]m

Arwenb
Guest
Arwenb

Huzzah! I shall email you presently.

Steven
Guest
Steven

Item #4 does seem to pose an interesting dilemma to the people who were so outraged by Doug’s answer to Matthew Vine’s question #16.

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

One would think so, if one were not talking about the type of people who regard “consistency” as something that happens to other people.

bethyada
Member

But even worse. They are the slave master who insists you worship their God, or who asks you to steal for them. Enslavers of the soul.

Kim Adams Morgan
Guest

Amen, and also echoing what Max and Rob (below) said. Very hard to turn thy mirror on thy self. One day they will. This is when Jesus does His best work.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Under a Biblical understanding of family, I “own” my wife and children. To emancipate my family would be to harm them. Current American law may not recognize this but then again the law has proven to be an ass lately.

John
Guest
John

I think it’s a misrepresentation of the case in Oregon to say that they were just thin-skinned women who were upset over a “no, thank you.” A major fact of the case is that the bakery publicly “doxxed” the spurned lesbian couple by publishing the consumer complaint from the state. It is not “polite” by any measure to publicly post someone’s personal information, even if you think they have done something wrong.

Chubby Lenin
Guest
Chubby Lenin

turd in the punchbowl

Peter Anselmo
Guest
Peter Anselmo

Doug, Though I am sure I will agree with you on this one, I would love to hear your response to John’s concern of public poiteness with regard to this lawsuit.

John R.
Guest
John R.

I love that. “If you scream too loud when I slap you, drawing the attention of the public, you will have proved to be the true, impolite villain here.” Just so.

David Koenig
Guest
David Koenig

I have serious doubts of the supposed good intentions of the lesbian couple. They have no intention of doing business with Christians, like Chick-Fil-A and their “hate chicken” that Dan Cathy is perfectly willing to sell to anyone, as long as they don’t ask for it on a Sunday. And this is a perfectly fine, upstanding thing to do. I’m not going to buy a Pride Whopper either. If the Christian photographer or baker says “sure, I’ll serve your so-called wedding, and then I’ll donate the proceeds to Focus on the Family”, I expect that suddenly the gay couple won’t… Read more »

John
Guest
John

They had previously bought a cake here for one of the women’s mothers. How do you know this couple has no intention of doing business with Christians? Do you have a source for that?

David R
Guest
David R

The Oregon couple did not “Dox” the lesbian couple. This is simply untrue.

John
Guest
John

How so? Aaron Klein posted the couple’s personal information on Facebook. This is an undisputed fact.

A. James
Member

Do you have a source/link? I haven’t seen this.

John
Guest
John

“The lengthy ruling described incidents wherein the Kleins’ promotion of their plight resulted in negative attention and threats to the Bowman-Cryers, including Klein’s publication of court documents to Facebook that included the couple’s home address.”

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet-cakes-melissa-damages/#zQAIC2AllcweM3zs.99

denise
Guest
denise

It seems the lesbian couple hoped to hide behind whistleblower status for their complaint. It was okay with them that the Kleins would be exposed… their names, addresses, children, school… to threats and harassment… but not themselves.

Keith Ziegler
Guest
Keith Ziegler

AGAIN false, the lesbian couple was not looking for ANY publicity and simply wanted it handled by proper authority…not the media…the Kleins chose to make it a circus.

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

I don’t have a link handy, but I have read that, too, but the complaint they filed was public record. What the Klein’s posted was the actual complaint itself, without redacting anything – but again, if it was public record, then all the Klein’s did was add the power of social media to the equation. It may not have been the best strategy at that stage, but it’s not like they took non-public info and made it public. Besides, the complaint was public too – i.e. the bad things they said about Sweet Cakes, and their their attempt to “sic”… Read more »

David R
Guest
David R

The Klein’s posted the complaint they received from state of Oregon. This is a public document. It is true, that the complaint contained the information of the couple, but “Doxxing” is the publishing of personal information with malicious intent. They did not publish this document with the intent of releasing the couple’s information (which was public record).

John
Guest
John

I don’t think that those particular details are publicly available are they? You can’t go out and find people’s names and addresses and phone numbers through the consumer complaint database. Aaron Klein could not have missed the fact that the info was on the document he was publishing, since it was on the cover page before his own business name.

Katecho
Member

Was the name and address of the Klein’s business publicly available in the complaint, and in the media? Or is complaining against a family business somehow disconnected from the family who makes their livelihood from it? I’m smelling a double-standard.

I understand that muzzling the Klein’s freedom of speech was also part of the imposed outcome of the case. Perhaps there is more information about that, but it seems reminiscent of Patriot Act investigation tactics to me.

John
Guest
John

The “gag order” consists of a cease and desist which orders the Kleins to stop advertising their intent to refuse to provide wedding services to gay couples. The order is nothing more than a restatement of the Oregon law. They are free to believe and say anything they want, except for this very specific and illegal activity which only has to do with a business and anti discrimination law.

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

You say the gag order was merely a restatement of Oregon law. That is false. The law itself prohibited the discrimination. If the gag order merely restated that, it would have merely reiterated the restriction that the statute lays out. But the gag order did more than that. Yes, we should clarify that it did not in fact proscribe them from talking about the case at all. But it did order them not to communicate or publish any intent to discriminate again. That is not a mere restatement of the statutory prohibition, it is a prohibition of their freedom state… Read more »

John
Guest
John

I think you will find that the order is in fact a restatement of the law. Please take a moment and read: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.409

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

Indeed you are right. Until this morning I had only seen the actual discrimination section itself, and didn’t know this one existed.

But now, what does this do to related points? It actually makes the whole situation worse. If the so-called “gag” order is merely a law restatement, then that means we have free speech violations (of both the Oregon and U.S. constitutions) *enshrined* in a statute. This actually makes things *much* worse.

John
Guest
John

This law doesn’t limit the speech of an individual, but of a business offering public accommodations. A private club or a person at home could put up a sign that says “NO GAYS” and be clear of this law. There are many instances where the government has a good reason to limit what a business can say, one example is when it comes to limits on advertising.

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

Two problems there — The law says no one acting on behalf any place of public accommodation. Now, if you think -with that not having been defined further, than an Oregon admin agency is going to allow the Kleins to claim they are not acting on behalf of Sweet Cakes if they publish related info, then I’ve got some beachfront property on Neptune to sell you. Secondly, it doesn’t wash to say that free speech is an inapplicable protection b/c the law applies to the corp rather than the people. That doesn’t wash no matter how you cu it. If… Read more »

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

That first sentence, I should clarify the law refers (the prohibition of said communication) to persons “acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation.” That’s who’s prohibited from the statements listed.

John
Guest
John

> Now, if you think -with that not having been defined further, than an Oregon admin agency is going to allow the Kleins to claim they are not acting on behalf of Sweet Cakes if they publish related info, then I’ve got some beachfront property on Neptune to sell you. This is the key thing here. It is one thing to make a claim about what the order says (i.e. by calling it a “gag order”), and to be wrong. But it’s a much bigger leap to say that even though the order says what it says it doesn’t really… Read more »

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

First, the more fundamental and dispositive point is the second point I made – the point about there being an inherent contradiction in suggestion that free speech doesn’t apply b/c it’s an inc/corp rather than an individual. So, you didn’t answer that, and it’s the more controlling and certain issue. As for the wording of the order, you call it speculative, but think of it this way – if I am right, and the Kleins made such statements, and Oregon indeed were not accept such an argument from the Kleins (that they are not acting on behalf of the corp… Read more »

Katecho
Member

John didn’t address my question about whether the Klein’s business was publicly available in the complaint and in the media, or how the family business is distinct from the family whose livelihood depends on it. John’s concern for privacy appears to be partial and prejudicial toward the one making the complaint, and not uniform for all parties. In regard to John’s reply, how is a gag order a “restatement of Oregon law”? Is there a clause in the Oregon law that prohibits speech too, or does the law just apply to actual service at the point of business? If the… Read more »

John
Guest
John

This is the relevant section of Oregon law that the so-called “gag order” restated: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.409

If you read it you will see that it corresponds 1:1 with the order, on the very specific subject of people acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation to communicate their intent to discriminate.

Based on the order and its relation to Oregon law, it would seem that the Kleins are completely free to speak their opinion about homosexuality, but not to announce their plans to refuse all future wedding business from gay couples.

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

I’ve already stated that, but all that means is that they are free on speech related to issue x, but not on speech related to issue y. Whether it’s either or both that is restricted, they are still flying in the face of Oregon and U.S. constitutional law. Passing statutes, admin regulations, and issuing admin rulings does not absolve one of the legitimacy of higher laws.

John
Guest
John

Can a business use lies in advertising about a product? Can a business say that they will kill certain customers?

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

I don’t know if the public record of this complaint states their names and addresses, but it would certainly have their names, thus, making it possible for folks to look them up. What I’ve read is that the Klein published the complaint that the Oregon DOJ or BOLI sent him.

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

Bowman and Cryer filed a screedal complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice, talking crap about the Kleins and their business – a complaint melodramatically laden with pejoratives. They apparently have enough testicles for that, but not being countered on facebook. Klein published the complaint without redaction. If Bowman and Cryer didn’t want to publicly stand behind their public complaint, they should have kept it private. To be clear, Bowman and Cryer bear the image of God, and ought be treated as such, and thus those who harassed them and made death threats were sinning grievously. But when you do… Read more »

John
Guest
John

Which part of the complaint qualifies as a screed? What pejoratives? Are we looking at the same complaint?

I checked at the Oregon DOJ website, and complainant names and other personal info are not listed when you search consumer complaints. It’s only the business info.

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

Well, if this is so (and I have not read the actual Oregon public records policy, which could be distinct from what DOJ happens to publish on their site), but let’s assume for the sake of argument it’s not public record. Is this in anyway acceptable or just? Accusers can hide in anonymity while the accused must be hung out to dry before the public? If indeed the deck is stacked this way in regards to the public records law for the DOJ, then does this put any moral obligation on the Kleins or similarly situation parties to “help” their… Read more »

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

I couldn’t find the complaint on the DOJ website, you may post it if you wish, but I found the following quote at http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/brint/almost_everything_you_heard_on_the_sweet_cakes_case_is_false Bowman filed a consumer complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ). She wrote: “In november of 2011 my fiancé and I purchased a wedding cake from this establishment for her mother’s wedding. We spent 250. When we decided to get married ourselves chose to back and purchase a second cake. Today, January 17, 2013, we went for our cake tasting. When asked for a grooms name my soon to be mother in law informed them… Read more »

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

http://www.doj.state.or.us/consumer/pdf/consumer_complaint.pdf

This is the actual (blank) consumer complaint form, and it has a public records disclaimer on the bottom. Whether or not DOJ automatically posts the complaintants’ info online as a matter of course doesn’t upturn the fact that something is public records, meaning reporters who want to know could find out the Bowman and Cryer’s names *at least* via the Kleins’ name. And according to this disclaimer, probably could even find it out directly via a public records request.

Keith Ziegler
Guest
Keith Ziegler

WELL they did…they knowingly published their private information…that is the PERFECT definition of Dox

A. James
Member

Valid questions. In all these cases in the spotlight, yes, we all should try to not get so caught up in group think that we can’t consider the nuances and the facts and the rumors. It might be “our” turn next, and we can learn by talking through it how to imitate or handle things more wisely or whatever. We may not always agree in the end, but we won’t have reacted blindly with our speech or actions. I had not seen this as part of this case. I guess more will continue to come out to refute or verify… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

“I will calm down in trying to understand that, and realize the point at
hand is “freedom of religion” whether our views are hypocritical, quirky
or whatever.”

Exactly. Legally, what is at issue is your right to make the decision, not the rightness of the decision. Morally is another question, but not one for the laws of Oregon or any other state.

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

So, someone makes an complaint with the authorities based on an “offense” arising from an unjust and unconstitutional cause of action/violation, and yet their info becoming public is the offense? If they didn’t wan that, they should have made the bogus complaint. The whole point of the consumer complaint was to hurt them, and or their business no? The whole point was to tell the state they were engaging in some sort of unacceptable and/or illegal practices. Regardless of whether the Kleins made the best strategic decision there, it remains that the couple sued while making claims of “mental rape,”… Read more »

Matt Massingill
Guest
Matt Massingill

should – meant to say “shouldn’t have made the complaint, my bad.

Keith Ziegler
Guest
Keith Ziegler

Matt, they didn’t make a Bogus complaint, the complaint was 100% legitimate. The law is not unconstitutional at all since there is neither a free speech nor religious freedom component in place. The Kleins were 100% in the wrong and DESERVED punishment for publishing the couples private information.
IF BIGOTS lose their businesses for their incorrect practices then so be it….they’ll have no one to blame but themselves

WJ
Guest
WJ

Psst… Keith, you might want to take a look at this:

Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 3:

“Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case
whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic]
opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.”

http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/constitution/constitution01.htm

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I wasn’t involved in this conversation but I ran across this on the Keins and doxxing.
http://overlawyered.com/2015/07/viral-junk-and-the-culture-war-think-before-you-share/

A. James
Member

Thanks for the update. Ahh, Libby Anne…
reminiscent of Wilson’s festive jux of an “actual worst shows up in the form of a blog post called Goan Duck Vindaloo in Hot-and-Sour Cayenne Confederate Surprise.”
She’s the one doing a whole series of Wilson’s slavery views…all the while swooning with others over Game of Thrones with its various and sundry forms of slavery…

John
Guest
John

Thanks. I’m not sure Libby Anne was trying to say that the publicity was the “actual” reason why they were fined, but it was a big contributing factor and that is evident in the ruling. There is misinformation everywhere and many initial reports were very selective in what they presented. Ultimately, it is a good thing that people are talking about all of the details, and not just the subset that Breitbart and Daily Signal wanted to deal with initially.

David R
Guest
David R

“but it was a big contributing factor and that is evident in the ruling.”

The publishing of the complaint played not part in the ruling.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/10/no-the-oregon-bakers-werent-fined-for-publishing-the-complainants-home-address-or-for-otherwise-publicizing-the-complaint-against-them/

John
Guest
John

Interesting, thank you. So the agency held that the media attention and social media harassment were grounds for damages, but the commissioner held that the denial of services was sufficient alone.

Joe Louthan
Guest

I came here to see if Sodom and Gomorrah was going to be used in your defence.

It was not.

I applaud. Bravo.

A. James
Member

Still laughing at this. I understand completely. I thought if I have to “vex my righteous soul” and “look back” again here to Sodom and Gomorrah, I’m going to turn into that “kitchen condiment” (per franklin :) even as the blog thread bursts into verbal flames discussing all kinds of “sexual immorality and unnatural desire”…
:D

Zachary
Guest
Zachary

HOMOHIVE

Craig D. Houston
Guest

The contrast are perfect, but the blind will not see them. “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..” God please open their eyes!

Tom
Guest
Tom

“So the secularists believe it is sacrilege for a man to be owned. We believe it is presumption and arrogance when a sinful man presumes to own.”

Why can we not believe both?

mikebull1
Member

Slavery is “Land” sin: Cain and Abel, Egypt and Israel. It’s about how men treat each other. Gay marriage is “Garden” sin, Adam and Eve in the sanctuary. It is worse because it goes beyond how we treat each other (doing) and cuts to the very heart of what a human being actually is (being).

timothy
Guest
timothy

Beautiful.

Steven Opp
Guest
Steven Opp

That sodomy is consensual does not make it less a sin. If anything, it makes it more so.

The Canberean
Guest

Excellent and Amen.

A. James
Member

This either relates to “Nicer Than Jesus Christians” or “Resistance? What resistance?” or “Tax Exemption? No problem.” or… Baylor U drops homosexual acts from conduct rules: http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/07/baylor-university-drops-homosexual-acts-from-conduct-rules/ “These changes were made because we didn’t believe the language reflected Baylor’s caring community…. We are pleased with the recent changes to the policy language and that it states more plainly the expectations of the university,” Fogleman said in an email Tuesday. The university Board of Regents approved the policy change in May, after school administrators presented a proposal to make the sexual conduct policy apply equally to all students, faculty and staff.… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

Oh, Baylor. :(

christian
Guest
christian

This brother who is a judge in Toledo is catching it for refusing to perform ss mirage ceremony.

http://m.toledonewsnow.com/toledonewsnow/db/347256/content/VZeOFbaQ

Adam Jones Jr.
Guest

“You were made to be ruled.” – Loki

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

Articulate the pc presuppositions of slavery and silence all the anti- Johnny come lately rebels.

Shattering epistemic knees….CRACK)))

Pooh Bear
Guest
Pooh Bear

“…God doesn’t give us a choice between slavery or non-slavery. He tells us
we can either be slaves to sin or slaves to Christ! Christ bought us
with His blood; we belong to Him. Fighting against this is folly.” – Jennie Chancey (Passionate Housewives Desperate for God) p. 151.

A. James
Member

And on the issue of married housing for homosexuals at Christian colleges: http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-colleges-right-to-deny-married-housing-for-gay-couples-is-on-the-edge-of-the-indefensible-barry-lynn-asserts-141265/ Excerpt: “In response to a question from The Christian Post, Lynn, who is an ordained minister for the Church of Christ, contended that Christian colleges refusing to provide married housing to married same-sex couples is akin to schools not allowing interracial married couples to occupy married housing. In 1983, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Bob Jones University could legally have its tax-exempt status revoked for engaging in the discriminatory practice of not allowing mixed-race dating. ‘I think that the issue with [LGBT] rights is a… Read more »

Willis
Guest

I remember when the typical Doug Wilson post got 10 or so comments. What the heck happened?

A. James
Member

Another festive juxtaposition!
From 10 comments to 287! Even though his eventual extinction has been anticipated, even though he’s becoming more and more fringe and irrelevant…even though there’s now the little rhyme “racist, sexist, anti-gay doug wilson go away”…

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

It’s “Doulas Wilson go away”. You have to have the second syllable of his first name or it doesn’t scan right.

I bet they were up all night thinking of that rhyme… ^_^

Giovanni Maresia
Member
Giovanni Maresia

It’s a long story, but what we observe now in terms of readers’ involvement is not a new thing but a welcome return to form. The way things used to be here . . . it was not at all unusual to have tons of comments almost like now, sometimes more. Then all the old comments were lost in various projects aimed at “improving the design of the blog”, especially regarding how comments were created and displayed. In reality we all knew that Wilson was simply consumed by hate toward all of us commenters, and tried repeatedly to make our… Read more »

Giovanni Maresia
Member
Giovanni Maresia

Another way of saying the same thing, more seriously, is that Wilson’s blog articles, like all his writings, have been consistently great and helpful all along. In his exposition and application of Scripture he has consistently refused to “watch out lest he would step on certain toes”. Differences in the number of comments are not indicative of a difference of approach.

carole
Guest
carole

LOL! Excellent.

ashv
Guest
ashv

Part of it is that Disqus shows you all the replies to your comments rather than making you hunt for them yourself. :)

Patricia Stidham-Burns
Guest
Patricia Stidham-Burns

What utter nonsense! Keep swallowing the Bee Ess people!

Ian Miller
Member

What, particularly, do you object to?

Patricia Stidham-Burns
Guest
Patricia Stidham-Burns

Everything the plagiarist and his hateful ways say! He’s an ugly lying RACIST!

Ian Miller
Member

Plagiarist? From who is Doug copying?

I think, also, that accusations of racism are misplaced. Doug clearly cares deeply for the future well being of all people groups – you and he seem to disagree about the best way to secure that future.

Patricia Stidham-Burns
Guest
Patricia Stidham-Burns

Learn more about the man you so greatly admire! Beware of false Idols!

Tim Paul
Guest
Tim Paul

Your trolling lacks credibility. What Patricia? You remind me of the people that firebomb churches because of unforgiveness manifesting into unbridled hate.

There is redemption available for even you.

Patricia Stidham-Burns
Guest
Patricia Stidham-Burns

You consider your self a Christian!? eeeehhhhhhh! Try again!

Evan
Guest
Evan

Angry, Bitter, Full of Hate, Patricia Stidham-Burns go away….te.

meh, not very rhymey.

Evan
Guest
Evan

here let me help you:

“Racist, Sexist, Anti-Gay; Douglas Wilson go away!”

It’s much more palatable if you say it that way and you get the extra benefit of it rhyming!

valerieab
Member

Evidently, Ian, she objects to reason. ;^)

Ian Miller
Member

Well, I was maybe hoping for a chance at discussion. I’m willing to listen to why she’s so upset, but I’m very confused about this plagiarism thing.

valerieab
Member

Once upon a time, there were some lectures that got transcribed and published as a book. Some quotes that were spoken in one of the lectures (not Doug’s lecture, mind you) were not recognized by the transcriber as having come directly from another source. Some years later, someone read the book, recognized the quotes, and contacted the publisher (Canon Press). The book was immediately pulled from distribution. Because Canon was at that time a ministry of Christ Church, Doug, as the pastor of Christ Church, took responsibility for the citation failures. He was not the speaker of the lecture, the… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

Ah, that’s much clearer. Sad day. Thanks so much for helping me out!

Greg Allen Morgoglione
Guest
Greg Allen Morgoglione