Tolerance - The moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

Welcome to Civilization 3.0:

I couldn’t believe it. I was trying to discuss traditional marriage – and the state was trying to stop me.

Incredible, in a 21st-century European country, but true. I was invited to speak at a conference on marriage last summer, to be held at the Law Society in London. The government had just launched a public consultation on changing the law to allow same-sex marriage. The conference was a chance for supporters of traditional marriage to contribute to the debate. The participants included a retired philosophy professor, a representative of the Catholic archdiocese of Westminster, the chairman of the Tory party’s oldest pressure group, the Bow Group, Phillip Blond (another Tory adviser) and spokesmen for various Christian organisations. The title, “One Man. One Woman. Making the Case for Marriage for the Good of Society”, could hardly have sounded more sober. I accepted without a second thought.

A few days before the conference, someone from Christian Concern, the group which had organised the event, rang me in a panic: the Law Society had refused to let us meet on their premises. The theme was “contrary to our diversity policy”, the society explained in an email to the organisers, “espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same-sex marriage”. In other words, the Law Society regarded support for heterosexual union, still the only legal form of marriage in Britain, as discriminatory.

Hurriedly, another venue was found, the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in the heart of London. This publicly owned modern building is named after the supreme governor of the Established Church, and is situated across the street from Westminster Abbey, for nearly a millennium the symbol of Christian Britain. Who could hope for a better venue, in short, to discuss what the churches still regard as a sacramental union?

But with only 24 hours to go before the conference, managers at the QEII centre told Christian Concern that the subject it planned to discuss was “inappropriate”. The booking was cancelled. When challenged, the QEII centre’s chief executive, Ernest Vincent, cited its diversity policy as reason for the cancellation. A journalist asked for a copy of the diversity policy. The centre refused to provide it.

By the time I took part in the event, (which had been moved to the basement of a hotel in central London), I felt my rights as a taxpayer, citizen and Christian had been trampled. I began to wonder if I had been the unlucky victim of an isolated incident or was in fact encountering a wider problem. I started to research the issue.

Free Speech in the UK.

Former LAPD Officer arrested in Scotland for preaching that homosexuality is a sin:

An American preacher serving on a week-long mission trip in Scotland was reportedly arrested Wednesday for openly preaching that homosexuality is a sin.

Former LAPD Deputy Sheriff Tony Miano Was Arrested in Scotland for Preaching That Homosexuality Is a Sin

Tony Miano’s legal problems began when he delivered general comments about immorality during an outdoor sermon.

He spoke about adultery, promiscuity and — homosexuality, The Christian Post reported.

It was this latter issue that ended up landing Miano, who once served as Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff, in hot water.

As he was preaching, a woman who disagreed with his message yelled out that she has a gay son and threatened to call police on Miano and Pastor Josh Williamson, another preacher who accompanied him.

“Tony wasn’t focusing just on homosexual practice — it was about all sin,” Williamson said in a statement distributed by the Christian Legal Centre, a legal group based in London. “A woman was yelling at him and her friend noticed we were filming the preaching, so she ran up to me and tried to smash my camera.”

The woman then made good on her promise and called the police.

When Scottish authorities arrived, they reportedly arrested Miano on the charge of “breach of peace with ‘homophobic’ aggravation.

Tolerance - The moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

Remember when comedians would argue that comedy meant freedom...

Bob Newhart backs out of commitment to do conference for "dangerous" group of Catholic business and professionals.

Yes....we've reached the point where the dangerous extremists are tax-paying, job-providing, law-abiding Catholics.

 Remember tolerance ...*sigh*

Answering the question about "how does someone else's marriage affect you?"

Oregon bakery falls victim to tolerance police:

Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian that he was committed to a fair and thorough investigation to determine whether the bakery discriminated against the lesbians.

“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”

Tolerance - the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another...

...and concerning the goodness of homosexual behavior, we are clearly in the latter phase.

AF first sergeant faces reprisals from gay boss for refusing to affirm homosexuality

Tolerance - the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

Gay Brit couple suing churches for not performing gay weddings.

Wealthy gay dad, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, says he and his civil partner Tony will go to court to force churches to host gay weddings.

He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because “I am still not getting what I want”.

A Government Bill legalising gay marriage passed Parliament recently but it included measures to protect churches from being forced to perform same-sex weddings.

Challenge

Mr Drewitt-Barlow said: “The only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church.

“It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us.”

He added: “It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away.

“As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want.”

Lobby

The gay couple shot to fame in 1999 when they became the first British same-sex couple to be named on their children’s birth certificates.

They entered a civil partnership in 2006, and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow has reportedly donated around £500,000 to groups lobbying for same-sex marriage.

Last year the Church of England warned that the Government’s plans to redefine marriage could trigger legal problems and end the 500-year link between church and state.

‘Problematic’

In January this year a leading lawyer cautioned that the plans left the Church of England open to legal challenge.

The Prime Minister was sent a copy of the legal opinion by Lord Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury.

In June 2012 Crispin Blunt MP, who was then a Justice Minister, admitted that the Government’s plans could lead to legal issues.

He said the Government is “seeking to protect, indeed, proscribe religious organisations from offering gay marriage”, but he continued: “That may be problematic legally”.

You.Must.Approve.

The leadership of the Texas metropolis of San Antonio is working on ordinance changes aimed at punishing those who speak out against homosexuality.

The San Antonio City Council is doing some housecleaning to combine all of its anti-discrimination rules and ordinances into one. The consolidated ordinance states a desire to adopt a “comprehensive and expanded non-discrimination policy with revisions to outdated terminology.”

According to Pastor Charles Flowers of Faith Outreach International, the city leaders want to add two categories to the policy: sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The ordinance also says that if you have at any point demonstrated a bias – without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised – that you cannot get a city contract,” he tells OneNewsNow. “Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”

Moreover, according to a draft of the revised policy, no one who has spoken out against homosexuality or the transgender lifestyle can run for city council or be appointed to a board. Flowers says the Arizona-based legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom has taken a look at the ordinance.

“They said they've never seen this kind of language in any other ordinance in any other city that they've dealt with,” the pastor shares. “It is unprecedentedly wrong – and of course the citizens of San Antonio must stop it.”

Flowers maintains the ordinance violates state and federal constitutions in terms of freedom of speech and religion. He is inviting people throughout the U.S. to call the members of the San Antonio City Council to politely voice their opposition.

How does another person's marriage affect anyone else?

Catholic student ejected for answering question in officially unapproved way:

Federal District Judge Patrick J. Duggan of the Eastern District of Michigan declared the teacher’s actions in punishing Daniel Glowacki violated his First Amendment Rights.

"While the Court certainly recognizes that schools are empowered to regulate speech to prevent students from invading the rights of other students, people do not have a legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or for that matter their way of life," Judge Duggan stated in his decision.

"Simply put, the law does not establish a generalized hurt feelings defense to a high school’s violation of the First Amendment rights of its students."

The incident that led to the lawsuit occurred on October 20, 2010.

That day during Daniel’s economics class, teacher Johnson McDowell wore a purple “Tyler’s Army” t-shirt, as part of a national campaign promoted by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation to highlight “bullying” of homosexuals.

In testimony at the trial, the court heard that McDowell initiated a discussion about homosexuality when, after telling a female student he was offended by her confederate flag belt buckle and ordering her to remove it, he went on to explain the purple “Tyler’s army” shirt he was wearing was meant to promote tolerance of homosexuality.

The court heard that the teacher specifically asked Daniel about his feelings on homosexuals. When the boy responded that as a Catholic he was offended by the gay and lesbian lifestyle, Daniel was ordered to leave the classroom under threat of suspension.

In an interview with Damian Goddard of the National Organization for Marriage’s Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance, Daniel recounted what happened:

“I raised my hand and I asked him what the difference was between him wearing a purple shirt and explaining that to us, but Danielle (another classmate) couldn’t wear her rebel flag belt buckle,” Daniel said. “He asked me if I was really against the homosexual lifestyle and I told him that the homosexual lifestyle was against my Catholic religion.”

An altercation ensued, and Daniel said he quietly left the classroom after McDowell told him “we lost our right to free speech once we stepped inside his classroom.” 

Free speech and Tolerance are so 20th Century.

Glen Reynolds writes:

NEWS YOU CAN USE: How Ben Carson Is Not Like Hitler. “All you need to know is that Carson opposes same-sex marriage. Case closed. Carson was supposed to be the graduation speaker at Johns Hopkins Medical School. There was a fuss, and Carson decided to withdraw as speaker. The obviously relieved dean nevertheless criticized Carson for being ‘hurtful.’ His analysis of the situation was that ‘the fundamental principle of freedom of expression has been placed in conflict with our core values of diversity, inclusion and respect.’ My analysis is that, at a crucial moment, the dean failed to defend a real core value of the university: tolerance.”

Free speech and tolerance were only important back when communists and gays were being gone after. Now that the worm has turned, those bourgeois values no longer obtain.

Tolerance - the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

DOJ guidance states that silence about LGBT rights will be assumed to be disapproval.

Our sources have provided Liberty Counsel an internal DOJ document titled: “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was emailed to DOJ managers in advance of the left’s so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month.”

The document is chilling. It’s riddled with directives that grossly violate – prima facie –employees’ First Amendment liberties.

Following are excerpts from the “DOJ Pride” decree. When it comes to “LGBT pride,” employees are ordered:

“DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” (Italics mine)

That’s a threat.

And not even a subtle one.

Got it? For Christians and other morals-minded federal employees, it’s no longer enough to just shut up and “stay in the closet” – to live your life in silent recognition of biblical principles (which, by itself, is unlawful constraint). When it comes to mandatory celebration of homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This lawless administration is now ordering federal employees – against their will – to affirm sexual behaviors that every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology reject.

Somewhere, right now, George Orwell is smiling.

The directive includes a quote from a “gay” federal employee to rationalize justification: “Ideally, I’d love to hear and see support from supervisors, so it’s clear that there aren’t just policies on paper. Silence seems like disapproval. There’s still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace (particularly for transgender people), or that people who bring it up are trying to rock the boat.”

Of course there’s “still an atmosphere of LGBT issues not being appropriate for the workplace.” When well over half of federal employees, half the country and most of the world still believe in objective sexual morality (and immorality), “the workplace,” especially the federal workplace, should, at the very least, remain neutral on these highly controversial and behavior-centric issues.

Still, to borrow from self-styled “queer activist,” anti-Christian bigot and Obama buddy Dan Savage, “it gets better”:

“DO assume that LGBT employees and their allies are listening to what you’re saying (whether in a meeting or around the proverbial water cooler) and will read what you’re writing (whether in a casual email or in a formal document), and make sure the language you use is inclusive and respectful.”

Is this the DOJ or the KGB? “[A]ssume that LGBT employees are listening …”? And what are “LGBT allies”? If you disagree with the homosexual activist political agenda, does that make you the enemy?

Yes, in any workplace, language should remain professional, but who defines what’s “inclusive”? Who decides what’s “respectful”? If asked about “LGBT issues,” for instance, can a Christian employee answer honestly: “I believe the Bible. I believe God designed sex to be shared between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage”? Or is that grounds for termination?

You. Must. Approve.

I have no idea who Fantasia is or why I should care about her, and I've never watched American idol.

But whoever she is, she's under attack it seems for speaking the truth, which is proven by the fact that she's under attack -

On Sunday, the winner of American Idol's Season 3, Fantasia Barrino posted a photo on Instragram with a caption in which the singer revealed she felt "judged" and what was taken by some to be an anti gay marriage message. She wrote:

 I Rise ABOVE IT ALL!!! THE WORLD IS GONE MAD. KIDS, THE GOVERNMENT THE church House... Everybody Trying!!!!!!! Its a lot that going on that the Bible speaks about we should Not be doing. Weed legal in some places, Gay Marriage Legal BUT YET IM JUDGED!!! I'm not doing Nothing for you... My Life!!!!

 As of now, the photo has been removed from her account and a statement on Barrino's behalf has been released by her publicist signaling that the singer's words were taken out of context and that she's been a supporter of the LGBT community throughout her career. 

 

This cri de couer about how the world is changing in ways that leaves some of us wondering when we woke up in Cloud Cuckoo Land is being framed as "anti-gay."

So, apparently, the only acceptable position of the fascist left is that being puzzled by the fact that some people don't understand that one father and one mother makes one baby, and that marriage exists for such people, are now guilty of "thoughtcrime."

She is now reporting for re-education to the forces of "we are all about love and tolerance"

Welcome to 2013.

Thou shalt not blaspheme Caesar.

Euro court outlaws criticism of EU:

THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.
 

The EU's top court found that the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
 

The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to "protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the Brussels bureaucracy.
 

The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and "ultimately peace".
 

However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and therefore not protected speech.
 

Well, as long as they didn't call it blasphemy.

Make a joke about redheads...

...got to jail.

Reasons points out:

What country has just sentenced a man to eight months in prison for wearing an anti-police t-shirt, and another man to three months in prison for telling an “abhorrent” joke on Facebook? Iran, perhaps? China? No, it’s Britain.

And:

On October 8, Matthew Woods, a teenager from Lancashire, was jailed for three months for—get this—writing jokes on his Facebook page.

Currently, a five-year-old Welsh girl called April Jones is missing. Woods decided to make some jokes about this, writing on FB stuff like “Who in their right mind would abduct a ginger kid?” and “I woke up this morning in the back of a transit van with [a beautiful girl] — I found April in a hopeless place.”

Funny? No. Criminal? Apparently, yes. For telling these tasteless jokes to the infinitesimally small number of people who can see his Facebook page, Woods was found guilty under the Communications Act 2003 of sending “a message or other matter that was grossly offensive.”

The judge described Woods’ “crimes” as “abhorrent.” I find the state’s imprisonment of a teenager for telling jokes infinitely more abhorrent than Woods’ sad stab at creating lolz.

Another reason not to emulate the Europeans.

Tolerance - the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

Teachers may be fired for not teaching gay marriage material:

Schools will be within their statutory rights to dismiss staff that wilfully fail to use stories or textbooks promoting same-sex weddings, it is claimed.

Aidan O’Neill, a senior QC and expert on religious freedom and human rights, also warned that parents who object to gay marriage being taught to their children will have no right to withdraw their child from lessons.

In a report, he said that any decision to redefine marriage would have far-reaching consequences for schools, hospitals, foster carers and public buildings.

The most serious impact is likely to be felt in the church where vicars and priests conducting religious marriage ceremonies could be taken to court for refusing to carry out a gay wedding, he said.

The conclusions – in legal advice commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage – comes amid continuing fall-out over Government plans to tear up the centuries-old law on marriage.

Tolerance - the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

Ed Feser provides an analytical break-down of the stages in the formation of a liberal dogma:

To the charge that liberals are (or, given their principles, should be) in favor of X [where X = legalizing abortion, liberalizing obscenity laws, banning smoking on private property, legalizing “same-sex marriage,” outlawing the public advocacy of traditional sexual morality, etc. etc.], the standard liberal response goes through about five stages (with, it seems, roughly 5-10 years passing between each stage, though sometimes the transition is much quicker than that). Here they are:

Stage 1: “Oh please. Only a far-right-wing nutjob would make such a paranoid and ridiculous accusation - I suppose next you’ll accuse us of wanting to poison your precious bodily fluids!”

Stage 2: “Well, I wouldn’t go as far as X. All the same, it’s good to be open-minded about these things. I mean, people used to think ending slavery was a crazy idea too…”

Stage 3: “Hey, the Europeans have had X for years and the sky hasn’t fallen. But no, I admit that this backward country probably isn’t ready for X yet.”

Stage 4: “Of course I’m in favor of X - it’s in the Constitution! Only a far-right-wing nutjob could possibly oppose it.”

Stage 5: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law…”

It seems like a parody, but it's not.

Lefists for Free Speech.

Two Cheers for Mother Jones.

Sadly, this kind of defense from Mother Jones is far too uncommon:

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that a Chicago Alderman named Joe Moreno has pledged to block construction of a Chick-fil-A restaurant in his ward over Cathy's anti-gay views. Boston Democratic Mayor Thomas Menino is also trying to block construction of a Chick-fil-a restaurant over its president's anti-gay views.

Menino and Moreno have it wrong. Blocking construction of Chick-fil-a restaurants over Cathy's views is a violation of Cathy's First Amendment rights. Boston and Chicago have no more right to stop construction of Chick-fil-As based on an executive's anti-gay views than New York City would have had the right to block construction of an Islamic community center blocks away from Ground Zero. The government blocking a business from opening based on the owner's political views is a clear threat to everyone's freedom of speech—being unpopular doesn't mean you don't have rights. It's only by protecting the rights of those whose views we find odious that we can hope to secure them for ourselves.

"We think there's a constitutional problem with discriminating against someone based on the content of their speech," says John Knight, director of the LGBT rights project at the Illinois branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. And Illinois law does not demand that restaurants have anti-discrimination policies in place—"It's a good idea for restaurants to have those policies," Knight says, but the law doesn't require it.

Even so, Illinois and Massachusetts residents are still protected. There are federal laws against discrimination in employment and public accommodation on the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin. Federal anti-discrimination law does not yet protect people on the basis of sexual orientation, but Illinois state law does. So does Massachusetts state law.

Chick-fil-A should not be prevented from opening business because of the views of its leaders, or his donations to anti-gay causes. But gays and lesbians in Illinois and Massachusetts have the right to be free from discrimination in employment based on who they are. They also have a right to protest, boycott, and make Chick-fil-A's customers aware that their purchases fund anti-gay activism. If Chick-fil-A discriminates in hiring or refuses to serve customers on the basis of sexual orientation, the local authorities can and should hold him accountable.

Until then, the politicians should get out of the way.

Tolerance - the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

How does gay marriage affect your marriage?

Well, quite a bit if the government is going to tell you that your obstinate refusal to change your position from that which has been the normal human position forever to that which became "normative" last Tuesday by fiat is "not acceptable."

Opposition to Gay Marriage is "not acceptable" according to British minister for
"justice and policing":

Nick Herbert, the justice and policing minister, joined the growing political row within the Conservative Party about giving homosexual couples equal rights to marry.

David Cameron has said he wants to change the law to allow same-sex marriage, but has faced a backlash from members of his own party, including some Cabinet ministers.

Mr Herbert, who is homosexual and in a civil partnership, said that he and others of the same sexuality are effectively being treated as second-class citizens.

Opponents of same-sex marriage, he suggested, are making intemperate and unreasonable arguments.

“I am getting rather fed up with people metaphorically jabbing a finger into my chest and saying I should put up with a civil partnership,” he told the London Evening Standard.

“How would they like it if I jabbed a finger into their chests and said they should put up with a civil partnership instead of their marriage?”

Mr Herbert added: “In my view it’s not acceptable to say to a group in society, ‘You should put up with something that is a second order institution to something that everybody else is entitled to, because we say so’. I think this is about nothing more or less than a fundamental issue of equality.”

Jeepers, if you hold to a position that was the position for Western Civilization - and all of humanity - until last Tuesday and suddenly you are an "enemy of the state."

It makes you realize that the stakes are much, much higher in the gay marriage dispute than simply whether Bob and Tom get a piece of paper that says they are "married."

Tolerance is the moment between breathing out one orthodoxy and breathing in another.

"Shut up," she explained.

This video offers a poor example of how to behave as a teacher.



But it does offer a great example of the poverty of public discourse. The student has obviously been exposed to one-sided propaganda and has learned that he can yank the teacher's chain by pointing out that all sides have their pecadillos. Rather than addressing that issue, the teacher's response is to shut down discussion.

That seems to be all too typical of the left, namely rather than defend the incoherent - as shown by the poor performance of an Obama flack in not being able to respond to a direct and obvious question - leftists want to shut down discussion. In response to centrist Democrat pollster Doug Schoen's recently call for censorship on certain topics, James Taranto observed:

Inasmuch as Schoen is arguing that Obama's actions as president are more pertinent than those before he took office in reaching a judgment about his re-election, we tend to agree. It sounds as though the proposed Ricketts ad would have been a waste of money (especially now that the New York Times has demonstrated its willingness to propagate the message free of charge).

But Schoen's appetite for government censorship of political speech based on his disapproval of its content, and his insouciance about even articulating a coherent standard to explain his disapproval, shows why it is so important to guard our First Amendment rights vigilantly. Schoen is in no sense a political extremist, yet he is eager to stifle dissent.

I cut my teeth on the expansive bloviating of the press during the '70s about the need for unfettered and unrestrained free speech. I went to law school at just the moment when the prevailing orthodoxy was that there was never a reason to limit political speech, much less pornography, art or instructions on how to make a nuclear bomb. So,I am amazed that we are at a point where our liberalpolitical class is turning a blind eye at restrictions on political speech.

Of course, back in the '70s, the speech was by liberals who were attacking establishment values, and the restrictions were on activities by Communists.

All of which makes you suspect that free speech was never principle for the left; it was a tactic.

“How does my gay neighbor’s marriage to his partner affect me?”

Well, not much, unless casting a pinch of incense at the altar of gay marriage becomes a requirement of civil society, in which case a great deal.

And sacrificing at the altar of gay marriage is becoming a requirement of civil society according to Rod Dreher:

If the Obama administration has its way, all US military chaplains will have to do so. Excerpt:

The Obama administration “strongly objects” to provisions in a House defense authorization bill that would prohibit the use of military property for same-sex “marriage or marriage-like” ceremonies, and protect military chaplains from negative repercussions for refusing to perform ceremonies that conflict with their beliefs, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

If this goes through, the Catholic and the Orthodox chaplains will have to be withdrawn from the US military. Many Evangelical chaplains will choose to leave. If same-sex marriage is constitutionalized by Supreme Court ruling, then I don’t see how even a legislative exemption would be possible. This is another one of the answers to the question, “How does my gay neighbor’s marriage to his partner affect me?”

Erin Manning, who sent this link along, writes about possible implications beyond the military:

What it’s going to come down to, eventually, is this: “Oh, I’m sorry, Catholic Church/Orthodox Church/Protestant churches who agree with them re: marriage: you either perform gay “marriages,” or we take away your right to participate in civil marriage licensing. Everyone else can get married in a church and have it “count” for the purpose of their civil marriage license, but Catholics and other “bigots” will have to “marry” in front of a judge or something and then have the church ceremony which won’t mean anything in the eyes of the state.”

It’s coming.

Mark Shea observes:

This is the hubristic tyrant who, just this past December, tried to decree to the Lutherans who they could and could not ordain and got smashed flat by a 9-0 decision by SCOTUS. The arrogance of this Administration is boundless. Anybody who thinks they don’t mean to punish orthodox Christians for incorrect thought simply doesn’t grasp the Left’s bottomless capacity for self-righteousness.

This video brings together the themes of Leftist intolerance, narrow-mindedness, inability to engage in rational discussion and hypocrisy that we've explored in the last several months.

Doug Wilson is heckled by Diversity activists on a university campus. The best part of this is Wilson's comments after the de rigeur clown act leaves the building.