Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Folks Who Hate My Hate are Haters Edition)

Ah, Bryan. So good to see you’ve found a new cause celebre to continue your Gays Are The Evilest Bullying Thuggish Haters tirade. In this case … the Wildflower Inn in Vermont.

You start off, most surprisingly, with some legal definitions:

A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone’s race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. – USLegal.com

As mentioned once upon a time, Bryan, I’m not a big believer of hate crime laws — to the extent that they depend on intangibles like “motivation” and “prejudice.”  I understand the reasoning behind them, to be sure, and I also understand that motivation (intent, etc.) is part of other section of the criminal code.  I just worry that we have to think long and hard before we add thoughtcrime conditions on otherwise illegal activity. It’s the activity that should be focused on.  That said …

Harassment … is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim.

Something you usually pooh-pooh regarding folks who harass gays, or Muslims, or any other group you’re on the warpath about, Bryan.  On the other hand, given that “annoy” is one of the verbs here, and “offend” another, one could argue that every one of your posts is, in fact, harassment.

Of course, I would never utilize a law about harassment in that fashion, even rhetorically.  Because harassment is something much more than the irk I draw from your various screeds and tirades, Bryan. And, of course, I believe in the law, and in the freedom of speech.

Homosexual bigots continue the “Night of the Long Knives” purge against anyone and everyone who believes in natural marriage.

Nice use of the gratuitous Nazi reference, Bryan. Especially coming from someone who just opined that the only people who call others Nazis (at least when they’re calling you one) are people who have realized they are losing the rhetorical debate.

Let’s see.  The Night of the Long Knives was the bloody purge and execution by Adolph Hitler against his former activist supporters, Ernst Röhm and the SA, as well as other allies who had exceeded their usefulness.  Hundreds were killed, many more imprisoned.

So … are we seeing an organized effort by some sort of gay government to get rid of former allies who have become dangerous?

Well, even you, Bryan, call it a “purge” against “anyone and everyone who believes in natural marriage.”

Um. That doesn’t sound like the same thing. Even if you grant that’s what’s actually going on. Which, of course, it’s not.

The latest targets for their hatred and bigotry …

In which no actual hatred or bigotry is no display.

… are the owners of the Wildflower Inn in Vermont. The inn’s owners, Jim and Mary O’Reilly, are facing a potentially crippling lawsuit for one reason and one reason only: they have a religious conviction that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Yes! The Vast Gay Shadow Government (Nazis) picked out a couple at random from the phone book, determined that they believed in “natural marriage” (a lovely phrase that really doesn’t describe anything “natural” as in dictated by nature, since marriage, itself, is not terribly “natural”), and sued them for everything they’re worth in order to destroy their business and their lives.’

Or … no, they didn’t.

They respectfully declined to rent out their facility used for a lesbian wedding reception. Said the O’Reillys, “Many of our guests have been same-sex couples. We welcome and treat all people with respect and dignity. We do not however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in.”

So the harassment of the O’Reillys is clearly “motivated by prejudice against (their)…religion.”

Um, no — the O’Reillys are breaking the law, and they are being sued under that law to stop it.  Here’s the story.

Kate Baker and Ming Linsley filed the suit on Tuesday in Vermont Superior Court, accusing the Wildflower Inn of Lyndonville of abruptly turning them away after learning they are lesbians.

The current lawsuit alleges that in October Ms. Linsley’s mother, Channie Peters, spoke with the events coordinator at the inn, which has 24 rooms and is on 570 acres in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont, according to its Web site.

Ms. Peters said the coordinator referred to a bride and a groom while discussing the bridal suite; Ms. Peters said she corrected the woman and they continued their conversation.

Shortly after the conversation, Ms. Peters received an e-mail with the subject line “bad news,” according to the lawsuit, and was told the innkeepers did not allow same-sex wedding receptions at the site.

“After our conversation,” the e-mail reads, according to the lawsuit, “I checked with my innkeepers and unfortunately due to their personal feelings, they do not host gay receptions at our facility.”

The bottom line:

[The plaintiffs] claim the inn violated Vermont’s Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, which prohibits inns, hotels, motels and other establishments with five or more rooms from turning away patrons based on sexual orientation. The law makes an exemption for religious organizations.

… The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, claims the inn turned away at least two other same-sex couples.

We’ll leave aside the question that the inn “whole-heartedly” allows gay couples to eat there, and to rent rooms for the night (which, one would think, would also go against “everything that we as Catholics believe in”) — they just want to refuse to rent reception space to the couple.

Which the law says they can’t  do.

Further, the suit isn’t even seeking damages — no “potential crippling” here — just an injunction against the inn, under the law, from continuing to discriminate.  (The actual complaint asks for a nominal $1 in damages, an injunction against the inn’s policy, and attorney’s fees.)

According to the template of the left, they have become the victims of a hate crime.

According to any rational template, they have become nothing of the sort.  There are no “threats, harassment, or physical harm,” and “prejudice against someone’s … religion” has nothing to do with it.  There is modest and straightforward action under the law. The owners of the Wildflower Inn aren’t being sued because they’re Catholic, or Christian (or Jewish, or Hindu, or Muslim).  The religious basis for their actions isn’t an issue here at all.  They are being sued because of their actions, because they broke the law regarding discrimination public accommodations.

(Nor, on the other hand, do I consider, under your quoted definitions, the actions by the Inn to be a “hate crime,” for whatever that’s worth, Bryan.)

For daring to actually act on their moral convictions, they are being targeted by the ACLU, which is determined to criminalize Christianity in the United States.

There’s no criminalization going no here, and the ACLU has defended Christian organizations on multiple occasions, as you well know.  Nor does the defense of “acting on their moral convictions” mean anything in and of itself — as I’m sure you would say were we talking about, say, Muslims here.

The O’Reillys now face some kind of criminal or civil sanction for acting on their deeply held religious convictions.

If you’d looked at the actual complaint, you’d know precisely what sort of “sanction” is being sought.  Or, if you have, Bryan, then you’re lying by bringing up the bogeyman of “criminal sanction.”

If they are fined, then their property is being plundered as a punishment for their religious views. If they are ordered to violate their own consciences in their wedding reception policies, then their God-given and “unalienable” right to liberty has been shredded.

Bryan, first off, I find it hard to believe that if this were a multi-million dollar inn run by, oh, let’s say a Muslim owner, who declined to rent out facilities to, let’s say, Christians, or Jews, or people not married in a Muslim ceremony, that you wouldn’t be cheering on such a suit under the same law.

But to look at the broader picture, whatever gave you the idea that religious views or the Creator-endowed “unalienable” right to liberty (which is in the Declaration of Independence, Bryan, and so has no force of law) automatically trump adherence to any law you choose?

Are you suggesting if an inn keeper had religious convictions that mixing of the races is “improper” that it would be okay for them to turn away guests where one party is white, the other black?  Or even (so as to keep the accommodations themselves pure and unmixed) any non-white couple? Or any couple that didn’t pass some sort of religious test, or was from some foreign land?

Because all of those things are illegal, Bryan, under Vermont (and, for that matter, Federal) law.

When you are a private individual who owns a public accommodation (a hotel, a restaurant, etc.), you are required to abide by the laws regarding such an establishment, whether you are religiously comfortable with them or not.  If you’re not, then you need to get into another business.  You don’t get to say, “Well, hey, my ‘right to liberty’ means I can refuse to serve food to people who are wearing crosses,” Bryan.  You don’t get to say, “My conscience tells me that godless Chinese are evil, and so I can refuse them a room.”  And you don’t get to say, “My religious views tell me marriage is only between one man and one woman forever, so I refuse to allow folks to rent reception facilities to folks on their  second marriage.”

There are exemptions in the Vermont law for very small establishments (4 rooms or less, as if you were renting out rooms in your own house) and for establishments owned by religious organizations.  The Wildflower Inn does not qualify under either of those exemptions.

And the fact that homosexual bigots are using the power of government to carry out their hate-driven harassment of the O’Reillys only makes it worse. Harassment is harassment no matter who’s doing it, and getting government thugs to do it for you under color of law is simply reprehensible.

There’s no “bigotry” involved here, except on the part of the folks who are illegally discriminating against the couple who are suing.  It would be subject to a suit whether or not it was based on the innkeepers’ doing it because they are Catholics, or if they were Muslims, or if they were Nigerians, or if they just thought Gay Folk are Icky.

Homosexual hatemongers have now created a “hostile environment” in which the O’Reillys are forced to work. They are being subjected to “conduct” which “annoys, threatens, intimidates (and) alarms” them, and have been subjected to behavior which is “unwanted, unwelcomed, and uninvited.” Hello, hate crime.

The way you manage to turn things on their head, Bryan, never fails to amuse and amaze.  It’s harassment to stop folks from harassing others?  Preventing people from creating a hostile environment is creating a hostile environment for the people you’re preventing? Enjoining discrimination is discriminatory?

Presumably the plaintiffs in this case have a moral belief that their marriage is a good thing and morally acceptable.  They may even have a religious conviction that this is so.  Did the Wildflower Inn therefore violate their religious views?  Did it go against their consciences? Was their God-given and “unalienable” right to liberty (not to mention the pursuit of happiness) shredded?

Do we disregard that, simply because the plaintiffs are gay, and because the innkeepers are claiming they’re Christian, and Christians get to do whatever they want so long as they claim it’s because they’re Christian?

In a sane world in which the First Amendment was still the supreme law of the land, …

Which is kind of funny to hear from a person who spends so much time lambasting the ACLU.  Though, to be fair, your interpretation of the First Amendment is a bit … off-kilter.

… the O’Reillys’ freedom of religious expression and assembly would still be protected.

Do you believe in allowing folks to use peyote and marijuana in their religious ceremonies, Bryan?  Do you believe that religions that accept polygamy should be allowed to have group marriages?  Do you believe that people who are married in denominations that accept gay marriage should have those marriages recognized by the state?  If my religious beliefs call for the sacrifice of animals — or humans — is that something protected by the First Amendment?

Should those “religious expressions” be protected?

As for the freedom of assembly — that’s used far too often, as in this case, as a code term for “freedom to exclude folks you don’t like,” which, if you think should be protected as an absolute right, means that a hotel or restaurant could exclude Hispanics, or old people, or Christians, or Republicans, or gays, or straights, or whatever.

Alas, the homosexual lobby is rapidly turning us into China and the former Soviet Union.

Yes, because both of those countries are known for their civil rights laws regarding public accommodations and for their friendliness to homosexuality.

Christians are now being treated officially as second-class citizens with far fewer human and civil rights than those who engage in aberrant sexual behavior.

Hey, Bryan, you know that old canard you keep bringing up about how gays have the same marriage rights as straights, since both groups are free to marry people of the opposite sex?  This is the same thing, only in reverse — both gay and straight innkeepers have the same rights as public accommodation owners, since neither is free to refuse accommodations to the other.  At least in Vermont.

Which means, of course, that if the owners of the Wildflower Inn were gay, and had a policy against providing receptions for conservative, Catholic, heterosexual couples, they’d be in violation of the same law. And could be so sued.

Whose side would you be arguing then, Bryan?

And, for the record, as a Christian, I don’t feel like a second-class citizen, and I don’t see myself as having any fewer human or civil rights recognized by the society than, say, homosexuals (of whatever religious persuasion).

(By the way, Bryan, you would probably argue the point, but “Christian” and “homosexual” are not antonyms.  There are some folks who are both, and some folks who are neither.)

The words spoken by one of the lesbian bigots in this story would actually be far more appropriate on the lips of the O’Reillys. “We were saddened and shocked. It was frustrating to be treated like lesser than the rest of society.”

And that just rolls right past you, doesn’t it, Bryan?  Because your sympathies are with the innkeepers, and you think they should have every right to kick out anyone they don’t morally approve of, and anyone who disagrees is, per se, a “bigot.”

Just how, by the way, are the O’Reillys being “treated like lesser than the rest of society”?  The rest of society is forced to swallow their prejudices — religiously motivated or not — if they are providing a public accommodation. The O’Reillys are being held to the same standard.

The homosexual agenda and religious liberty cannot co-exist. America will have to choose between the two, because we cannot have both. Every advance of the homosexual agenda comes at the expense of religious liberty. Every time – every single time – the homosexual agenda advances, religious liberty is forced into retreat.

Here’s a little hint, Bryan: in absolute terms, living in society is a compromise between my liberty and everyone else’s liberty.  There’s a whole lot of personal freedom that I’m restricted from because society, as a whole, deems it necessary, as it violates the freedoms and rights of others. I can’t play my stereo at full volume at 2 in the morning.  I can’t drive at 150 miles per hour on the freeway.  I can’t take whatever I want from a store without paying for it.  I can’t shoot heroin. I can’t sacrifice small children on an altar to Moloch, no matter how annoying they are.

Our society is, or should be, a balancing act between personal liberties, Bryan, trying to maximize them for all.

So, yes, one could argue (to put it in less inflammatory and more accurate terms) that recognition of equal civil rights for homosexuals comes at the expense of the rights of folks who think homosexuality is morally wrong to discriminate against homosexuals. Just as recognition of equal civil rights for Jews comes at the expense of the rights of  of folks who think Jews are morally wrong to discriminate against Jews.

But we don’t actually call that discrimination against the discriminators, Bryan.  We call it leveling the playing field, or, better yet, seeking “liberty and justice for all.” Even for the folks you disagree with on a religious basis.

The day has already arrived when it has become a criminal offense for a Christian to act on his convictions. The day is coming when it will be a criminal offense to have Christian convictions at all.

Yes, Christians  are already treated as criminals if they burn witches at the stake, convert at sword/gunpoint, imprison Baptists, banish Catholics, or stone adulteresses.  When will this madness that prevents Christians from acting on their convictions end?

Dolt.