Tammy Bruce. Ugh.

Tammy Bruce is a gay conservative woman who really ought to be ashamed of herself. In a column in the Moonie Times (owned by a man who openly advocated purging all gay people from the face of the earth), she attacks the “GAYstapo” (get it? How clever!) for wanting to violate religious freedom. And she’s got some terrible arguments.

As a gay conservative woman, I supported Arizona’s religious freedom bill, which was just vetoed this week by Gov. Jan Brewer.

I supported it because it embodied the values every American civil rights movement stood for: the freedom to live our lives without being punished for who we are.

Can she really be this ignorant of history? The civil rights movement fought like hell to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — you know, the one that forbids businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender and other prejudices. The bill you’re supporting is the exact opposite of what the civil rights movement fought for.

This bill, like others across the country, was thought necessary because of the emergence of business, large and small, being attacked by the gay left for either espousing Christian values or acting on their Christian faith. Ranging from a bakery to a photographer, individuals were being sued for refusing to violate their religious beliefs.

Having been a liberal “community organizer” in my past, I immediately recognized the strategy being employed. This is an effort to condition the public into automatically equating faith with bigotry.

Nonsense. It equates the demand for the right to discriminate against gay people as bigotry. And that is exactly what it is.

Under these rules, freedom of conscience is squashed under the jackboot of liberals, all in the Orwellian name of “equality and fairness.” Here we are dealing with not just forcing someone to do something for you, but forcing them in the process to violate a sacrament of their faith as well.

If we are able to coerce someone, via the threat of lawsuit and personal destruction, to provide a service, how is that not slavery? If we insist that you must violate your faith specifically in that slavish action, how is that not abject tyranny?

So then we must have been living under “slavery” and “abject tyranny” for the last half a century, right? After all, federal law for the last 50 years has “coerce[d] someone, via the threat of lawsuit and personal destruction, to provide a service” to women, black people, Christians and Jews and many more even if it violates their religious beliefs. OMG! We’re all slaves! Seriously, how does someone say something this stupid with a straight face?

Comments

  1. busterggi says

    “I supported it because it embodied the values every American civil rights movement stood for: the freedom to live our lives without being punished for who we are.”

    Seriously, she wants her fellow cons to stone her to death as their religion commands?

  2. lofgren says

    OMG! We’re all slaves! Seriously, how does someone say something this stupid with a straight face?

    Strawman. The only “slaves” (she is asserting) are private business owners who provide services directly to the public.

    In any event Ed uses this rhetoric regularly when he is trying to ridicule people who claim that their religious freedoms are being infringed because they have to provide services equally regardless of sexuality. I’m surprised he doesn’t realize how pointless that is. I suspect Tammy Bruce would readily agree that the civil rights act is slavery, if she ever bothered to understand it. (Although more likely she would merely assert that it says something entirely different than what it does and how the courts interpret it, as she does here.)

  3. John Pieret says

    busterggi:

    Seriously, she wants her fellow cons to stone her to death as their religion commands?

    Actually, she is pretty safe there. Leviticus only condemns male on male gay sex. By the Xian rules of exegesis, lesbianism is actually ok with the stone the sinner crowd.

  4. roggg says

    Wait, what? There’s people who actively speak out demanding to be treated as second class citizens?

  5. Cuttlefish says

    What gets me is, these people so often claim to speak for “Christians”, as if they represented the vast majority of Christians, when the latest polling shows most Christian denominations now favor same-sex marriage.
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2014/03/03/christian-oppression-by-christians/

    It’s not that “Christianity’s tenets” forbid baking cakes or taking pictures for people who have shellfish at their reception… or are gay, whatevs,…. but (and this is no news to any readers here) rather that bigots have used their particular (minority view) interpretation of Christianity’s tenets as a shield… or perhaps a sword.

  6. scienceavenger says

    …she attacks the “GAYstapo” (get it? How clever!)

    The SA was gay. The Gestapo was pretty straight.

  7. D. C. Sessions says

    Seriously, how does someone say something this stupid with a straight face?

    A lifetime of practice, starting very young, helps tremendously.

  8. cptdoom says

    Here we are dealing with not just forcing someone to do something for you, but forcing them in the process to violate a sacrament of their faith as well.

    Except, of course, it is still perfectly legal in much of Arizona (outside the major cities) to discriminate against gays and lesbians to your hearts content. There is no statewide or federal protections for LGBT Americans, so you can refuse us flowers, deny us a cake, fire us for no cause, refuse us a room at your hotel…to your hearts content. All this law would have done is 1) undermine the local laws in place to protect gays and lesbians – something that was tried two decades ago in Colorado and lost big – and 2) prevent employers from disciplining employees who violated company policies preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians. So the party of “small government” and “free markets” wanted to impose big government on cities that didn’t act as they wanted and to limit the rights of employers in dealing with their employees. No one’s being forced to do anything, in regards to LGBT citizens.

    However, regarding the Senator from AZ, named John McCain, who openly practices the non-Christian “lifestyle” of divorce and remarriage, well, there people are being forced to deny their faith. Those Christians who still believe that marriage is not to be ended in this lifetime are forced to serve John McCain in their restaurants, supply him with flowers when he wants to celebrate the “anniversary” of his sinful taking of a second wife (does that make him an adulterer or a polygamist, I’ve always been confused on that), and bake cakes to commemorate the dates the children of this immoral union were born.

    So, does Tammy Bruce think we should be able to discriminate against John McCain?

  9. says

    cptdoom ” 2) prevent employers from disciplining employees who violated company policies preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians.”
    What about my Religious Liberty® to fire employees for not doing their jobs?* My Deeply Held Religious Beliefs® include not employing people who treat my customers like shit.
     
    Besides, as a Job Creator®, when Liberties are in conflict my Liberty automatically overrules that of my employees. Oddly, in this case for a positive effect.

     
    * 1Jim 3:12 ~ ” ‘On his way out, let not the door hit the man’s ass who won’t serve the public in a business open to the public’ saith the LORD.”

  10. marcus says

    “Seriously, how does someone say something this stupid with a straight face?”
    Ummmm… because they are actually are stupid? Perhaps arrogant and self-hating as well?

  11. caseloweraz says

    I hear tell these right-wing groups have banded together and petitioned ICANN for a new top-level domain: dot-OMG.

  12. hunter says

    “. . . she attacks the “GAYstapo” (get it? How clever!)”

    It’s not even original.

Leave a Reply