The Garrow Grift Reveals Itself »« Lively: ‘Marxist’ Gay People to Blame for Divorce.

Star Parker is Very Confused

Star Parker, the self-described former “welfare queen” turned B-list Christian right celebrity, seems to be a very confused person. On the one hand, she says Gov. Brewer was right to veto the right to discriminate bill because it’s wrong to discriminate:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was right to veto S.B.1062, which would have amended the Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The bill, per most interpretations I’ve read, would have given broad discretion to business owners, because of their religious convictions, to refuse to do business with anyone associated with homosexual lifestyles.

Religious freedom is about protection of your right to practice your religion and not being forced to violate it.

However, the right to religious freedom does not mean the right to write-off and marginalize into non-existence a whole class of citizens whom you don’t like or agree with.

Under Jim Crow, the problem whites had with blacks was not what blacks thought or did, but that they existed. These laws were designed to relegate one class of citizens to separate and unequal status, simply because of who they were.

Such actions have nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with bigotry and racism.

Hmmm. That’s an unexpected and rare coherent thought from Parker. But then she turns right around and contradicts herself:

But, unfortunately, the failure of this poorly conceived Arizona bill will be misinterpreted. Some will incorrectly claim that this means it is not a violation of religious freedom to force a business owner to provide a product or service for activity that is against his or her religious convictions. That is incorrect.

Would anyone question the refusal of a black vendor to sells sheets to the local Ku Klux Klan chapter? Or a Jewish merchant refusing to sell the poster board for a Neo-Nazi rally? Or refusal of a Christian video service to make a pornographic film?

So why is it not perfectly clear that the religious freedom of a Christian merchant is violated if that merchant is forced to bake a cake or prepare a flower arrangement for a same-sex marriage, which is not only as personally repugnant to that vendor as any in the cases above, but is also a clear and literal violation of the scripture that defines the faith of these individuals?…

It is critical that Christians draw the line and continue the struggle and not allow religion or religious freedom to be compromised. Individuals or businesses forced to supply goods or services for activities against the precepts of their faith must refuse and call forth their protection under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Um. What? But you just said…huh? Oh, and this is a war on Christians, blah blah blah.

Comments

  1. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    Welfare Queen sure is an oxymoron and sign of confusion in itself ain’t it?

    Unless one happens to be Queen Elizabeth II or the last Tsarina of the Russian empire c’est nes pas?

    If this is a war on Christians where are the battleships and biplanes, the sword swinging barbarians and seige towers?

    But, unfortunately, the failure of this poorly conceived Arizona bill will be misinterpreted.

    Well she got that right by demonstrating it herself I guess.

  2. matty1 says

    She isn’t confused, she knows exactly what she means, which translated into English is “Give me money”. The rest is just a kind of nonsense poetry like Lewis Caroll without the talent. Although she does know enough to throw in words her audience will like such as ‘Christian’ and ‘faith’.

  3. says

    This, I think, was the giveaway: “Under Jim Crow, the problem whites had with blacks was not what blacks thought or did, but that they existed.”

    See, discrimination against homosexuals is OK because it’s about what they think and do, just like it’s OK to discriminate against the KKK and the Nazis for what they think and do. Don’t forget that there are people still out there selling the idea that being gay is a choice. So, in that next sentence, where she implies that it is wrong to discriminate based on who people are, she’s likely not including homosexuals.

  4. says

    @6

    Adding, a commenter named Patrick on the comment board for the article pointed out that there is an irony in that she’s arguing it’s OK to discriminate against people for what they think and do…but how dare anyone discriminate against Christians for what they think and do!

  5. Blondin says

    Would anyone question the refusal of a black vendor to sells sheets to the local Ku Klux Klan chapter? Or a Jewish merchant refusing to sell the poster board for a Neo-Nazi rally? Or refusal of a Christian video service to make a pornographic film?

    Why do these people always make such bad analogies? Why do they always have to throw in examples that link LGBT rights to porn? I don’t think anyone would question the refusal of a video service to make porn films, whether they were Christians or not. What does that have to with asking someone to do exactly what they normally do every day for every other customer?
    Are they suggesting that vendors should inquire about their customers’ intended use of a product before they sell it to them? I could see a tailor refusing to sew sheets into Klan Kostumes or a sign-writer refusing to create white-supremacy posters but that’s not analogous to simply refusing to serve someone because you don’t like their beliefs or the club they belong to.
    It is telling that SP thinks it would be okay to refuse to sell goods to someone because you disagree with what you think they might be planning to do with them.

  6. cry4turtles says

    I read some comments on that site. Holy shit! I feel like someone stuck a fork in my ears and scrambled my brain. Never again.

  7. iknklast says

    Well, selling sheets to the KKK seems like something you might not be able to discriminate on; after all, sheets can be used for something other than making hoods. The same with a Jewish person selling poster board. But the last one she just goes totally off the deep end. No one, anywhere or anytime, has forced any movie company, Christian or otherwise, to make pornographic films. Right to access does not include the automatic right for a movie company to make your film, because that isn’t something like selling sheets or cakes. Very few movie companies make pornographic films (by the legal definition; by the Christian definition, I imagine most of them do). These decisions are driven by economics. A better analogy might be whether you have to allow a known “slut” into a pornographic film your theatre is showing.

  8. Samuel Vimes says

    @2

    Some say the government gets more money back from the royal family’s assets than they pay out to the royal family, so a profit is made. I don’t know how accurate that is, but…

  9. busterggi says

    Until she shows me heddle’s stamp of approval I cannot accept her as a true Christian.

  10. Crudely Wrott says

    What boggles me is that those who claim to be under the protective wing of The Greatest Guy In The Universe think that it is necessary to defend that character. That they feel it needful to offer apologies for it, that they feel it incumbent upon them to defend it, justify it and promulgate its fears, hatreds and unarguable instructions for righteousness.

    Wassat? It needs to be justified by the very organisms that it declares faulty, dirty, unworthy and just plain nasty or somehow no one will get the message?

    Oh.

    *takes two aspirins and writes reminder to call my doctor in the morning*

Leave a Reply