The Larsens, youtube capture.
Yet more smug, asshole Christians attempting “pre-emptive” litigation, in order to protect their hate and exclusionary choices. As the Larsens are the ones who want to break into the lucrative wedding market, perhaps they should reflect on the fact that they do have a choice – they can deny their greed and eschew wedding video services. But that’s never the case with Christians, is it? No, it’s always the standard whine of “we are being persecuted” whenever other people are given the same basic rights as all other human beings. Oh, yes, that’s just torture. FFS, whiny, nasty, greedy Xtians really are a stain on life in general.
KTSP reports on Carl and Angel Larsen of St. Cloud, Minnesota: married, devout Christians, who own Telescope Media Group, a film company that seeks to “magnify Christ like a telescope.” And despite the fact the law in the United States of America is that every man and woman has to right to marry whoever they choose, they object to laws protecting that right, claiming it discriminates against their religious beliefs.
Laws like Minnesota’s human rights act, which they have targeted in a lawsuit against the state attorney general and the commissioner of human rights. The Larsens tell KTSP, they want to expand their film company by breaking into the lucrative wedding services industry, but want to offer their videos to heterosexual couples only. They told the station no LGBT couple has ever tried to hire them, and claim their lawsuit is a pre-emptive action.
[…]
Kevin Lindsey, the human rights commissioner named in their lawsuit, called it “part of a pattern of nationwide litigation that is now aimed at eroding the rights of LGBTQ Minnesotans.”
The Star Tribune reported the Larsens are suing because the human rights act would force them into producing videos “promoting a conception of marriage that directly contradicts their religious beliefs.” They argue that their right to expression is being “chilled and silenced” by the state, preventing them from advertising their straights-only wedding at wedding expos and on websites.
Chilled and silenced my arse. You’re moaning about people having a basic right which you don’t like. It’s in the media, and you’re going to sue in order to cement your hate. You’re far from being silenced.
Of course, they aren’t doing this all on their own. They have the backing of a powerful right-wing conservative Christian group that fights for religious freedom around the world, the Alliance Defending Freedom. The Southern Poverty Law Center notes the ADF’s work is fanning the flames of antigay hatred globally in battles over transgender bathroom policies, marriage equality and contraception.
Of course they aren’t. The ADF is nothing but a hate group, bent on removing basic human rights from everyone they don’t like, and their dislike knows little boundaries.
Via LGBTQNation.
How?
It’s when I read things like that that I wish I was a judge, so I could get these people into court and ask them just how the law so compels them. Because (I would say) I live in the same state, and so far I have not produced a single such video, yet have not been in violation of the law. How can we explain this?
And I’m totally sure they check with all that heterosexual couples that they are not violating any christian rules either, right? No second weddings, no sex before marriage, no birth control afterwards (certificate of infertility or you give the video back!) etc.
@Giliell #2:
Perhaps they also hire a PI to run surveillance on the happy couple for a week or two, just to ensure that they’re not secretly atheists who feel obliged to have a religious wedding service rather than risk all-out war with their loving relatives.
Female partner has no contact with the male partner or any other male for 7 days after beginning her period. But they’re liberal and inclusive: banishment to an actual red tent not necessary -- she can lock herself in a closet with a red door or something.
=================================================
There’s something very interesting though, about the fact that weddings must be heterosexual -- and that’s it. Is the first commandment, “Thou shalt suck penis if thou does not havest one, but not if one does, for I, the Lord your God, hath a penis and don’t feel like following this commandment myself…”?
In their own mythology, did Christ only offer his services to people who were already Christian? No? Then magnifying the work of their Christ-buddy would seem to require that they go out an offer their services to non-Christians, becoming shining examples of the kind of generous, loving persons we should all aspire to be.
No?
I’m not really understanding how public temper tantrums magnify the work of a god already great enough to destroy the world in flood at a moments notice…
…oh.