Interesting, isn’t it?

It seems that while businesses run by Christians who stand by their faith are being run into the ground, those run by homosexuals are protected from the same laws. This story appears to be one where a Christian wanted a cake showing a Bible that had “God hates gays” on it. The customer claims that isn’t true, and points to two scriptures they requested. Nevermind that the verses were not what the baker said, the judge ruled that a bakery can discriminate against Christians. The verses?

Psalm 45:7 – You love righteousness, and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you, more than your companions, with the oil of joy.

Leviticus 18:22 – You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable.

Now, what I find interesting is that the customer claims that they did not request “God hates gays” but say that the first scripture is “God hates sin.” Yes, you could interpret that verse to say that, but it’s a stretch. They go on to claim the second is “God loves sinners,” a stretch many wouldn’t go for.

This looks like a setup to me, either with a group trying to make one side or the other look good or bad, but it’s clear the customer has not read their Bible. I took less than 5 minutes to find, read, then type both verses here. My Bible is not an online version, but a printed copy I’ve had for many years.

I do not believe God truly “hates” anything, and I do believe he loves sinners, as we all are sinners. I believe God is saddened when anyone chooses a life of sin over a life of righteousness, or the attempt. We can never be truly righteous, but we can try to live as He wants us to.

Now, before anyone decides to point to anything in the Old Testament as my need to not eat pork or shelfish, or to bury adulterers up to their neck and stone them to death, remember that I follow Christ. He that stood in the temple and proclaimed that the prophecy and scriptures were fulfilled in Him. Christ that stood against a crowd trying to stone an accused prostitute and said “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” Christ, a Jew, who was kind to Gentiles, while others were not. Who befriended tax collectors and healed lepers.

This is what I believe. I am to feed the hungry, help the sick, and I try every day to do this. Why then, when I uphold what Christ did, in this case that homosexuality is a sin and therefore something I must not promote, as in the case of a baker making a cake, am I to be forced by law to do this or go out of business, while a baker who is homosexual can tell me they won’t serve me because I’m Christian?

I don’t want a nation where people are forced to violate their beliefs, nor a country where the government can force much of anything, if anything at all. If you are a business owner and choose to turn away a segment of the population, and your business fails, obviously you are in an area where the majority disagree with you, and the market will decide your fate. But that isn’t the country we have today. Rather, we now live in a country where a single customer can force a business to close, when if the market decided they would flourish, simply because that one customer was “offended” or their “rights” were violated, ignoring the rights of others, or that their winning a court case offends many others.

So, do you want a country where a miniscule portion of the populous can force their views on the rest? Or do you want a country where people are free to decide for themselves? If that decision is such that they fail in their business, it’s only their fault, but if they flourish, it’s obvious the majority agree with them, and you leave it at that? The first sees the majority as needing to be FORCED TO CHANGE, the second, well, it’s the one where every individual is free to decide for themselves.

Smokey out

Thursday thoughts

Those who have read my blog for any amount of time will know that, while I am personally rather conservative, when it comes to government involvement in the lives of Americans, I want as little as possible. The Constitution lists not only the rights protected (not given) and also the process to change that, yet people call for new “rights” almost daily. The very first amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press and assembly, yet we see calls to silence this group or that, to restrict this church or that one, or to deny someone or some group a permit to hold a rally, because they are “hateful” or “bigots,” while others that actually advocate hatred or worse, violence, are allowed to do anything they want.

Phil Robertson (Duck Dynasty) was asked his personal opinion on homosexuality, and gave it, only to have people who likely never watched the show all but sue A&E to remove him. Only finding that the show wouldn’t go on without him, that it would be A&E who breached contract, and thus, they’d lose a lot of money, caused A&E to change their minds. When Dan Cathy was asked the same thing, there were calls for all but the firebombing of Chic Fil A restaurants. Yet, let a homosexual group demand a pastor be jailed, someone be fired, simply because they donated money to the GOP or another group that they don’t like, even 20+ years ago, and it’s “free expression” or “just voicing an opinion.” Why the difference? Why the hypocrisy?

Simply put? The government and the media want the country divided, as it allows them to play groups against each other, hoping that group a won’t watch speeches given to group b, so they can promise both groups everything, then blame each group for failing to deliver. The media wants higher ratings, so they jump on racism, sexism, or other issues that whip people into a frenzy, and damn the consequences. Had the media not gone gaga over the Ferguson, MO situation, it’s possible that the white police officers who have been targeted and murdered would still be alive. But, rather than be responsible, we were given constant coverage of weeping relatives, crowds “disgusted” by the “miscarriage of justice,” and the fact that a grand jury, which was called and assembled LONG before Brown robbed that store and attacked a cop, found the evidence said the officer was justified in his actions. Now, however, a man’s life has been ruined, his family has been threatened, and he has had to leave the state he lived and worked in, all because the media portrayed a thug who was shot while trying to take an officer’s side-arm as a “misunderstood teen gunned down by a racist cop.”

So, how do we fix this? The answer is the same as it’s been every time I’ve asked it. Stand up, demand accountability in the media, demand those who sensationalize things to the point of what we saw in Ferguson be fired, demand our elected officials actually represent us, and when they don’t, vote them out! But, that requires that people stay informed and actually accept that they can’t just demand something and get it, or call someone a bigot because that person wouldn’t bow to them, so I’m not holding out much hope.

Smokey out

Freedom for those who do what we like

Indiana and Arkansas have been in the spotlight recently, having passed laws stating a private business owner can deny service to anyone they choose to. This is, in the simplest terms, saying they have a right to TURN AWAY MONEY. Nowhere is sexual orientation, race, gender or religion mentioned. What it does is protect a baker who, due to religious conviction, decides he won’t bake a cake for a gay wedding, or a restaurant owner who refuses service to vegetarians because he uses all kinds of meat in his cooking, or a lawn care professional when they tell someone who happens to be gay, or a different race, or a different religion, they can’t mow their yard because their booked.

We used to be a society where, if you were denied service and felt it was wrong, you told your friends, they told theirs, and so on. If enough people believed your version, the business just began to lose money, and either changed their practices, or went out of business. You affected them simply by convincing others, without whining on TV or suing, to avoid that business. It’s the same as a restaurant that serves bad food, people find out and just don’t go there. Today, however, we live in a society where, despite the First Amendment, and now two states passing additional laws, people who feel “discriminated against” sue to “punish the bigot.” I’m sorry, if I went to a bakery owned by a gay or lesbian couple, and asked for a cake honoring traditional marriage, and they said they won’t do it, I WOULDN’T WANT THEM TO at that point, for fear they’d not do as good a job as they do on other items. Second, I wouldn’t sue them for turning away customers, I’d simply let it be known that they turned me away due to my faith and my request, and let people decide if they want to do business there, leaving it to the market who succeeded and who didn’t.

To show how this is not the case any more, and how one group has decided to force another to not only tolerate, but to accept them, I give you two cases. First, a court ruled that a baker had “illegally discriminated” against a gay couple. Keep in mind that this is a private citizen who decided to turn away a paying customer. Rather than simply letting their friends and family know, and instead of simply encouraging anyone they could to do business elsewhere (free market economics) they sued, and a judge ruled that a private citizen could not act on their beliefs. This case however, is the opposite, and not about only one baker. No, in this case, thirteen bakeries turned away a request to make a cake with a message that stated gay marriage is wrong. Nothing was vulgar or profane about the message, it was simply a message that a majority of people, based on their religious affiliation, agree with. None of these bakeries were sued, some of them were very insulting, one even saying they’d made the large cookie, but they would “put a phallus on it.” How is it that the first instance of a private business turning away a customer is “illegal” or “wrong,” but not the other thirteen cases?

Simply put, the media and too many in government have decided that only one group is protected. This isn’t the only situation either. We have seen instances where people state only whites can be racist, only men can be sexist, and believe it. This is the problem today. If you claim to want equality, then you cannot do anything the other guy can’t, and then expect him not to react as you would. If you can call someone evil, ignorant, a bigot, or worse, then they can call your “lifestyle choice” wrong, or immoral. If you can turn away a customer wanting a cake supporting traditional marriage, then he can turn your request for a cake for a gay wedding away. Simply put, no one can have a “right” that others do not have. That is called privilege, rights are for everyone, and too many today have either forgotten that, or chosen to remain ignorant in their demand for “rights” that only they enjoy.

Smokey out

Two for today

It seems that I am not commenting as much on actual news and politics any more, as I am on people who fully expect the world to do as they demand, while they do as they please, and no one is allowed to question them on it.

The first for today, is once again something from DC, in this case, Harry Reid responding to someone pointing out that he blatantly lied about Mitt Romney during the 2012 elections. During a speech in the summer of 2012 Reid said “Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.” referring to Romney, accusing him of never paying taxes. Romney, of course, responded, and I believe, made his returns available. Now, having been proven to have lied, and never responded when Romney called him on his statement, his only responses is “Well, they can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?” after being called a “McCartheyite” (referring to Senator McCarthey from the 1950’s). I’m sorry, had a Republican accused Obama of never paying taxes, only to have Obama prove he had, there would have been calls for all but public hanging, yet Reid jokes about ruining a man’s election run, and nothing is done?

I believe there are good people in the House and Senate, but they are in an extreme minority, their voices silenced. Sadly, there is little to be done, as to impose term limits, or have any legal action when our “illustrious leaders” break the very laws they pass, must be put in place by those same people. We are left with but one option, vote someone else into their office. I personally worked on a campaign in Tyler, TX in the 2004 election, where an incumbent Democrat was defeated. For those who don’t know, that area is a largely Democrat part of Texas, and Mr. Sandlin was the incumbent, which in a national election means you normally need to work very little to be re-elected, but he was defeated. So, the question here is simple, is it worth enough to you to work to oust those simply working to keep a cushy job and power, or not?


Next, we move to more of a societal issue, that being the attitude of (most) atheists today. Like any group, it’s not 100% of them believe or act as this next bit demonstrates, but sadly, those who simply want to live their lives are lumped in with the bad apples, and most of the “not bad apples” do little to nothing to correct the view of their group. In a great display of irony, these are the very people who trumpet the “not all XXX are bad” line regarding groups where horrible things are done in group XXX’s name. They say nothing about those members of the group who do those things, just “they’re not all bad, so stop complaining,” but when it comes to a lone Christian making a comment, or a lone wacko doing something terrible who might have been Christian, they jump all over “Christianity did this” completely ignoring their previous mantra of “it was a small percentage of the group” and so on.

In this case, it was an article postulating the possible discovery of the childhood home of Jesus of Nazareth. Note, from the author’s words, no claim that “this is Jesus’ house” was ever made. The question was asked, the evidence presented, and theories presented, that’s it. From there, the “Friendly Atheist” begins to liken this article’s theory to pure lunacy. Yes, I can say that while there is no proof that X happened in my home 100 years ago, there’s no proof it didn’t, so it may have, about anything, and as you can’t prove the negative, well, that’s the point. However, this “friendly” post about the article ridicules Christians and the entire article, all but saying “Jesus is a myth, so to find his home is impossible,” while comments simply spiral out of control attacking the mere fact that there are people who are Christians.

I have personally been called stupid, ignorant, and worse, simply because I am a Christian (also for being a Republican, a Conservative, and simply for being from the American south, but those are topics for a different day) as if this ends all discussion. So, my question is this, why is this even tolerated? The very people screaming that I, as a Christian, must “tolerate” people who believe differently than I do, or who’s “lifestyle choice” (and it’s not a choice either) is not in accordance with my beliefs, but for me to point out the childishness of their words is “attacking them on a personal level.”

Yes, I am a Christian, and no, I am not a scientist, so I can’t, and thus, won’t speak on the science behind the origins of life on this planet, or how humans have gotten to the place we are today, based on historical evidence of physical and mental changes. I don’t argue for or against the “big bang” for two reasons, there will never be fool proof evidence without time travel, and as I point out regularly, the physical act of creation could very well have been exactly what is called the big bang, simply caused by God commanding it to happen. I don’t question that humans have changed, or evolved, over time, because we are now on average taller, less hairy, smarter, and so much more, but I do question abiogenisis and the “we just evolved, there is no God” argument. When I do, I often get the “no one alive today was there? Great argument idiot” response, no reasoned discourse, but animosity and hateful attacks.

In a nutshell, you want respect, you earn it, you don’t demand it. I respect the Office of President of the U.S., just not the man in it right now. Second, to claim that “life just appeared and evolved to where we are today,” in my mind, is to boil human life, and all life on the planet, down to a “cosmic accident,” which to me, is just wrong, and often leaves me wanting to slap the living daylights out of the person refusing to act like an adult, then simply say “you’re an accident of the cosmos, so I choose to slap accidents of the cosmos” to simply get them away from me, but I then choose to remain an adult, and let them show themselves for the intellectual infants they are.

I am an educated and, I like to think, intelligent man, and I welcome civil and reasoned debate. However, when you stoop to name calling and emotional attacks on someone, you not only prove to be that same intellectual infant, you take all credibility away from your argument. Research, bring facts, use logic, and remain respectful. You’ll find more often than not, while you and the person you’re arguing with, or debating, but you will be able to part amicably, and continue your debates. Who knows, you both may just learn something, even if neither of you ever convinces the other.

Smokey out

Welcome to the ADD News!

First on the list, budget proposals by the self declared emperor Obama. Is it any wonder that a budget that, primarily is “more taxes and more spending” with little substance outside of that is rejected? We can only expect Obama to begin decrying the House and Senate for “taking food from babies” or “denying help to those who need it” while those he speaks of helping are those who WON’T WORK not those who can’t, as we’ve all seen his ignoring of our Veterans who WANT TO WORK, but can’t, and still get nothing from his administration.

Next on the block, an idiot who didn’t learn fast enough. It seems a man who had a six figure salary with a seven figure stock package decided to attack Chic Fil A many times. He went through the drive through multiple times, only ever getting a free cup of water, only to then video his berating of the poor person at the window. He told her she was working for a hateful company, told her he wanted to slow down the line, wanted to take money, wanted to hurt the company, because he felt they were hateful. The girl in the video? She was courteous and gracious, and even accepted his apology. He was, however, fired from his job after the video he tried to delete went viral, then fired again when his new employer found out who he was. Now? Well, he’s in an RV on food stamps trying to sell his memoirs. Seems to me he came off as the hateful jerk, and Chic Fil A the company just trying to serve their customers.

Moving on, a child is forced to shave his head due to a “distracting” hair cut that HONORS HIS MILITARY FAMILY! Yes, a child is forced to shave his head or be suspended because he had a “high and tight” hair cut. I’m sorry, but I’ve worn this cut for more than a decade! I also watched as students in my graduating class (20 years ago, yes) had hair cuts that wouldn’t pass at even the most lenient of jobs. I can’t help but ask, had he braided his hair with pink ribbons to support gay rights, would they have done the same? Also, notice the district throwing the school under the bus, and the too late apology, as the CHILD WAS FORCED TO SHAVE HIS HEAD before they acted.

This one’s just for a link. It seems Ted Cruz is signing up for Obamacare. I can’t help wonder what his campaign speeches will be like.

This one needs no introduction, other than, what did we expect? It seems a passenger was BEATEN for not blindly praising Michael Brown. According to this story, a passenger on a bus was asked about the Brown case, and when he responded that he hadn’t thought about it much, he was BEATEN by the questioner. Yes, we now live in a world where someone can ask you about a case where someone tried to take a Police Officer’s weapon, and was subsequently shot, and when you don’t side with the CRIMINAL THUG, you are beaten. Notice the photo, they’re smiling! I can’t help but wonder, if I was ATTACKED AND HAD GUNS PULLED ON ME, only to react to save my life, would I be jailed based on my attacker’s race? Apparently, we must ask this now.

Not much to say on this one. It seems that while schools FORCE Christians to hide their faith, they also FORCE children to read the quran. This one is about a US Veteran finding his grand-daughter was being forced to learn islam, and his reaction. Personally, since so many people sue for less, I’d have demanded the ISD pay for a private school education for my child or grand-child.

Finally, we explore the idiocy of the left. It seems Kroger has publicly said they will simply follow the laws of the states their stores are in, but that isn’t enough for some. In open carry states, Kroger refuses to deny those who embrace their rights entry into the stores, so “Moms demand action” is putting out ads comparing someone with an assault rifle (which no open carry advocate carries, only those trying to make 2nd Amendment supporters does) to a child eating ice cream. They cite incidents at Kroger stores where guns were used to kill, ignoring that the people who killed others should not have been free at all. But beyond all of that, they scream about “rights” when it comes to gays or something else the majority of a state doesn’t want, then scream to stop something the majority does. It’s very simple folks. If your state has a law you don’t like, vote against it and/or those in power supporting it. If you lose, accept that you are in the minority or move away. If a company does something you don’t like, don’t shop there, and encourage others not to. If the company does well, accept that you are in the minority or act like a toddler denied candy, and hurt your argument/side.


I don’t expect anyone to comment other than in agreement or to say how ignorant or bigoted I am. If the latter, remember that by not engaging in reasoned, civil and logical debate, you only prove yourself a mental 2 year old, but after all, calling me names is all you have, right?

Smokey out

Here we go again

We’ve seen many instances of people being labeled “bigots” or worse simply because they believe differently. I have personally experienced this in a few ways, being told I’m an “intolerant bigot” because I believe homosexuality is not natural. Speaking from a purely biological stance, it’s not. Two men or two women cannot have a child without assistance from the other gender, it’s as simple as that. I’ve been called a bigot and zealot by a total stranger for simply praying over my meal in a restaurant. And the highlight of my life so far, I was actually called an insensitive racist jerk in a debate over Keynesian vs Supply Side economics in a class!

In regards to an Anti-Gay bill

That is a post about a bill in Indiana that would protect business owners who refuse service to someone based on their religious beliefs. Personally, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in my mind, does that very thing, but as we’ve seen a baker sued into closing his business because he wouldn’t take someone’s money, and pastors threatened with their sermons being labeled as “hate speech,” so we know that the push for “equality” isn’t above denying the very freedom they scream for to those they disagree with.

But, it’s simpler than that. When a bill comes up that you support or don’t, VOTE or if it’s not on a ballot for you, call your elected official(s) and let your views be known. I’ve seen people screaming that this law or that, which “should be law to protect groups who need tolerance” was “stopped by bigots who hounded the House/Senate,” but when it comes to a law they don’t like, they simply demand their way be the only way. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t demand all laws you like be passed and enforced without question, while demanding all laws you disagree with be stopped without question. If you don’t like what those in power are doing, vote them out! If you don’t like that way the popular vote seems to go each time in your area, sadly, your choices are to move or just deal with it.

Finally, every private business has one right that needs no law, the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason. If you don’t like who they aren’t serving, don’t spend your money there, and encourage others like you to do the same. Help a business you do support compete, economics will either force them to change or to go out of business. But, suing and forcing someone to either fold or go away does nothing to strengthen your cause, it just makes you look like a petulant child throwing a tantrum because you couldn’t have more candy.

Smokey out

Why is this OK, but even suggesting different is “wrong” or “bad?”

It seems that not only are the “enlightened” members of the anti-gun lobby happy to simply vilify all gun owners, they’ve now moved to outright scare tactics, although I’m not surprised in the least, nor does the setting surprise at all. It seems that a group recently set up a “gun store” in New York City, one of the bastions of gun control with signs about “being there to help” on the door, only to start telling tales of how each gun was used in a crime (video in the linked page,) so aside from how they are selling firearms that were used in crimes, or at least should have been confiscated by Police, why is this OK?

I get angry at this for multiple reasons, yet it seems that no matter what, these idiots are praised by the media and the idiots in DC. First, this is blatant misinformation and manipulation, yet when anyone suggests that young girls considering abortion be shown images of their child via sonogram, to prove the child has a heartbeat and brain activity, we’re “forcing our views on children,” or “manipulating them so they choose what we want them to,” which is bad and wrong, naturally, while their choice to blatantly mislead and manipulate people is “working for a better society.”

Yes, I am pro-Second Amendment and pro-life, so naturally, my own beliefs go against the people I’m referring to above, but beyond that, the blatant hypocrisy astounds me almost as much as the “confusion” those same people show when you point this out. I have no doubt that they would claim that removing guns is more important than anything so they’re allowed to do anything they must to do so, while my believe that life begins at conception (which many doctors share) is “just belief and I shouldn’t force it on others.” Why is what they think and believe so much more important than those who disagree with them? Simply put, because the media and the government share their agenda.

Let’s look at their agenda versus those against them. This article highlights that their stance is firmly in the disarm everyone who isn’t in the military or law-enforcement camp. Never mind that they are the same ones screaming for more accountability every time a cop has to use any form of force, they want only cops and soldiers to have guns. Statistics are also useless, since these are the same people who will tell you they’d rather watch their entire family tortured and killed, then die themself, rather than “dirty their soul by using a gun.” Crimes committed while also using a handgun to aid in the commission of said crimes are relatively low these days, and that is somewhat in part due to more and more people legally owning and carrying weapons of their own. Think about this, what would you do if you wanted to rob a store, go to the one where the owner has a shotgun on the wall behind him, or the one where you know the owner actively supports gun-control? Criminals know that they are more likely to succeed when their victims can’t fight back, and that number is dwindling, so why is it that the gun-control people don’t mention it, it hurts their case, simply put.

On my topic, abortion, you see plenty of coverage of protests and marches for the “pro choice” lobby, signs with “not your body, not your choice” or the like all over the place, simply because anyone who dares disagree is quickly shouted down and hounded out of the area. Yes, I know it’s not my body, but I also know that the pro-choice lobby lies more than anyone else, and I can’t abide by that. Planned Parenthood was begun in the 1960’s as a way to control the African American population, but saying that now is “twisting history to deny women a choice that could save their lives.” Likewise, suggesting that students be taught abstinence ALONG SIDE CONTRACEPTION is “forcing religion on them.” Never mind that the screamers instantly accuse you of wanting to teach “abstinence only, forcing Christianity on students” which is not what most people suggest, and never mind that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to not get pregnant, any attempt to suggest that anything they say is biased is twisting the facts and they are just working to protect choice.

So, the question here is simple. Will you sit and continue to be lied to and manipulated, will you just ignore that a large percentage of your country is being lied and/or lying, or will you stand up and demand that those who scream for equality and tolerance begin practicing what they demand of others? It’s not an easy road, as when you point out that they are intolerant you’ll be branded a bigot, racist, chauvanist, or worse. Pointing out that they are lying, or even minimally twisting the facts to suit their own agenda is “accusing them of being evil and you should be shot for it.” The world will only get worse until enough people stand up and demand that those screaming for something practice that. Those who want to take something from the populous “for their own good,” no lie to do so.

So, what will you do?

Smokey out