You have probably seen this meme on the Facebooks, probably posted by a smug, sanctimonious progressive. (Is there any other kind?)
First of all, it is – like every progressive left argument – fundamentally dishonest. None of the people persecuted by the Lesbian Gay Bullying Totalitarians (LGBT) have refused to serve gay people. They simply did not want to participate in a gay wedding. Big difference.
Second … and this is the bigger deal … no gay person has ever suffered any real harm because someone didn’t want to bake a cake for them. This is a huge difference than being denied emergency medical care, where there actually is quantifiable harm, despite the dishonest attempts by the progressive left to conflate the two.
In the progressive totalitarian state, there is no tolerance for the individual conscience; only the tyranny of the minority forcing their views on the politically unfavored.
The correct answer to this is, “No thank you; I would prefer not to be cared for by a bigot who thinks anyone who disagrees with her is a mass murderer who should be executed.”
I would also insist the hospital open an investigation into any deaths that have occurred on “Nurse” Holland’s watch, since she’s demonstrated that she is bigoted towards and would rationalize treating ppl who disagree with her as Nazis.
Does she think there’s some Pizzacratic Oath in the food service industry? What a way to totally trivialize the fundamental doctrine of her profession.
I wrote this on the subject:
What do you call it when you’re forced to serve someone else? We used to call it slavery. Nowadays it’s called ‘equality’, as witness the hoo-rah over Indiana’s ‘religious freedom law’ (number 18 in a series of 50), which merely states that you cannot be forced to serve anyone against your beliefs.
Apparently it’s okay to enslave anyone who’s not a favored son (er, I mean daughter) of a social justice class.
The SJWs forget that every law and every prejudice has an inverse: Imagine you’re a gay atheist, and are forced to serve straight religious people, against your strong beliefs. How do you like it now?
[For the liberals about to proclaim me a right-wing shill, I’m non-straight, non-religious, and libertarian. Maybe you should be forced to serve me.]
There have been angels of death nurses caught over the years. There are also plenty of nurses that don’t provide top notch care to any of their patients. Nicolas Stix shows the die verse city in the medical and science community when he posts those busted with fraud.
Someone should investigate this Isabel Holland and let her employer know that she has posted her views on social media. I wonder what their view of that would be, if she is, indeed, a nurse.
And also, last I checked, the medical insistry is heavily regulated and controlled by federal and state law. Not so much the wedding cake industry.
A does not equal B.
I’m so confused. . .
Nothing new, but I’m glad the 2-3%er national socialists/communists have been forced out into the open for the sleeping giant to observe their behavior.
I fear it’s a whole lot bigger than just 2%–3 % though.
Just the current beneficiaries of the NJ State Teacher’s pension fund exceeds 2% of the total population of the State.
I’ve seen numbers indicating that counting all Federal, military, state, county and local governmental bodies; they “employ” over 50% of the ENTIRE working-population here in New Jersey — plus those public employees who live here and work in New York or in Philly. Add the healthcare-industrial-complex and you’re probably closer to 70% of the entire working population. So figure atleast 10% are hardcore unreconstructed commies or closet (small-n) natl. socialists.
The obvious difference is that someone could die if denied medical care, especially in an emergency — nobody is going to die if they don’t get a wedding cake from their preferred supplier.
Wedding cakes are not life and death emergencies.
The equivalent comparison would be a baker having to bake a cake with a swastika on it for a KKK initiation ceremony.
The wedding cake was never the goal; destroying a conservative Christian’s livelihood is the goal. I’ve never liked the response that a plaintiff can purchase a cake elsewhere because it masks and trivializes the point of these lawsuits, it misdirects the issue away from the rights of a businessperson (i.e. the freedom to refuse service to anyone for any reason), and the availability of similar services isn’t always applicable. Whether a homosexual couple (or any other couple, however defined) can purchase anything wedding-related from another provider is beside the point. I fear that public accommodations laws are going to have to be found unconstitutional and such a decision upheld by SCOTUS in order to rid ourselves of this modern slavery.