The Week in Pictures - The 2nd Amendment Edition

From the guys at Powerline Blog:

Colorado’s ‘Hurt Feelings’ Exemption from the First Amendment

From National Review:

Yet instead of exhibiting a basic level of tolerance (or dignity), two priggish bullies decided to call the authorities when Phillips refused to bake them a cake. And the cultural commissars at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission soon ruled that he had discriminated against the couple.

The shop was not only ordered to alter store policy and start baking cakes for gay weddings — or else face debilitating fines, a consequence often reported on by the media — but also forced to provide comprehensive staff training, ensure compliance, and then file quarterly obedience reports with the government for two years. In these reports, Phillips has to describe exactly which remedial measures the shop has taken to conform and document the reasons any other patrons were denied service.

So, you know, I’m sure this is exactly how Thomas Jefferson imagined America would turn out when he was writing the Declaration of Independence.

So much for being tolerant of other's differing opinions. But this is not about tolerance. It's about forced acceptance.

Anti-Gay Democrat Fred Phelps Dead at 84

From Breitbart:

Fred Phelps, founder of the infamous Westboro Church and a Democrat who occasionally ran for office in Kansas, died Thursday at the age of 84. Phelps earned infamy protesting against gays and Jews, and at military funerals. The Democrat's followers would carry signs that claimed God hated his targets, and that the soldiers deserved to die.

I never knew he ran for office as a DEMOCRAT! ! ! !

Bull Conner, Democrat.

George Wallace, Democrat.

Robert Byrd, Democrat.

Abe Lincoln, Republican.

Notice a pattern?

Breeders -- How Gay Men Destroyed the Left

From the American Thinker:

Many of my allies who are opposed to surrogacy do not want to cast this as a gay male issue. They are right, since heterosexuals began the practice to alleviate the suffering of wealthy, infertile heterosexual women. Planned Parenthood does not seem eager to oppose surrogacy as exploitation of women, largely because it is career-oriented “liberated” women who often need to turn to surrogacy contracts, having aborted too many times in their twenties and then postponed childbearing to focus on their professional ascendancy. Once the glass ceilings are shattered, feminists will be quite hesitant to bad-mouth the trail-blazing pro-choice success stories who now decide they want to be moms at age forty-five and keep their equally privileged husbands happy.

Read the whole article, it's some food for thought.

Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake?

From the American Thinker Blog:

The article argues that the Baker's 1st Amendment Right was not violated when forced to bake a cake for the gay couple, but the 13th. the 13th Amendment, Section 1, reads:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

From the article:

This being noted, it seems that Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer has ordered Mr. Jack Phillips into a condition of involuntary servitude. Apparently Judge Spencer did not find Mr. Phillips guilty of a crime, as required in the 13th Amendment, yet ordered that he do work for the plaintiffs anyway.

In other words, the actual ruling requires the baker to bake the cake or face fines and potentially jail time. That sounds a lot like coercion to most people.

There are three possible ways for Mr. Phillips to deal with this situation.

Obviously, the first way would just do what the judge told him to do and bake the cake.

The second is to agree to bake the cake, but unless the judge also specified the retail price of the cake, establish a price for the gay couple's cake of, just to pick a number, $10,000. If they are willing to pony up the ten grand, take the money, and donate it to the church. I'm pretty sure God would understand.

Finally, bake the cake, but make it the most unattractive cake imaginable. Or in a related case, take the photos, making sure that none are in focus, or that they capture the most unattractive facial expressions possible. You can be pretty sure that the plaintiffs would not be sending more gay couples your way with rave reviews of your work.

Personally, I'm torn between the 2nd or the 3rd choice. My first instinct is to go with option 3 to stick a big middle finger to to those who forced me to bake a cake, against my convictions. BUT that may damage my business, so I think option 2 works the best and I would go with $50,000. The Judge can't force a price on me. Well, at least not yet.

Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake?

From the American Thinker Blog:

The article argues that the Baker's 1st Amendment Right was not violated when forced to bake a cake for the gay couple, but the 13th. the 13th Amendment, Section 1, reads:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

From the article:

This being noted, it seems that Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer has ordered Mr. Jack Phillips into a condition of involuntary servitude. Apparently Judge Spencer did not find Mr. Phillips guilty of a crime, as required in the 13th Amendment, yet ordered that he do work for the plaintiffs anyway.

In other words, the actual ruling requires the baker to bake the cake or face fines and potentially jail time. That sounds a lot like coercion to most people.

There are three possible ways for Mr. Phillips to deal with this situation.

Obviously, the first way would just do what the judge told him to do and bake the cake.

The second is to agree to bake the cake, but unless the judge also specified the retail price of the cake, establish a price for the gay couple's cake of, just to pick a number, $10,000. If they are willing to pony up the ten grand, take the money, and donate it to the church. I'm pretty sure God would understand.

Finally, bake the cake, but make it the most unattractive cake imaginable. Or in a related case, take the photos, making sure that none are in focus, or that they capture the most unattractive facial expressions possible. You can be pretty sure that the plaintiffs would not be sending more gay couples your way with rave reviews of your work.

Personally, I'm torn between the 2nd or the 3rd choice. My first instinct is to go with option 3 to stick a big middle finger to to those who forced me to bake a cake, against my convictions. BUT that may damage my business, so I think option 2 works the best and I would go with $50,000. The Judge can't force a price on me. Well, at least not yet.

Surprise - Waitress Who Alleged Homophobic Receipt Crime Lies About Everything, Co-Workers Say

H/T Ace of Spades HQ Blog)

Morales has been caught in multiple lies, telling co-workers she shaved her head because she had brain cancer and later telling them it was her friend who had brain cancer, her colleagues and friends said.

Watch the video.

Yet Another "Bias Crime" Story Turns Out To Be A Hoax Created By the "Victim"

From Ace of Spades Blog:

A lesbian waitress claimed she hadn't been tipped by a couple after she served them dinner. She claimed they wrote on the receipt "WE HATE YOUR LIFESTYLE!!11!" or something.

Her story went viral.

First of all, wait -- this went viral? This was big news? Really? Some alleged bad behavior and rudeness is now a national news story?

Anyway, somehow she was able to start receiving donations, and she got 10,000 dollars' worth of them. One woman sent her $3,000.

For her travails.

Well, guess what: The couple accused of the Sexuality Crime (or whatever) realized she was talking about them, and objected-- noting they'd actually tipped her 20%, and, more importantly than that, they could prove it. Their Visa statement shows a payment including a tip.

And the handwriting doesn't match theirs, either.

Another "protected" class victim perpetrating a fraud seeking fame and glory.

Is she related to Crystal Mangum?

Is everything known about Matthew Shepard is wrong?

There has been a lot of rumblings about an amateur journalist's book going around which challenges the legacy of the Matthew Shepard murder. Conventional wisdom states that Matthew Shepard was murdered simply because he was gay. However, the amateur journalist's Book, The Book of Matt, argues that Shepard was killed over a bad drug deal.

WTF?

The Weekly Standard has a long article about the book and it's author, Stephen Jimenez.

Read the whole article.