Hitler Denied Homosexual ‘Wedding’ Cake

by / on April 7, 2015 at 6:23 am /
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrDigg ThisDigg ThisShare via emailShare via email Share

I know that if you’re like me, you’ve probably seen dozens of these “Hitler” videos in various scenarios. But this one, where Hitler is upset that he can’t seem to force Christian businesses to make things for homosexual events, is worth watching for a number of reasons.

Freedom-lovers, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Ted Cruz 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly

CareNet

  • Pollos Hermanos

    Glad we’re down to fighting over cakes, pizzas and flowers since the big battles are already over.

    Nice work on going full Godwin by the way.

    • DCM7

      “Glad we’re down to fighting over cakes, pizzas and flowers”
      Yeah, like that’s really what it’s about.

      • Pollos Hermanos

        Oh I know what it’s about. Christians want special exemptions from long standing non-discrimination laws. There is a lot of foot stomping and bluster but in the end they’ll lose this battle just like they lost all the others.

        See Newman V. Piggy Park if you want to see how this will all shake out if it ever gets to the high court.

        • DCM7

          “Christians want special exemptions from long standing non-discrimination laws.”
          Well, that’s what we’re *supposed* to believe it’s about. But unlike you, some of us know better. (PS: Your slipping “long standing” into your statement is quite amusing.)

          “they’ll lose this battle just like they lost all the others”
          Unjust laws are still unjust laws, no matter how universally applied. Your side should know that based on how long and universally it got away with laws that discriminated against blacks.

          • Pollos Hermanos

            Go ahead and look up Newman v. Piggy Park. I’ll wait.

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              First, I would suggest you read what black economist Dr. Walter E. Williams has to say about freedom, so you can get your mind right and embrace liberty instead of embracing tyranny. townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2010/06/02/the_right_to_discriminate/page/full

              Second, there is no religious basis upon which to justify racism and segregation-certainly no Christian one, which is the religion of 80% or more of Americans. The Bible, in both Genesis 1 and Romans 5:12, indicates that ALL human beings share a common ancestry from two people who were created by God. Romans 10:12 indicates “There is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him.” And 1 Corinthians 12:13 indicates we are all the same, as does Galatians 3:28, and Colossians 3:11. Further, partiality is contrary to Christian doctrine: “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.” (James 2:1)

              What was his supposed religion? I never saw what his religion precisely was referenced anywhere. Sorry, you don’t get to just make some crap up and conveniently call it “religion” to justify your depravity. A genuine religion has to have some sort of historical grounding, not to mention a grounding in reality that attempts to answer at least some of the “big questions” of existence. There is no indication that I’ve been able to find that Bessinger’s so-called “religion” had any such components.

              Third, I suggest you come to grips with the reality that there is no legitimate comparison between an innate, morally-neutral physical characteristic such as skin color, and a dangerous sexual behavior that every major religion recognizes is immoral, as well as every major religion recognizes is not in conformity to the only logical combination for marriage: a man and a woman. Two men or two women lack even the fundamental hardware with which to create a functional union of two human beings, much less everything else that the combination of a man and a woman bring to the unique marital relationship. Society has no compulsion, not even any justification, to recognize the illogical and dysfunctional friction between two body parts as anywhere remotely useful and purposeful like the union of a husband and a wife.

              Finally, has anyone ever used a knife, hammer or fist in an illegitimate manner with the purpose of doing or defending a wrong? I think we all know that a few people have done this a number of times. According to your purported logic (i.e. that because a racist tried to pervert a legitimate liberty-religious freedom-to justify an illegitimate and immoral behavior-racism-religious liberty should be banned), we should ban the use of knives, hammers or fists. After all, some people use them for evil goals.

              Of course, rational people understand that you do not ban the use of legitimate things simply because a few people use them toward perverted ends (we’d have to ban the use of penises and vaginas because of the perversions of homosexuals, if that were the case :-). A mature, healthy people promote the proper use of legitimate things, and discourage the illegitimate use of those legitimate things.

              Recognizing these truths would be good places for you to start a much-needed journey toward overall truth and reality.

              • Pollos Hermanos

                Why does it matter that he’s black? He’s wrong either way.

              • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

                He’s 100% right, because he’s on the side of freedom, not the agenda of identity politics. The only relevance his skin color has is the fact that, while some people seem to think you have to be “this” or “that” in order to understand “this” or “that,” the truth is the truth, regardless of one’s affiliation with certain identity politics demographics.

                The fact that you can’t even see that when a black man champions freedom over identity politics reveals just how extreme your anti-liberty agenda runs in you.

                For the Left, it’s all about forcing other people to bend to your will (when the Left has the power to make it happen, that is; when the Left isn’t in a position of power, it’s all about “tolerance” and “compassion” then.). The hypocrisy and embrace of tyranny is truly breathtaking.

              • DCM7

                It’s interesting how you flatly state what you think is “wrong” but make no serious attempt to show why it is. Well, it’s not like you’d really be able to show it anyway.

  • franklinb23

    While I appreciate your consistency of support for business owners to deny service to anyone for literally any reason whatsoever, I don’t think this is exactly what groups supporting RFRA are suggesting.

    Nevertheless, I’d be curious to know their reaction if you asked if they supported permitting white business owners to legally deny services to blacks merely because they were black.

    Do you suppose this type of “freedom” would be embraced by the general population, even amongst most conservatives?

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      No, this isn’t what RFRA is about. It deals only with freedom on the basis of religious conviction and expression, not general freedom.

      Obviously, after decades of Leftist indoctrination and dumbing-down by our Leftist education and media establishments, most Americans would be like babies trying to eat steak and would find it difficult to handle the true freedom about which Dr. Williams speaks.

      Nevertheless, it is important to have goals, moving step by step from a diet of milk to a diet of meat. First we must beat back the assaults on liberty which attack the first freedom of the First Amendment, then we can move on to return to the freedom where private property owners can do with their property what they want, simply because it is they, not the state or anyone else, who owns that property.

    • DCM7

      The constant comparison of black civil rights and “gay rights” is really tiresome, given how utterly and completely false that comparison is. The worst part of it is that the overall worldview of the people making that comparison in support of “gay rights” is exactly the same as that of those who denied rights to blacks. It’s the worst kind of hypocrisy, and entirely unworthy of being used as a talking point by someone as generally reasonable as you seem to be.

      • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

        Too true. Leftist propaganda artists use it because they know most people are programmed to respond negatively in knee-jerk fashion against anything that carries a racist connotation, whether that connotation be true or false.

        And along the lines of what you just said, it’s interesting (though sad) that the same ideological camp that once manufactured an excuse for one type of evil (racism and institutional denial of freedom) now leverage their past misdeeds as a club with which to excuse a new type of evil (homosexual behavior and the counterfeiting of marriage).

        You can’t make this stuff up. Daily I am reminded of Isaiah 5:20 and the kind of world we get when evil is allowed to gain ascendency.

      • franklinb23

        I’m not saying it’s the same. I’m saying that sincere religious believers had an opposition to interracial marriage, not in spite of their religious beliefs but because of them (such as those at Bob Jones University once did). Why are their religious beliefs not worthy of consideration but the beliefs of Christians who oppose gay marriage are?

        Christians who oppose interracial marriage for Biblical reason aren’t necessarily irrational bigots. As such, you can’t summarily dismiss their claims to religious freedom just because you don’t agree with their exegesis (at least if you’re going to be consistent).

        IOW: if you allow religious freedom to opponents of gay marriage, I don’t see why you should NOT extend it to those who oppose interracial marriage (or non-abortive contraception or interfaith marriage or any other issues of morality divided along sectarian lines).

        Bob writes: “same ideological camp that once manufactured an excuse for one type of evil …”

        Are you referring to the Democrats? I’d hardly call an opposition to “race mixing” a purely Democratic invention. It was more a Southern thing, regardless of political persuasion. Some used Scripture to justify their opposition to it, some didn’t bother trying to justify it at all. Today, the Klu Klux Klan opposes gay marriage as well as interracial marriage (again on supposedly Biblical grounds). What this says, I’ve no idea since neither party wants to claim this group as supporters.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          I don’t know specifically what the objection at Bob Jones University was, but I suspect it follows the typical “logic” racists use to “justify” their bigotry: because God warned ancient Israel not to intermarry with other “races,” that means people of different ethnic backgrounds were NEVER to marry.

          However, that house of cards collapses pretty quickly when we examine why God instructed the ancient Israelites not to intermarry with other “races.” Was it an ethnic thing? Did it have something to do with the color of their skin? Their hair? Their eyes? No. It had EVERYTHING to do with the religious beliefs and moral practices of the “races” that surrounded Israel. They were some of the most evil and vile people groups this world has ever seen engaging in rampant sexual immorality (including temple prostitution, homosexual behavior, etc) as well as bloodthirsty practices like child sacrifice. And as anyone who has ever been married will tell you, married people tend to adopt the attitudes and practices of their spouse…and human nature being what it is, it usually ends up being the better one adopting the “path of least resistance” and going with the attitudes and practices of the less moral one. God intended the people of Israel to be not only his people (and as such, they needed to distance themselves from sin to have good communion with a holy God), but to be an example to the entire world.

          Still, there were some notable exceptions for people who were willing to abandon their pagan allegiances and embrace the God of Israel (e.g. Rahab of Jericho and Ruth of Moab-both of which ended up in the lineage which produced Jesus, the Savior of the world).

          So as you see, the prohibition against intermarrying with other “races” (which, in today’s terms, would be more properly referred to as “nations” or “people groups” or even “religions”) had nothing to do with ethnicity or skin color, but rather (as with all things moral) attitudes and behavior.

          To give a real-world example, I’d have no problem with my daughter (we’re white) marrying a Christian black man, but I’d have a lot of grief over her marrying a white Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or atheist. (My “Best Man” at my wedding was a black man, and I have a number of “mixed race couple” friends.) Why? Skin color doesn’t mean anything more relevant than hair or eye color, while beliefs about Who we are eternally accountable to is BIG TIME important.

          But we’re not just talking about beliefs here. We’re talking about leveraging the power of government to force another person to serve you-an egregious violation of property rights, not to mention freedom of association and other types of freedom.

          I’m not saying we shouldn’t give bigots views any consideration, even if they’re wrong (at least someone ascribing to the aforementioned misinterpretation of the Bible has some documentary basis, unlike the person who theoretically just made some crap up, even if it’s patently wrong). As Dr. Williams says, a true commitment to freedom means you allow your fellow Americans to do what they want with their own property (so long as it doesn’t affirmatively cause injury to someone else), even if you disagree with them. People are under no obligation to give credence to erroneous opinions about skin color, any more than they are under an obligation to give credence to erroneous opinions about aberrant sexual behaviors. But what a person does with their property is their business, so long as they aren’t using that property to affirmatively do injury to someone else.

          The truth is, a person doesn’t even need conscience or religious liberty as a justification to refuse service to someone. It’s their property; it’s theirs to do or not do with as they please. The same is true for the Christian who doesn’t want to participate in the counterfeiting of a wedding, the Jew who doesn’t want to bake a Nazi cake, the Muslim who doesn’t want to serve pork, the homosexual who doesn’t want to affirm real marriage, or the atheist who doesn’t want to do anything that affirms God. The fact that the property is YOURS is enough justification for you to determine what you do or don’t do with your property (which includes your own labor).

          But the fact that a person has a moral, religious objection to performing an action adds to the strength of the justification for not doing something with your property and your labor that you don’t want to do…and it makes forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do even more egregious. After all, the founders of our country established religious freedom as the FIRST freedom protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Knowing what they believed about the importance of conscience and religious liberty helps us understand why they considered this the paramount freedom of all freedoms:

          Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . [and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. – James Madison

          No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience. – Thomas Jefferson

          Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. – New Jersey Governor William Livingston, signer of the U.S. Constitution

          Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience. – John Jay, First Chief of U.S. Supreme Court, author of the Federalist Papers

          Our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. – Thomas Jefferson

          It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. – James Madison

          Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…[and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. – James Madison

          The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet’ and `Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. – John Adams

          As for the Democrats’ longstanding embrace of tyranny, it’s something that has been common to Democrats across the country regardless of geography (there happened to be vastly greater proportion of Democrats in the South originally because the Democrat Party embraced racial hatred, and that worked to the advantage of those invested in the economy of slavery). And it continues today with the Democrats penchant for keeping black Americans enslaved to the government for their perceived needs, as well as the Democrats zeal for forcing people to bend to their will, whether that be through the big government culture fostered by things like global warming hysteria, to forcing people of conscience-in defiance of the First Amendment, state constitutions, as well as federal and state RFRAs-to participate in immoral behaviors or suffer damage or loss to their property.

          As I said, the same camp that was the driving force behind trampling the liberty of black Americans now uses the very example of what they did then as a tool for a new trampling of liberty of Christian Americans today. The irony (not to mention the duplicity) is truly golden!

          • franklinb23

            Well, I think there’s going to be an impasse here.

            We should at least admit this: both camps are generally completely consistent.

            Those on the right feel business owners should be able to refuse service to anyone, even if it negatively impacts Christians.

            Those on the left think business owners should NOT be able to refuse service to anyone, even if it means having to involve themselves with far right wing events (at least the ones I’ve spoken to).

            These are matters of principle over which I’m not sure how it’s possible to compromise.

        • DCM7

          “Christians who oppose interracial marriage for Biblical reason aren’t necessarily irrational bigots.”
          As Bob has touched on, there is no actual Biblical reason for opposing interracial marriage. And many, if not most, people who oppose legitimizing homosexuality know that.

          “Are you referring to the Democrats?”
          Actually I’m referring to a broader umbrella under which Democrats tend to fit: secularism, particularly as expressed through Darwinism. The idea of there being “inferior races” is totally Darwinist and not at all Biblical. That it happened to infect Southerners, and even “religious” people, is beside the point; that kind of thing is far from uncommon. But one has to look at its source, not just at where it may have spread to.