Nothing says love of God and country like a good-old-fashioned “WHITES ONLY” sign, and they could be coming soon to a Colorado motel or bakery near you courtesy of state Rep. Gordon “Jim Crow” Klingenschmitt.
Klingenschmitt, a Republican from the netherworld of El Paso County, is on stage this week at the Colorado Capitol, where he’s ready to persuade fellow legislators that the state has no business making business people do things that are against their religious convictions.
Lord, help us all.
You may not know this particularly worrisome soldier of his very own God, but you soon will. Klingenschmitt, aka YouTube’s Rev. Chaps, is arguably the biggest hater of gays, liberals and all things non-Christian under the Gold Dome. This is a guy so kinky that the state’s GOP chairman had to tell the world last summer that Klingenschmitt doesn’t speak for Republicans. At least he wasn’t talking for Colorado members of the GOP when he said:
”The open persecution of Christians is underway. Democrats like (Boulder Congressman Jared) Polis want to bankrupt Christians who refuse to worship and endorse his sodomy. Next he’ll join ISIS in beheading Christians, but not just in Syria, right here in America.”
Nothing like stewing a little old-time religion under an extra-large, tin-foil hat to make for good times in legislative committee meetings. (Note: Klingenshmitt made those comments before he was elected by his El Paso County brethren.)
So the good reverend has taken it upon himself to save the faithful from having to throw away their righteous religious mores, which of course would be a brand of Christianity you usually have to mail away for. Rep-van-Reverend Klingenschmitt has come to the Capitol to save bigots in bakeries from having to make wedding cakes for homosexuals, in the name of God.
Klingenschmitt’s entire proposal turns on the hugely embarrassing episode in 2013 where Lakewood Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for two men because he was offended by two guys getting nuptials. Phillips told the men that he doesn’t serve their kind, for the Good Book tells him so.
However, the good courts and civil rights commission of Colorado last year told Phillips that despite being filled with the Holy Spirit, his legal argument was full of shortcomings. He was ordered to take civil rights sensitivity training and must report regularly to the state to ensure he isn’t discriminating against other customers offending his religious convictions.
The Good Book talks to Klingenschmitt in the same way, only much louder and through a lot of Reynolds Wrap. It tells him that House Bill 15-1161 is the only way to keep godless gays and the liberals who love ‘em from trampling all over their First Amendment rights to religious freedom.
No, dude.
The very same argument Klingenschmitt & Co. are making — oh yes, he has fellow sponsors, such as state reps Patrick Neville, Paul Lundeen, Stephen Humphrey, Tim Dore, Kevin Van Winkle, Lois Landgraf, Perry Buck, Justin Everett, Bob Rankin, and Lore Saine — is the same argument Southern bigots made in support of segregation and Jim Crow laws.
Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, in a recent essay makes the link between the overtly racist days of the South and the current danger of sanctioning bigot bakers. She reminds everyone of the Piggie Park case. That’s where the South Carolina chain of barbecue restaurants said God was the reason owners should be able to refuse service to blacks.
“Its owner argued that, ‘his religious beliefs compel[ed] him to oppose any integration of the races whatever,” Melling wrote about the 1967 federal court case.
The court eventually ruled against the Piggies. Courts also ruled against the powerful Bob Jones University in 1983 when it tried to justify its bigotry because, “the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage,” Melling wrote.
Courts since then have been steadfast in agreeing that you can’t hide your bigotry behind your Bible. Sorry.
Rev-er-Rep. Klingenschmitt, trying to build support for HB 1161, cites cases where courts have ruled against government agencies trying to compel people to defy their religious beliefs in doing blasphemous things. Things like penalizing Jehovah Witnesses for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Klingenschmitt’s arguments flop because those are instances where no one is affected by the actions of those complaining. Those who cite religion as a reason to hate on gays are in the business of serving the public — like Phillips. So are hotel owners and managers. And doctors and nurses. And teachers.
Most people in Colorado would shun any business that had a sign on their door that said, “WHITES ONLY,” but Klingenschmitt and his pals think it’s OK to hang one up that says, “STRAIGHTS ONLY.”
Folks, only the names have changed on that kind of hate.
If HB1161 passes, it’ll be impossible to argue against discriminating, legally, against blacks, Hispanics, and uppity women demanding crap like equal pay.
Even if you’re from the troubled Republic of Colorado Springs, you’ve got to see the wisdom — if not the strong legal argument — behind not allowing businesses to advertise and back their bigotry based on their very own interpretation of whatever flavor of religion they like at the time.
I agree that bigots can say and believe any damned thing they want. That’s the other side of the First Amendment. But if they tell a gay couple looking for a wedding cake or a room for the night that God says they’re going to Hell, and that’ll be $85.32 for the second-floor view, they should at least have admit that the devil made them do it, not state law.
Reach Editor Dave Perry at 303-750-7555 or dperry@aurorasentinel.com. Follow him at twitter.com/EditorDavePerry
A perfect case for allowing only atheists to hold public office.
Didn’t we try that with communism and over a hundred million people were murdered?
Excuse me? Is there some sort of religious requirement for holding public office? I didn’t know.
Dave is a committed, evangelistic atheist.
To not want to be forced to support unnatural sex acts
=
Hate
LOL!
Who gets to define “unnatural”? You?
Nature. Get a human anatomy book.
Books are not nature.
In looking at nature I see a wide variety of sexual relationships based procreation and/or pleasure.
What you meant to say, I believe, is a book based on the same christian ideals you believe in.
FYI – anatomy is not behavioral.
I like to think that people that suffer same sex attraction are more than just animals driven by base instinct and selfish pleasure.
couragerc.org
Trust me, Aldo, you don’t have to support anything. It’s the law and you can just occupy yourself with other things.
There has to be a balance. Unfortunately we are heading to a case of only practice your religion in a closet. I am sure there were plenty of other cake makers who would love to have their money. Our founders put the First Amendment first for a reason. A grand mother should not lose all. https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/
I’m confused. How does this impinge on anyone’s freedom of religion? I have a feeling that making a cake with two men or two women on the top will not ruin a baker’s life any more than the same two men or women getting married in an area church will besmirch any baker’s own married relationship. Come on, get over yourselves.
So you might also support forcing a Paster to marry them. What is stopping the couple from utilizing other services. From the story I attached another couple was offered free services. But out of some since of maybe vengeance they attacked the florist. If you do not have a religious belief I do not expect you to understand. I also hold not discredit in your choice. Then the question could come to tolerance. Do the religious also deserve the same tolerance?
Churches are protected by the law. They can marry whoever they want or don’t want. A bakery or a florist is a business and is covered by anti-discrimination laws. By the way, I am a very devout Christian and have been all my life. While I think they’re mistaken, I support any church’s right to marry or not marry same sex couples (a position that more and more denominations no longer recognize). Again, the fact of the matter is that businesses cannot discriminate. As a matter of faith, I do not agree with many tenets of Judaism. That doesn’t mean I can refuse to make a wedding cake for a Jewish couple. Or is that OK, but just not for gay people?
The statement was on Pastor’s and not Churches. Talk to some Military Chaplains……You started from a basis to paraphrase ….how can making a cake ruin a backer’s life…..
With that statement you make an assumption on how the person practices their faith (most likely from a different view point than you) and how they will feel. You also make an assumption about how the couple will feel. That is a lot of assumptions, a lot of gutsy calls. More than I would like to
make without talking to each person. Now I do not believe you should have to leave your faith at home, just because you took the personal risk of starting a business. If your religion found something offensive about a Jewish couple (they do suffer prejudices and how should we phase it “work place, sporadic violence) then it is your business and yes you can deny service, not just to gays. It is not the business discriminating,
it is a person living to a set standard they have set. A tandard, a life they have a right to peruse in a free society IAW the 1st Amendment. Just like the gay couple has a right to peruse. There are plenty of businesses who will gladly take the couples money. There way of life is not being hindered. If the
neighborhood thinks that is wrong then they can protest with their business or lack of. The government should not take
away the families livelihood for the sole reason of them following their faith as they see it. No one is talking about
our past and indentured slavery, which by the way happens in many parts of the world today. We are not perfect but if
you look around the world we could be doing a lot worse. . https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/02/16/tsr-west-virginia-train-derailment-explosion.cnn/video/playlists/caught-on-camera/
Let’s make this very simple. Read the next sentence very carefully: In our country, it is against the law for businesses cannot discriminate against their customers on the basis of sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, Now did you notice that sexual orientation is on the list?
So it’s the law, plain and simple.
I know that what the law says. If you read the facts she
never discriminated against his sexuality, she had been friends with him and provided florist services for him for years. Sometimes we create new laws that have unintended consequences on old laws. Has happened many times before. We have just created a new law (gay marriage). In the process we maybe infringing on other people’s rights. Why is it wrong to look for a middle ground? Why is it wrong to try and be tolerant to both sides of an issue and not the, progressive- my way or the highway attitude.
Unfortunate these new laws may not be affecting how you
practice religion but are clearly affecting others. We are heading down a path of watering down the First Amendment. …….….Now please let’s not enter the land of laws conversation. Over the past few years we have increased the events of cherry picking which laws we will abide by and enforce. The Supreme Court has had to step in and course correct some blatant attempts of not following/circumventing the law. One of which was another attempt at watering down and nullifying the First Amendment……… So please let’s stick with this issue of finding a way of showing tolerance, not just for the person who bangs the pots and pans loader but for all. Are we not smart enough to have tolerance for all people? Why do we
fire an Atlanta Fire Chief, not because he discriminated but because he put his religious beliefs in a book? Why are we forcing military Chaplains to perform something that they believe is against their faith? Why are we condemning a florist (then trying to buy her off with pieces of silver) who had not shown any discrimination against a gay man, just could not support the union, it was against her faith. Why is this movement of tolerance so intolerant?
As I said before, I’m not sure how a gay couple buying a cake affects or violates how someone practices their religion. You haven’t explained that. Nonetheless, the law is the law and has been upheld by judges both conservative and liberal.
Remember that laws like these became necessary because some people did not show tolerance or acceptance of other groups.
By the way, I know gay bakers and florists who definitely don’t discriminate. Goodness, they even sell their flowers and cakes (including wedding cakes) to people who don’t agree with or approve of the fact that they are gay. And these gay folks may not agree with their clients’ views religious or otherwise, but they sell to them just the same. And, you know what? When the sun rises the next morning, they are just fine.
In a nut shell the florist committed no discriminatory acts and was friends of the gay man. Her strong religious belief as is held by many is to love all, no matter lifestyle, as did Jesus. She just drew the line on not supporting the union, she supported and did not discriminate against the person. The Fire Chief did not discriminate, he was guilty of stating his religious beliefs in a book. These are just two examples. The fact that you may not be able to see I this affects tier ability to practice just means you may not understand their belief. So just because you cannot fathom it you create words of intolerance because you cannot see. That is the same crime the LGBT community is persecuting people who state or practice their religion, that the religious cannot see.
Alright so you do not feel there is a middle ground. That you only hold tolerance in this case for the LGBT community, because you cannot or will not see the other side.
Here I disagree and feel we are smart enough to find and have tolerance for all.
Fifty or sixty years ago, a black or (worse yet) mixed race couple coming into a bakery in Denver might well have been treated the same way this man was treated. Good Christian folks would say it violated their faith to do that. It’s really just a soft bigotry that is no different than the Jim Crow south or Apartheid South Africa. The only difference here is that the bakery owner is saying it violates his religious beliefs to do that, something I’ve never, ever heard voiced with regard to matters of ordinary commerce. Hey look, I think we’ve made our points. I do see the other side of this argument, I just totally disagree with it, AS DO THE COURTS. Have a good weekend, Jmech.
I believe you are right we have made our points although the story above is heart felt it has almost no resemblance (and many key differences) to florist in Washington and zero resemblance to the Atlanta Fire Chief and Military Chaplains.
The courts also upheld slavery. I this case I have faith the
courts and the people will uphold the 1st Amendment. When we want to be we can be a compassionate people. I have faith that we will. Good day Sir.
Great talking with you. Glad to share views/thoughts. Have a great weekend!
What a crock!
If I were the baker, I would have done a real crummy job on the cake and the decorations.
In answer to your question about a middle ground, the courts that are ruling in favor of same-sex marriage have not forced churches to allow gay marriages. Churches can continue to discriminate to their heart’s desire (though more and are embracing their gay members and performing marriage ceremonies in their congregations). That’s the middle ground.
It is also the law women can have thoer children dismembered in the womb. It was also the law that people could own human beings. Being a law does not make something ok.
Yes, we do live in a society of laws. I never liked paying my tax dollars for Bush’s wars, but I paid them because I live in this country and it’s my duty to do that. You may not like Roe vs Wade, so you don’t agree with it. But it is the law. And businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of certain things, one of them being sexual orientation. If you want to make up your own laws, go start your own country and go for it. OK, Aldo, I’m done here.
there it is, BUSH and the Republicans, I knew you had it in you Retiree, nothing but a liberal hiding behind ‘it’s the law’! to espouse his liberal views.
You never give up, do you? Yes, I’m a liberal and I don’t hide it. Bet you loved the letter to Iran sent by the 47 ninnies in the US Senate.
I did indeed, they spoke for me, and the rest of the ‘thinking’ people of the US, those who know that Iran has lied and cheated on every treaty they have taken part in, EVERY ONE. They threw out the UN inspectors from the nuke sites, and now Obama-Kerry are going to be the ones to make them tell the truth? Cut it out, take off the blinders, pay attention to what’s going on.
Did the founders of this great country write the ‘sexual orientation’ scenario? Nah.
They wrote the phrase ‘Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ for all. But your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the courts who are ruling against this kind of discrimination. Go to it!
If you believed Judaism is a false religion then you should not be forced to go against your conscience.
Oh, I can’t resist. Put this sign in your storefront: “NO JEWS!”. You’d fit right in in Nazi Germany.
In most religions it is a sin to engage in unnatural sex acts. It is also a sin to be complicit in other people’s sin.
And those churches have a constitutional right to go right on discriminating. You should know, however, that some Christian churches don’t hold with your view, and they are ordaining gay clergy and marrying gay couples. You may think they’re all headed for hell, but that’s what they’re doing. OK, now I’m really out of here. Nice chatting with you, Aldo.
Yes, please go and live your life the way you see fit, why include others who don’t believe as you?
Yeah, let’s have a gay parallel universe. Gay car dealers, gay grocery stores, gay freeways, gay restaurants, gay whatever. That ain’t gonna happen. I hate to tell you, but you encounter gay people every day. You’ve probably gone into public bathrooms with them. You’ve probably watched sporting events with them. You’ve probably served in the military alongside them. You may have had your life saved by one of them. You’re so easy to respond to. Have a great weekend gofast.
‘anything goes’ Who will be responsible?>
I guess that by “anything goes” you mean anything you disapprove of, that there are absolutes (meaning your absolutes) which define the right way to do things. And anything that falls outside of this little box of ‘Right Ways to Be’ is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Silly and simplistic, but why would I be surprised by this coming from you?
I ‘mean’ PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, partner. Not my way, the responsible way, the ‘adult’ way, the conscientious way.
‘Silly’? No, responsible. Until people are held accountable for their actions, and ‘anything goes’ is the rule, this country will fail miserably, but you can’t seem to get your head around that.
Dope, men marrying men, ‘rights’ (and yes, I agree we all should have certain of them, but not to the point of the ridiculous) bizarre behavior of any kind, tolerated and accepted, no discipline in our public schools, ‘protests’ over the police doing the jobs without risking their lives, ‘protests’ over thugs being shot for assaulting and threatening those in authority, no partner, you and I will never see eye to eye. I want restrictions, you want ‘unabated freedoms’ at no cost.
Skin color is not an unnatural and immoral behavior choice.
This article is wrong. The cakeshop was totally willing to sell the gays baked goods, but it was against his principles to participate in the wedding. Unless he’s the only bakery in Denver and cake is necessary to survive, he should be left alone. And, btw, Civil Rights for African-Americans and “gay rights” are TOTALLY different things.
Could you expand on your last statement?
As Marie Antoinette once declared … “Let them east cake”.
The “cake” she was refering to was actually the bread the state gave to the poor (e.g. welfare). France during revolution of france is actually a good example of what happens when a state bases itself on atheism. When that happens death usually follows (e.g. guillotine, genocide in the Vendee).
He’s fighting the good fight against ‘anything goes’ in this society, but he’ll lose. American has lost her way, and when the ‘anything goes’ crowd gets all of their ways in place, NO ONE will be responsible for anything in their lives, lawless renegades will be the rule of the day.
”
Colorado public businesses serve everyone, not just whites and straights”
What is a “private” business?