Intellectual consistency isn’t easy for most

Everyone agreed that a creative professional should have the foundational freedom to decline work that conflicts with their conscience or beliefs. But, when faced with a situation that goes against current cultural expectations, like a Christian photographer declining to promote a same-sex wedding, the gears start grinding. If a law that forces someone to promote something against their beliefs is so laughable, so unimaginable…then why is it so difficult to extend the same freedom to a Christian creative professional?

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Intellectual consistency isn’t easy for most

  1. miforest says:

    Christianity is oppressive. always will be and must be destroyed at all costs. thats the underlying unspoken value here.

    seven minutes well spent here :

    here is also a good 5 minute hoover institute that explains how the theory was converted to a mindset and warrior mentality on the left.

    not one of these kids interviewed had their mind changed because of the core assumptions drilled into them by our culture. .

  2. C. L. says:

    Every time I start to write an answer, my mind says, “No, it’s a trap.”

    We all try to be honest with ourselves, but we are all human, too. The cultural acceptance of things that go against your values was brought up in the video, as the thing that makes it a tipping point if you are the type to go with the flow, i.e., you are a sheep with no strong beliefs. I think that if it became culturally acceptable to stone women in public, I would not accept it, and I would not do business with a person if I had seen them stoning a woman.

    The trouble is, it’s not always as obvious as my example above. It occurs, by design, a little step at a time until that step becomes accepted, and then another, and another, and another, and another, until one day you are stoning a woman in public or watching the pastor at your local church having sex with a kid bent over the altar, because to not do so would be going against the society that you have let happen one step at a time, by not standing for what you believe in. And that is what will be passed on to your children and grandchildren.

    So, yeah, targeting the Christian bakers and photographers and the like is a winning strategy, if you are on that side. They’ll take care of the kids in college for us. We can’t be trusted with the next generation already, even if they are our own kids.

    Yeah, it rambles and jumps around.

    • notamobster says:

      Tolerance is the virtue of those with no convictions of their own… It’s also selective & subjective.

  3. Jim22 says:

    I find the uninformed, unformed opinions of twenty year-olds to be boring. At that age they have never thought for themselves, never competed for a job or run a business. They have been supported by others their entire lives and they have been subject to teachings that reveal the bias of the teacher. In short they don’t have the tools with which to think things through. At that age they are still developing their brains and that development is incomplete. Asking them hard questions is a waste of time.

    I think the voting age should be changed to somewhere near thirty – extra points if you have a job and a family.

    • Ray Davies says:

      That’s part of the reason I’ve always advocated that no one under 50 should be in combat. After 50 you’re a lot smarter, you have no problem telling people to go fuck themselves, (You want that machine gun nest? You go get it.). We’ve got the family to a point they can take care of themselves (Most of us). and, by in large we’ve accomplished what we have wanted to do. Mainly, we would not put ourselves into the position (nor would the old folks we’re supposed to kill) where we would have to run or exert our tired old bodies.

  4. miforest says:

    that is why Mao used the red brigades to stamp out (literally) dissent in the communist party. These are the same people who are putting on black facemasks and tear gassing old people and women at conservative events . Ignore them at your peril.

  5. Jim22 says:

    I have been re-thinking protection against mobs of leftists. These seem to be pretty effective:

    SABRE Red Pepper Gel – Police Strength – Tactical Series with 18-Foot (5.5M) Range, 18 Bursts & Belt Holster

    $12.99 & FREE Shipping on orders over $35.

    From Amazon

    • C. L. says:

      Why not? Some leftists don’t seem to have a problem using it against speech they disagree with. It is a form of communication everyone can understand. On the other hand, you might not get a chance to use it to repel violence unless you are wearing goggles everywhere you go where there might be leftist protesters. They like to use it preemptively. Personally, I am shocked by the fact that they do this just to shut people up. I’m shocked by the level of violence they are willing to go to over differences of opinion.

    • Uke says:

      I feel like pepper spray is designed to be employed against an individual attacker, frankly, and would only enrage (without deterring) a mob looking for blood.

      Just my 2c.