My Washington Times column for this week has been released. I hope you enjoy it! Please Tweet, Facebook, Blog and spread the word! Thanks!

I realize we may not all agree on this one, so I look forward to your comments here 🙂

And do considering chiming in over at TWT in Comments. The Gay Gestapo has organized themselves into a tizzy on this (I think I hit a nerve 😉 and are trying to make it as toxic as possible over there. I’ve already responded to a few but jumping in the pool in TWT Comments would be great in making sure the conversation isn’t one-sided 🙂

Washington Times: BRUCE:Why the veto of Arizona’s religious freedom bill is alarming

This section is for comments from's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
13 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Shifra says:

    Well done, Tammy. And yes, you seem to have hit a nerve among the Libs; some of the comments are so predictable and irrational. As usual…

  2. Tammy, thank you for a thoughtful and intelligent column. Thank you also for educating me on the left’s tactics. I’m very naive and immediately fell for the discrimination meme, and as a Christian, I know I am taught by God and Jesus to love. You’ve helped me see how despicable the left can be. It’s hard for me to imagine such broken people on the left wedging people against each other for his or her own gain since that is so contrary to the faith teachings and beliefs us Christians have, so again Tammy thank you. You always enlighten me.

  3. midget says:

    Thank You Tammy for using your popular place in the media to support a right given by God & our Constitution.The bakery people could have taken the order of the gay couple and made the cake with laxatives to show disapproval but instead were honest and above board, and for that they are penalized. All the Gay Gestapo accomplish is watering down the tolerance they expect but aren’t willing to show.

  4. Alain41 says:

    I commented at TWT (favorably) and have now received 2 responses forwarded to my email by the comment app. I don’t normally comment elsewhere, so I didn’t realize that I had responses automatically forwarded to my email. I think I need to turn that off. (not horrible responses, but don’t want to read unless I specifically followup at article)

  5. sandyl says:

    It was a great article, as usual Tammy. It is astounding how clueless these Gestapos are. One actually said that Christianity stops at the door of the Church. Under that logic gay rights end at their bedroom door, and rights of blacks end if they venture outside their own “kind.” Ludricrous logic! They actually quote the Constitution and then basically say it only applies to them. The point of our Constitution is that we are *all* free to be who we are. If you don’t approve you have a right to be discriminating and not choose me to be your friend. Newsflash for all the Gestapos out there— the world doesn’t revolve around you. Learning to play well with others is a two way street.

    I don’t comment on the web except for Tammy. I like a low profile on the web— not on FB or twitter–never have been. I vent here on Tammy’s blog.

  6. ancientwrrior says:

    Tammy, this gay business is only a small step in the progressive/liberal agenda of having everyone under their boot-heels. This is nothing more than divide and conquer until they have their completed objective, total control and Communism.

  7. Pat_S says:

    Tammy makes a valid point that these are manufactured incidents for political purposes. Agitators want to create strife and exploit emotions.

    These are situations where it is impossible to write a comprehensive practical law about religious rights. Frankly I think it is religious preening not to bake a cake for a gay couple. It is a bigger matter to force a religious photographer to participate unwillingly in a gay wedding he considers sinful. Those situations can and should be handled with common sense and old-fashioned courtesy even if feelings are hurt. Do you call a cop if a kosher deli won’t put butter on a roast beef sandwich?

    On the othr hand, religion can’t be an automatic trump card for opting out of things. I don’t think religious employers should be exempted from providing abortion coverage in health insurance. This is a form of compensation. They can no more argue their religious beliefs are being violated by providing insurance than by paying wages that the employee may spend on an abortion. The employer/employee relationship is not one of master over serf.

    Faith is insidiously under attack, but people of faith can’t expect a free pass whenever they claim it.

    • sandyl says:

      Pat you make good points, but I must disagree with the employer mandate. The employer pays an employee for work done. Paying for benefits may be considered part of the compensation, but the employer is free to offer or not. Companies have always had the right to decide the type and scope of insurance companies/plans/covered benefits (especially those who self-ensure). The employee doesn’t get to choose all that because it is a fringe benefit not a right, and they can take it or leave it. The employee is free to spend their earned compensation for anything they want regardless of how the employer feels about their actions, but just because pot is legal now doesn’t mean that the employer should be forced to pay for the bong. Same thing goes for abortion coverage.

    • ashleymatt says:

      I agree with you, Pat. There is no Christian dogma that says one will not serve gays even if you find their behavior sinful. Christ himself had dinner with prostitutes and tax collectors; he didn’t shun them as being “against his beliefs.” I also have a problem with the concept that one can have a legal exemption if he claims to do or not to do something for religious purposes. Who is to define what is a valid religious tenet and what is not? Any person can create their own set of arbitrary principles or non-principles and claim that it is their religion, which as you and I agree, is what the hypothetical bakers are doing. I don’t want to government to end up as the arbiter of what faith or religion is. I think the Constitution does a perfectly thorough job of outlining government’s role in our religious lives. If only lawmakers could get their hands on a copy of it…

  8. Dave says:

    Jesus: “If they hated Me, they will hate you.”

  9. Kitten says:

    Excellent piece, Tammy. You’re such a Pro at exposing the left’s tactics. Whenever you point out the flaws in liberal think, they always respond with irrational vitriol while twisting the context of the argument completely. It’s a sure sign you’re on the right track. Christianity and Judaism are under attack in America. It’s not time to be like quiet little “church” mice, but vocal about our religious liberty granted us by God, and adopted by the framers of our Constitution.

  10. makeshifty says:

    In terms of the political tactics, I agree with Tammy. There is another aspect to this that’s disturbing. I read a few legal analyses of SB 1062, and what they said was this was a big mountain made out of nothing. Sound familiar? 1062 did not make it easier for businesses to discriminate against gay people. It would’ve probably narrowed the ability of businesses to discriminate on religious grounds, had it passed. In fact one legal analyst wondered why the gay lobby wasn’t supporting the bill. It would advance their cause, if by inches. It was already legal in AZ for businesses to discriminate before this bill came along. The bill itself was an amendment to a state RFRA law passed in AZ in 1999, and the purpose of 1062 was to harmonize the state law with the existing 1993 federal RFRA law, passed during the Clinton Admin. The gay lobby made it out to be “the return of Jim Crow.” Nothing could’ve been further from the truth! This was not only an attempt by the Gay Gestapo, as you put it, to create a meme of “faith equals intolerance,” it was also a campaign event for the Left, on the order of the faux “War on Women” in 2012. BTW, the Left is trying to extend this meme into 2014, telling politically active single women, “If you are not active, you are on the menu,” citing Tea Party state legislators who are proposing or passing requirements for an ultrasound before an abortion. The controversy over 1062 was completely trumped up to rile up the gay rights constituency, to prepare for the 2014 midterm elections. Anything to distract from this administration’s failings, of course.

    Here’s a sample of what I was able to find on this:

    “For Marriage Equality, Religious Liberty, and the Freedom of Association”

You must be logged in to post a comment.