Yes, how dare anyone exist that does not support YOUR position.

How you got that from the article he linked to is beyond me. It says the exact opposite of that.

…even the declaration itself would be viewed as a civil rights violation.

Viewed? Possibly, by some. Successfully prosecuted as such? Well, I can’t think of an example of such… can you point one out?

“It just does not make any sense how an organization (and that goes for any political party or individual) can be described as fearless and admirable by advocating abortion. It is cowardice and goes against reason”

I don’t agree with abortion any more than you do, but I do believe that some pro-abortion advocates have solid reasons for supporting it. Those reasons are wrong, but the people holding them are being reasonable.

I think anyone who generates heat and stands their ground is being brave. I don’t have to agree with someone to admire their character.

I know that some people like to portray their opponents as being beyond reason and as being weak, but I’m not one of them.

Yes, how dare anyone exist that does not support YOUR position.

How dare anyone give money to an organization that has a position you don’t like!

It must be nice to have the power to say “This is what I believe, therefore it is a civil rights issue and nobody has the right to dispute it.” Everyone else in America – even blacks – have to establish civil rights via due process, but you have the right to simply make a decision as to what you think people ought to be entitled to, and BOOM! anyone who disagrees can be run out of town, tarred and feathered, or deprived a business license.

And this is called “Diversity”.

Exactly. If one believes in objective truth, then there exists “something” outside of ourselves from which we all draw nourishment and can agree upon.

Where does ACLU derive their moral compass and logic? It just does not make any sense how an organization (and that goes for any political party or individual) can be described as fearless and admirable by advocating abortion. It is cowardice and goes against reason.

About the actions of this mayors, I think the Huffington Post on the issue is very good and clear: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/shut-down-chickfila-prope_b_1703781.html

I believe that if the mayor of any major city were to declare that gays (or blacks, or Muslims, or Jews – etc.) were not welcome to do business in that city, and were to declare that the mayor intended to use his position to deprive a member of that group of the necessary permits – solely because that member had displayed the traits peculiar to that particular identity – if such a thing were to happen to any identity other than evangelical Christian, it would not be enough to simply point out that there are conservatives who disagree with the position.

I believe that if it weren’t for the double standard – if Christians were granted the same civil rights protections that gays, blacks, Muslims, and Jews are entitled to – an investigation would be warranted, and punishments would be called for.

Because even the declaration itself would be viewed as a civil rights violation.

Even the act of saying such a thing – with obvious intent to intimidate (don’t even think about applying for a permit in this town!) and the obvious intent to denigrate (your kind are not welcome in this town) is itself the sort of act that would be recognized as criminal, if it were aimed at gays or blacks or anyone else on the “right” side of the double standard.

One of the things I respect about the ACLU is that they make everyone angry at some point, including me. While the organization is fundamentally liberal, it works according to its own logic and is willing and perhaps even eager to anger other liberals as well as conservatives. They don’t mind being unpopular.

So yes, I’m not happy with their decision to try to force hospitals to violate their conscience on abortion, but I still admire the organization’s integrity and fearlessness.

I get tired of watching people turn absolutely everything into conservative v. liberal, good v. bad. I think Reno’s formulation of moral minimalism is his way of justifying separating the liberals he likes (who all live in the past) from the liberals he doesn’t (who all live in the present).

Here’s ACLU being liberals in 2010, from National Review:

“The ACLU now seeks to unilaterally rewrite a federal emergency-medical-treatment law passed by Congress in 1986 to mandate that all hospitals provide abortions. But for more than three decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, federal law has firmly established strong conscience protections for individual health-care providers and hospitals who are reluctant or unwilling to “counsel, suggest, recommend, assist or in any way participate in the performance of abortions or sterilizations contrary to or consistent with” their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” (Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255945/aclu-s-unholy-war-catholic-hospitals-michelle-malkin)

I wonder what you mean by liberals: the classic liberal or the new liberal, practicing (allow me to borrow from R.R. Reno) “moral minimalism”?

In reply to your statement of the Westboro Baptists, I stand with Supreme Court Justice Alito dissenting alone in ALBERT SNYDER, PETITIONER v. FRED W. PHELPS, Sr., et al. He writes, “Allowing family members to have a few hours of peace [to bury the dead] without harassment does not undermine public debate.”

Certainly, the Westboro Baptists have the right to free speech under the First Amendment but in doing so abuse the law and tar the sacred. Why else would they picket funerals except to get a reaction? Is that true charity, in the Christian sense, not the bastardized secular version? (Although I am not a lawyer, I know the Supreme Court does not have the last word and that the law is not always perfect; they have failed to protect life by prematurely passing Roe v Wade.)

In this episode, the ACLU is protecting Chick-Fil-A’s President Cathy the right to say he believes in the biblical definition of marriage. Mr. Cathy is defending the sacredness of marriage that is the bedrock of society, which ACLU fails to realize; the classic liberal defends the sacred, that which is good, true, and beautiful.

The liberals you speak of, I known not.

“ACLU surprised me, defending Mr. Cathy’s statement, protected under the First Amendment”

The ACLU’s action shouldn’t have surprised you. Despite the demonization of liberals prevalent among many conversations, liberals frequently defend conservatives and conservative causes. Such defenses are part of liberal principle. Thus, while liberals urged the Supreme Court to allow Westboro Baptists to continue shouting their hatred, it was conservatives like First Things who urged the Court to deny Westboro Baptists of their free speech and religious liberty.

Because we all know that gay-friendly places would love it if their ideological rivals did something like this to them.

You mean like the Westboro ‘Baptist’ Church? Or these people, or these people, or these people?

Dude, you can call out any behavior you dislike. Go for it. But I can’t help but notice that you only seem to call it out when people you disagree with are doing it…