Cake is Speech

Marc Chagall was completely entitled to refuse to sell a bunch of stained glass windows bursting with Jewish imagery to the Catholic church of St. Stephan, Mainz, Germany. Although he didn't. I guess his moral standards just weren't as high as those of a Muncie cake shop. He was probably in it for the money.

Hannity insanity:

D'Souza then explained that opposition to the Indiana law "is a selective attack on Christianity."

"Not only do you not see the left talking about gays and lesbians abroad, but even at home, you’ll rarely find homosexuals trying to force a Muslim baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding," D'Souza said.

Of course the desperate plight of LGTBQ people under hostile governments and in dangerous environments in Christian countries like Uganda and Russia and Muslim countries like Iran and Pakistan and so on has long been an important cause for liberals and people of the left, as many writers have already noted.

What I wondered about was D'Souza's fantasy of the Muslim-American baker getting away with discrimination against gay brides and grooms because we powerful leftists give them a free pass, focusing our ire on Trinitarian confectioners. If I were Jon Stewart I'd certainly be sending a crew out to Brooklyn to check out whether the Muslim baker presents an actual problem. I'll bet you fifty bucks it would make some fun TV:

Get real

US Army Specialist Simran Lamba, first American Sikh soldier to have his religious needs accommodated since 1984, and about time, too. AP.

Allen West (last seen in these parts trying to prove that slavery was the liberals' fault) at the CPAC conference:

What are they afraid of, exactly?

Found art from Blogger of the Bride.

 The New Jersey state legislature is certainly more courageous than their truculent governor Christopher Christie, in bringing forward a marriage equality bill favored by only 52% of the population (Christie wants to submit it to popular referendum, apparently so nobody can say he had anything to do with it),  but why do they have to call it the "Marriage Equality and Religious Exemption Act"? Because the exemption, apparently, is as important to our civil rights as the bill itself:

The bill includes a religious exemption stating that no member of the clergy of any religion authorized to solemnize marriage and no religious society, institution or organization in this state shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It also includes another religious exemption stating that no religious society, institution or organization in this state serving a particular faith or denomination shall be compelled to provide space, services, advantages, goods or privileges related to the solemnization, celebration or promotion of marriage if such solemnization, celebration or promotion of marriage is in violation of the beliefs of such religious society, institution or organization.

Can't you just see the horror of life without these protections? Leather-clad Chad and Todd grabbing some helpless Baptist minister by the elbows, grinning sadistically, while a police officer mutters, eyes downcast, "Sorry Reverend, you have to do it—it's the law."