From the View page we have this vomit:

Gay rights won't fade as a political issue. The Republican base won’t let it.

Utter and complete crap.

Prominent Republicans calculated that if the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was constitutionally protected, the issue would become settled law and disappear politically. This would be welcome, they reasoned, as the party was on the wrong side of the politics and history.

Then Indiana enacted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act last month that critics said would allow private enterprises to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Arkansas followed with a similar measure.

After vehement opposition from businesses in both states, Republican governors forced modifications that make it more difficult to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

And what drove that "vehement opposition"? 

Let me point out what didn't drive it: A desire to evenly enforce equality of access to all goods and services irrespective of the provider of same and their personal beliefs .vs. those of the person doing the buying.

My evidence?  Right here.

Think that's an isolated incident?  Nope.  Not even close.  How about 13 gay bakeries asked to make explicitly Pro-Christian wedding cakes?

Where are the prosecutions?  And where is the screaming from the left on these bakeries, all of not only apparently talking about a hypothetical purchase but denied an actual attempt to buy, documented on video?

Now let me be clear -- none of these folks should be prosecuted for refusing something that grossly offends them in the case of artistic expression.  This is not public accommodation, it is artistry along with intimate involvement and actual, physical support of an event that is about to take place.  Absent the decoration and inscriptions nobody knows what the hell you want a cake for so it is you as the buyer who are explicitly demanding participation in your intimate event.

There is no legitimate reason for an individual who is about to undertake some sort of event to try to contract with another for the explicit purpose of assisting them in that specific event if that person has a serious ethical or moral problem with what is about to take place.  Such deeply personal events as weddings, funerals and the like are some of the most-intimate that we as humans engage in.  It is simply beyond reason to believe that such an individual about to undertake such an event would have a legitimate desire to have another individual that is personally convinced that the conduct about to take place is immoral or otherwise unacceptable be an intimate and innate participant in such an activity unless their motive is not to add to their own personal experience but to damage or destroy others.

That's what this comes down to when you evaluate it on the merits.  This garbage is part of the grievance industry -- the same sort of people who brought us the Duke LaCrosse "rape" case, the Tawana Brawley incident, the alleged gang rape at a frat house that never happened and more.  These people are not interested in justice, equality or anything of the sort.  They are very interested in destroying anyone with a contrary opinion or lifestyle and they seek not acceptance but rather forced cooperation with their most-intimate life choices while denying that same forced cooperation requirement to anyone else.

Step back a bit and think about the furor that arose among "corporate" entities with regard to Indiana, in particular Apple.  How do you square that position with manufacturing and sourcing of components from China, a nation that openly mocks what we call civil rights, say much less sales into nations that persecute and even murder gay people.

You can't, unless you step back and see that such force is only good when it benefits Apple and, specifically, Apple's Chairman (by increasing his net worth, of course.)

In other words it's perfectly fine for the law to require a Christian photographer to shoot a gay Apple employee couple's wedding -- despite the fact that such an engagement is an inherently intimate thing that the photographer finds personally repulsive (and as a result, whether intentional or not, is likely to come with a sub-optimal outcome) even if the only reason to engage such a person is to attack their moral beliefs (at the possible expense of the quality of your pictures!)

But, the same sort of concern for civil rights turned toward environmental destruction that sickens and kills children near the factories making components going into Apple's products, or for those who work at Foxconn assembling same is illegitimate because that's aimed at Apple and its CEO rather than at those who are "lesser."  In other words we can't have tariffs that are intended to support wage and environmental parity between nations (thereby destroying the incentive to exploit people and the environment under the faux banner of "free trade") because that benefits those who are not as worthy.

It's the same with so-called Globull Warming.  Al Gore thinks you should drive a Volt or a Tesla -- or even better, not drive at all. However, he doesn't think he should give up his 40' yacht that burns diesel at a rate of about 2 gallons per mile, nor should he give up his private jet instead of traveling on commercial flights.  Nor, for that matter, should he give up his palatial estate that consumes 10x as much energy as my home likely does, and 20x as much as yours.  This, of course, is because you (and I) are "lesser" and he is "greater" and therefore those proscriptions he wishes to have ensconced in law are for you, not him.

Another example?  How about Liam Neelson; he has made millions portraying himself as a gun-using good guy and going after bad guys.  Ah, but you see that's for him, not you: he doesn't think ordinary people (like, for instance, if you had the misfortune of being the father of a kidnapped daughter) should have guns as he's for lots of gun control.  You are lesser, you see, and therefore that which he portrays on the silver screen doesn't apply to little you -- only to big him when it makes him millions of dollars.

How about Obama?  He recently obstructed a pair of military members about to get married so he could play a round of golf.  He couldn't go sit at the bar for an hour or two and then play after the ceremony was completed, or, if his schedule did not permit, decide to play tomorrow instead.  No, he had to play now and the couple-to-be had to move their wedding.  A golf game is not a necessity; as someone who has played many rounds of golf (poorly, I admit) it's a luxury and one that is often baked through with frustration.  Yeah, Obama "apologized" but the fact remains: Those who serve our nation and wished to profess their love and had booked the venue were lesser, he was greater and therefore just barged right in.  A man who had a bit of humility (not to mention humanity) would have chosen to have a beer or two, then play on.  But not our President; me me me mine mine mine damnit is the order of the day for him.

I can list literally dozens of other examples and so can you if you think about it for about 30 seconds.  And let me make this quite clear just in case you think you're one of the greater -- unless you're Obama, Elizabeth Warren or similar you're not -- you're one of the lesser and you are being used.

My personal view is that no wedding should have anything to do with the state; if you want to get married you should go see whatever religious adviser floats your boat and have at it and keep it between the two of you and said religion, if any.

In other words there should be no recognition of so-called "marriage" in the civil arena whatsoever; if anything the State should instead recognize and be willing to enforce privately-negotiated partnership agreements in the domestic realm just as it does for any other sort of business arrangement.  After all merging two lives into one at an economic and personal level has business-related constructs to it and that's a place where the government can legitimately arbitrate disputes.  Trying to arbitrate disputes of the heart in a courtroom is not only futile it is none of the government's damn business!

THAT would be equality and, I might add, it would put a permanent stop to the 40+ year practice of unilaterally changing the terms of a couple's deal at literal gunpoint 10, 20, 30 or 40 years later, often at the gross expense of one party or the other -- yet another act that the grievance industry has feasted on for decades at the expense, in the majority, of children.

If we did that it would also erase one of the biggest strangleholds the grievance industry has in America today.

Shall we, my fellow Americans?