More Pro-Homosexual Discrimination
Some people are evidently more equal than others. Homosexual activists have long complained about discrimination and a lack of equal rights. But when push comes to shove, it seems that homosexuals are more than happy to agitate for inequality and discrimination.
Indeed, on a regular basis we hear of homosexuals demanding special privileges that the rest of the community are not supposed to enjoy. Around the Western world governments and the forces of political correctness are insisting that we must grant all sorts of special rights to homosexuals, lest we be seen as discriminatory and intolerant.
Any hint of special privileges for the rest of the community are under attack however. For example, men-only clubs are being told they must admit women. Yet when it comes to homosexuals, it seems Western law is heading in the exact opposite direction. Our ruling elites and trendy lefty bureaucrats want to give homosexuals the right to discriminate, and treat people unequally.
There are plenty of examples of this. The most recent made headlines today. It involves a lesbian company which has demanded – and won – the right to exclude males. Here is how the story is being reported: “A party company specialising in dances for lesbians and bisexual women has won the legal right to ban men. Pinkalicious was given the green light to stop men because they might pester women for sex. Director Julie MacKenzie hailed the VCAT decision a landmark, saying it made Pinkalicious the only women-only party in Australia.”
Not everyone was pleased with the ruling: “But Men’s Rights Agency director Sue Price slammed the ruling. She said it contradicted Attorney-General Rob Hulls’ move to open up elite men’s venues, including the Melbourne and Athenaeum clubs, to women. In May, Mr Hulls slammed private men’s clubs as ‘a throwback to a bygone era’ and said he wanted them to lose their exemption to anti-discrimination laws.”
It appears that Mr Hulls is all in favour of certain types of discrimination, and that his concern about “a bygone era” only extends to heterosexuals, and probably only white male heterosexuals. So much for equality and a fair go for all.
Of course there have been plenty of other examples of this pro-homosexual discrimination. For example in Victoria the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has had a history of pushing the homosexual agenda, in allowing homosexuals special rights over the rest of the community. In 2003 it allowed an exemption for a gay hotel to have men-only dance parties. It also ruled that similar men-only parties could be held throughout the state.
In 2006 VCAT also allowed another exemption to the Equal Opportunity Act by allowing homosexuals at three university campuses to have their own space. They will be able to refuse students who don’t identify as homosexual.
And in 2007, VCAT once more ruled in favour of pro-homosexual discrimination. It allowed a Melbourne pub yet another exemption from the EOA, allowing the pub to refuse entry to heterosexuals.
Many other cases could be cited. For example, in Cairns there is a gay-only resort. Interestingly, however, it has been forced to allow straights to come in as well, because of low returns from the gay travel market.
Moreover, if there is in fact discrimination against homosexuals taking place, it is not just the heterosexual community that is doing the discrimination. Homosexuals seem to have a pretty good track record of discriminating against each other. For example, organisers of a lesbian festival in Victoria sought to exclude not only male homosexuals, but transsexuals as well. The organisers wanted to ban everyone except female-born lesbians. They even managed to persuade the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to grant the organisers exemption from state equal opportunity laws.
While this blatant example of discrimination went largely unnoticed in the mainstream community, there was a huge uproar amongst the homosexual community. Various sides took to the debate, in numerous heated and acrimonious exchanges, as recorded in the gay press. The infighting lasted for several weeks until VCAT reversed its decision, saying that such a ban was illegal after all. In the end “Lesfest” was cancelled because organisers did not want to accept the VCAT decision.
During this kerfuffle, one homosexual writer penned an interesting article in the homosexual press. He spoke of rampant discrimination within the gay community, and said that the “bickering and infighting that I have witnessed within the GLBTIQ community in the last 12 months is atrocious”. He continued, “the gay and lesbian community continues to discriminate, ignore or even ostracise bisexual, transgender, transexual or intersex people. . . . I can cite many examples where the gay and lesbian community has done the above either accidentally or deliberately. It still does.”
So much for poor persecuted homosexuals being denied equal rights by heterosexuals. Not only are our ruling elites bending over backwards in granting special rights to homosexuals, but homosexuals seem to be pretty good at discriminating amongst themselves as well.
Indeed, all this rhetoric about inequality and discrimination has simply been a smokescreen, designed to get our eyes off of the real agenda: the complete normalisation and acceptance of homosexuality, whether we like it or not. Indeed, this is nothing but coerced acceptance.
In truth, the homosexual lobby has been very successful in reframing the issues here. As an example, an interesting article appeared in the gay press some years ago which outlined a strategy by which homosexuals could best implement their goals. It included the following elements: desensitisation; portraying gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers; giving the protectors a just cause; and making the victimisers look bad.
Here are some quotes from the article: “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so the straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. . . . Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, but instead make anti-discrimination as its theme. . . . In the early stages of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be down-played, and the issue of gay rights reduced as far as possible, to an abstract social question.”
The authors of the above article expanded their strategy into a full-length book, and amplified this theme: “Our ultimate objective is to expand straight tolerance so much that even gays who look unconventional can feel safe and accepted. . . . Thus our campaign should not demand explicit support for homosexual practices, but should instead take antidiscrimination as its theme. Fundamental freedoms, constitutional rights, due process and equal protection of laws, basic features of fairness and decency toward all of humanity – these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.”
This strategy of the homosexual community to shift attention away from homosexual behaviour and instead to focus on vague notions of civil rights, discrimination, and the like has been an ingenious and successful ploy. As Australian homosexual activist Dennis Altman put it, “The greatest single victory of the gay movement over the past decade has been to shift the debate from behavior to identity, thus forcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens rather than attacking specific and (as they see it) antisocial behavior.”
They certainly have been successful alright. Not only are they getting their agenda very nicely implemented, but they have even managed to convince gullible and witless governments that they should even have special privileges – including the right to discriminate and enjoy unequal treatment.
13 Replies to “More Pro-Homosexual Discrimination”
Thank you, this article is so true.
I think Rabbi Yehuda Levin – head of the Brooklyn-based Jews for Morality organization – said pretty much the same thing: “First they said they just want civil rights, and then they demanded same-sex marriages, and then adoption rights, and now they want a lowered age for consensual relations. This is the famous ‘salami’ piece-by-piece system.”
Romans 1:26-28: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections
Yes, Rabbi Yehuda, and Bill, are correct. It used to be the Gay Liberation movement; that’s in the past. Now it’s the Gay Power movement, and should be recognised, and described, as such. Any group that has been repressed and marginalised, first wants freedom, then equality, then power – sadly, I would have to include a group I would wish to identify with – the Christian Church. But remember, all that Bill describes here, there will one day be a complete reaction against. The bad motives and methods of it all will be seen, and openly acknowledged, for what they are.
John Thomas, UK
If “ Straight” as opposed to “bent” men are supposed to be chauvinistic towards women, what should we expect from “bent” men who have even less reason to take notice of women? Indeed the British labour government is awash with bent men but there is only one bent woman, Anglela Eagle in Gordon Brown’s cabinet.
The “homosexuals” if nothing else are into discrimination – against “lesbians”: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-13359.html
and against transsexuals http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-9516.html
And of course there are the gay Olympic games, gay football clubs, bars and hotels :
So much for integration, they are as bad as the Muslims. Do we have a black Olympic games? Black only Sunday? Black history month? Black hotels and bars?
Reading the comments and even contributing on Pink News is extremely revealing but above all tests one beliefs. I recommend it – but it not for the faint hearted. It is also here where one can expose the hatred, bigotry and underlying fascism of the gays.
David Skinner, UK
I note that the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby is pontificating about the evils of discrimination. http://mcv.e-p.net.au/news/christians-fight-for-the-right-to-discriminate-5849.html
If they are honest:
1) They would immediately move to re-educate their Pinkalicious sisters.
2) Not discriminate against a suitably qualified job applicant from the Australian Christian Lobby.
Think this is just a taste of things to come once Australia gets a Bill of Rights.
John Miller, Belconnen
I was on a forum yesterday discussing the “pinkalicious” article when someone posted the following comment
“Discrimination laws are discriminating. There are circumstances were genders, religions and politics cannot and should not be forced to mix and should be allowed to be selective within their ideas and belief and by ignoring those beliefs and ideals you are discriminating against them.”
My understanding is that this exemption was granted so these ladies can EQUALLY enjoy themselves every 6 weeks in a safe environment. Not exactly some politcal agenda here, just a bunch of girls who want to have fun.
Why is a men’s rights agency rep a woman?
But you miss the point. In Victoria we have a government hell-bent on taking away the right of Christian groups to see their values and beliefs respected, forcing them embrace those who hold opposing beliefs and values, yet with the many VCAT decisions we have the exact opposite. If lesbians can demand special treatment and be exempt from EO laws, then why can’t believers?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Why not? Many women know that extreme feminism has not served their cause, and has harmed their men. She happens to be one of those women.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Andrew Bolt has also written on the latest VCAT case: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_strike_the_melbourne_club_pink/ .
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Their aim is to create a state where the recognition of authentic gender definition suffers a penalty. They can only impress the Australian public so long with the prefab gay facade and superficial mardi gras mentality. Stands to reason that they want to institute preferential pro gay laws as soon as possible so that acceptance is not optional.
Peter Costello has written an article in the Age about discrimination and religious freedom.
Yes it was a very good piece indeed.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch