You Will Comply, Or Else

We now know perfectly well that the homosexual juggernaut is not about ‘live and let live,’ but about the complete and total beating into submission of all those who resist the militants’ agenda. Hundreds of examples have now made it quite clear that the homosexual lobby is not interested in anything less than the utter submission of everyone else to their demands.

And increasingly they have harnessed the might of the State to support them, coercing any and all recalcitrants to fall into line or else. My forthcoming book will look at all this in great detail, with fully documented examples from around the Western world.

SSM 21One recent flashpoint over all this is a new bill designed to promote freedom of conscience. Arizona Senate Bill 1062 which was passed last week by the legislature and awaits the Governor’s approval would allow certain groups to not have to provide services for events they object to for religious reasons.

The secular left and the lamestream media are going crazy about this one, claiming it will legalise discrimination. But the bill’s defenders say “the bill does not allow businesses to deny service to someone at an establishment such as a restaurant or coffee shop. The law looks to protect those with religious objections from being compelled to participate in or use their creative expression in circumstances that violate their conscience. Since there is no current law on the issue in the state, lawmakers hope to preempt situations such as bakers and photographers facing legal action for not working a same-sex wedding, as has occurred in neighboring states.”

Four recent commentaries on this have just appeared, and they each have helpful insights which are well worth sharing here. Albert Mohler says in part: “Christian automobile dealers can sell cars to persons of various sexual orientations and behaviors without violating conscience. The same is true for insurance agents and building contractors. But the cases of pressing concern have to do with forcing Christians to participate in same-sex weddings — and this is another matter altogether.

“Photographers, makers of artistic wedding cakes, and florists are now told that they must participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies, and this is a direct violation of their religiously-based conviction that they should lend no active support of a same-sex wedding. Based upon their biblical convictions, they do not believe that a same-sex wedding can be legitimate in any Christian perspective and that their active participation can only be read as a forced endorsement of what they believe to be fundamentally wrong and sinful. They remember the words of the Apostle Paul when he indicted both those who commit sin and those ‘who give approval to those who practice them.’ [Romans 1:32]….

“But the advocates of same-sex marriage are not friendly to the idea of toleration. One prominent gay rights lawyer predicted just this kind of controversy almost a decade ago when she admitted that violations of conscience would be inevitable as same-sex marriage is legalized. Chai Feldblum, then a professor at the Yale Law School, also admitted that her acknowledgement of a violated conscience might be ‘cold comfort’ to those whose consciences are violated.”

Blogger Matt Walsh said this about the Arizona bill: “The legislation simply solidifies a business owner’s right to act according to his or her religious beliefs (I say ‘further solidifies’ because the First Amendment already covers this ground pretty thoroughly). ‘News’ outlets like CNN, engaging in blatant editorializing (surprise!), refer to it as ‘the anti-gay bill,’ because part of religious freedom is the right to not participate in activities which you find mortally sinful.

“It’s not that business owners want to ‘refuse service’ to gays simply because they’re gay; it’s that some business owners — particularly people who work in the wedding industry — don’t want to be forced to employ their talents in service of something that defies their deeply held religious convictions.

“This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is, because some gays in some states have specifically and maliciously targeted religious florists, bakers, and photographers, so that they can put these innocent people in a compromising position, and then run to the media and the courts when — GASP! — Christians decide to follow the dictates of Christianity.”

He concludes, “I can’t force a Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me ‘Homosexual sex is a sin’ banners (I’d probably be sued just for making the request). I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork. I can’t force a pro-choice business to buy ad space on my website. I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary.

“I can’t force a private citizen to involve himself in a thing which he finds abhorrent, objectionable, or sinful. And you know what? I would never try. Maybe that’s what separates liberty lovers from liberals. For all their talk about ‘minding your business’ and ‘this doesn’t concern you’ and ‘live and let live,’ theirs is truly an ideology of compulsion. The free speech and expression of other citizens must be tamed by the whip of their lobbying, legislating, and litigating.

“It is, of course, ridiculous to insist that any man or woman has a ‘right’ to have a cake baked or t-shirt printed. It’s equally ridiculous to put the desire and convenience of the would-be cake consumer and t-shirt wearer above the First Amendment rights of the cake maker and t-shirt printer. But this is tyranny. It doesn’t have to make sense.”

Gary DeMar echoes these thoughts, saying: “What if a print-shop owner holds to a ‘pro-choice’ view on abortion and a pro-life group comes in and wants shirts and signs made that read ‘Babies are Murdered Here’ to use in front of an abortion clinic? Should the owner of the shop be forced to make the shirts and signs?
What if a print-shop owner who is homosexual gets an order for shirts and signs that are to read ‘God Hates Fags’? Should the owner be forced to fill the order under penalty of law?
Should a supporter of PETA who owns a print shop be forced to make signs and shirts that read ‘PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals’?
Should a baker be forced to supply cakes to a KKK-themed wedding or birthday party?
Should an atheist who owns a print shop be forced to print signs and shirts that read ‘All Atheists are Going to Hell’?
Should a printer be forced to print shirts and signs that read ‘Hitler Was Right’?
Should a photographer be forced to film and photograph a wedding that has a ‘White Power’ or KKK theme?
I suspect that the vast majority of people in America would sympathize with these business owners who were asked to do something contrary to their beliefs that is an advocacy position against those beliefs….

“The above examples would not be prohibited by law. Same-sex sex has special protection under the law. Laws have been written that say a business cannot refuse to support the behavior of people who engage in same-sex relationships and marriage. This is tyranny of the highest order. The First Amendment was drafted to protect speech, popular or not. My view of unpopular speech and someone else’s view of unpopular speech are equally protected.”

Finally, Ryan Anderson says this: “Part of the genius of the American system of government is our commitment to protecting the liberty and First Amendment freedoms of all citizens while respecting their equality before the law. The government protects the freedom of citizens to seek the truth about God and worship according to their conscience, and to live out their convictions in public life. Likewise, citizens are free to form contracts and other associations according to their own values.

“While the government must treat everyone equally, private actors are left free to make reasonable judgments and distinctions – including reasonable moral judgments and distinctions – in their economic activities. Not every florist need provide wedding arrangements for every ceremony. Not every photographer need capture every first kiss.

“Competitive markets can best harmonize a range of values that citizens hold. And there is no need for government to try to force every photographer and every florist to service every marriage-related event. Freedom is a two way street. And it requires allowing others to do or not do things that we might choose differently for ourselves.”

But it has all been a one way street here, with the homosexual militants demanding full subservience, while those with differing views are deprived of their basic liberties. This is a terrific way to destroy freedom and democracy. And it is happening right under our very noses.

[1446 words]

20 Replies to “You Will Comply, Or Else”

  1. I don’t see how in any so-called free country any business can be forced to do business with or give a service to someone, except in the case of essential services necessary for normal living.

  2. There needs to be a conscience objector clause. This applied to how you live, as long as it doesn’t deny the basic services like food clothing or shelter, for example.

  3. In reference to the governer vetoing the bill: “Brewer, who spent several days considering whether to sign the bill, said it had “the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and no one would ever want.””

    In fact, the absolute opposite is true. Activists can continue to target Christians with impunity, infringing on basic freedoms and making a mockery of the oft-repeated claim ‘How is it going to affect you?’ As examples now begin to number in their hundreds and are increasing with unnerving regularity, the opposite side has to invent cases of so-called ‘discrimination’ in order to bolster their argument that they are the victims, when in fact they are the most selfish and hateful of bullies themselves. Dayna Morales, the New Jersey waitress, Joe Williams, store owner in Tennesee, and Dylan Bleier and Matt Alden of Oberlin College, Ohio are just three recent examples.

    (A longer list including racial hate-hoaxers can be found here.)

    I maintain, most of the controversy on this subject is due to the fact that people confuse behaviour with identity. That’s why I have for years now refused to refer to people as ‘homosexuals’ or even myself as a ‘heterosexual’. A sexual attraction is not identity because – rather obviously if you think about it – I know it is not who I am! I am male, that’s it, and strange as it may seem these days, that is enough for me to be quite at ease with who I am. Homosexuality is never who a person is but what they do with their male or female sexuality. Comparisons to skin colour or other such morally neutral aspects of a human being are invalid. It seems to me probably more than 95% of what is written on the subject these days is total rubbish and utterly worthless because a fundamental assumption in it is completely false. It’s like they’re trying to build an expensive house – on quicksand – but still they claim the house is standing!

    Very disappointing from the governor. I can’t believe how backward and stupid people are becoming these days – 100% of people have a mother and father, yet somehow there are grounds to argue on this subject? Truly, a circle is now a square, and 2+2=5. It’s unbelievable.

  4. Remember two years ago Greens federal member for the seat of Melbourne introduced a private member’s bill for same sex marriage? His bill contained provisions to protect members of the clergy from being penalized if they declined to perform same sex marriages. Then he said words to the effect of, “the churches will come around on this issue eventually.”

    Will they do that willingly or will that be through coercion?

  5. It does seem that the homosexual movement is losing ground in several places. In Russia, India, Nigeria, Uganda have recently adopted anti homosexual laws where homosexuals can be jailed for being a open homosexual (Russia it was against homosexual indoctrination of kids). The homosexual movement is so keen on winning at any cost that they fail see the bigger picture. If they don’t change, it may get worse for them. Those countries see what is occurring in America and want nothing to do with the homosexual movement.

    For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Homosexual’s pushing for rights at the expense of anyone who disagrees is killing the movement. Let’s hope more people see this ugly side of the movement.

  6. I couldn’t agree more, John.

    How do multiculturalists reconcile their criticism of Russia and Uganda for their domestic laws on homosexuality with their ‘respect’ for all cultures?

    They can’t. Yet they can’t even see the idiocy of their position.

  7. Next there could be laws banning anyone trying to stop infanticide, even chaplains or siblings could not protest to the child not to choose being killed. There maybe books in the school library asking you if you feel you are suffering, and should choose to request infanticide.

  8. Ross, it will be by force not coercion. Good words mate.
    I advise you to have a look at Vladamir Putin on you tube .
    People in Russia have something to hope for now, but if you listen to the MSM, you’ll think he’s the antichrist.
    BTW, I noticed tonight that apparently 68% of Australians support the right of a woman to choose abortion. Up from 33% in 1983.
    What happened here??
    Apostasy and feminism.

  9. …and Dave Blount’s moonbattery site just keeps on bringing out what matters on this subject. I’d quote something, but really the entire article) is worth reading, especially the end of it where he correctly predicts that ironically those who engage in and/or enable this kind of activism will be the first against the wall to be shot when it all collapses.

    Why is he correct? Because any reasonable student of history knows the purpose ‘useful idiots’ serve to the communist elite. (And you have to be clueless to think that promoting homosexuality as equal is good for a civilisation – where do your next children come from?) This incredible video from former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenoz explained the objective of government control decades ago – and the relationship to undermining moral standards that have proven themselves to work. His time-frame might be slightly askew (I believe the deeper entrenchment of a predominantly Christian culture and political system has slowed it down), but there is no denying the overall trajectory that is taking place.

    John is right to mention the countries that are resisting this insanity. Jamaica is another. One only has to take a common sense view of where a country will be in 50 or more years promoting homosexuality – compared to one that isn’t – to realise how it will eventually be overtaken in any number of ways. Shackling sexual behaviour to particular forms that are always infertile, often proliferate sickness and sometimes lead to death, isn’t exactly smart. And this is before you even consider the moral issue before God.

    It astounds me that a free country is committing suicide like this. A country walking away from the blessings of God is only a plan that can come from the father of lies himself.

  10. Thanks Bill for warning us about Romans 1:32 regarding people who ‘approve of those who practice (sinful behaviour)’.
    I was also reminded of Martin Luther’s quote ‘… to go against conscience is neither right nor safe …’
    It’s important to keep this in mind when tempted to endorse these sinful behaviours by our actions.

  11. Gov. Brewer is no conservative: just a lackey of the GayStapo. They don’t want equal rights; they want special rights. No one would force a Jewish or Muslim butcher to sell pork, or a gay T-shirt company to sell “Marriage = one man + one woman” t-shirts. But this liberal governor refuses to protect Christians from being forced to violate their consciences. She is just like Obama, whose Obamacare is forcing Christian businesses to violate their consciences—and we already know that the governor is on board with this.

    Time for a primary to put a real Republican in the Arizona Governor’s mansion.

  12. The much-celebrated “diversity” of Western multiculturalism raises many questions – It demands an implicit rejection of any binding, foundational, cultural truths: For one, in such a world, truth is “individualised”. Belief in ethical and spiritual fundamentals is rejected in favour of an “anything goes” approach to ethical and spiritual matters, where everything, including epistemology itself, is a valid subject for questioning and “deconstruction”.

    When man wipes out of blurs ethical and cultural horizons, the only potential unifying force left for humanity is a new creed of aggressive doubt, where the boundaries between crime and legitimacy are constantly on the move.

  13. Hey Bill, that Kirsten Powers you praised in A Tale of Two Women – of Faith has proven a great disappointment. If she is a real Christian, then she certainly has a lot of spiritual growing to do, since she still makes an idol of leftardism, e.g. supporting the GayKK coercion in Jim Crow laws for gays and lesbians? It’s the same boring old mendacious comparison with laws against inter-racial marriage. Al Mohler points out in Caesar, Coercion, and the Christian Conscience: A Dangerous Confusion:

    The most lamentable aspect of the Powers and Merritt argument is the fact that they so quickly consign Christians to the coercive power of the state. They should be fully free to try their best to present a biblical argument that the right response of Christians is to offer such services. But to condemn brothers and sisters as hypocrites and to consign their consciences to the coercion of Caesar is tragic in every aspect. We can only hope that they will rethink their argument … and fast.

  14. The lamestream media bears much of the blame for the success of the homosexual mafia in pushing it’s propaganda onto society.

    One of the worst is the ABC, well known for it’s leftist bias, and its constant refusal to acknowledge such, in spite of it being a contravention of its charter for impartiality and balance. The ABC’s contempt for ordinary Australians who fund it, is typical of the Left.

  15. The truth is that homosexuality is a sin against God.  But these people suppress this truth by demanding approval of their sinful behaviour from Christians to appease their consciences. They foolishly deceive themselves into thinking that wrong is right and try and force Christians to agree with them.

    ‘Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.’ (1 Corinthians 6:9b-10)

    But they are not without hope:
    ‘Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.’ (Isaiah 45:22)

  16. Dear Bill,

    We are praying for torrential rain in Sydney tonight so the Mardi Gras is a real wash out.

    Sadly even St George Bank was promoting the Mardi Gras on Friday in the MX free Magazine.

    Sadly the senior management only see potential $$$ signs and have no idea about what is wrong and what is right. This is happening more and more now.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *