Indiana, Homosexuality and Hypocrisy
The recently passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana has unleashed a torrent of hatred, abuse and bullying from the militant homosexual activists. And it has also once again clearly demonstrated why the secular left are the biggest hypocrites around.
The law is pretty clear. As Eric Teetsel writes, “The purpose of the law is straightforward: RFRA requires that laws that inhibit a citizen’s constitutional right to religious free exercise 1) further a compelling government interest; and 2) do so in the least-restrictive means possible.”
Of interest, the bill, which goes into effect July 1, does not even mention sexual orientation. But the homosexuals and their militant buddies are frothing at the mouth, urging everyone to boycott Indiana because of this “discriminatory” legislation.
For example, “Angie’s List, the online service that provides consumer reviews of service professionals, publicly endorsed anti-Christian bigotry by opposing an Indiana law designed to protect religious liberties and freedoms.” But several dozen states already have such laws, and they are simply meant to allow for religious freedom.
Indeed, this law is basically the same as the 1993 federal RFRA signed into law by President Bill Clinton! It had been passed in the U.S. House unanimously and the Senate 97-3. So why aren’t the homosexualists and secular lefties targeting and boycotting the federal law, as well as all the other states which have similar laws? Hypocrites much?
Plenty of heavyweights have gone ballistic about the law. Tim Cook, chief executive of Apple, wrote a piece in the Washington Post blasting the Indiana law, whining about discrimination against homosexuals. But Apple is more than happy to do business with countries where homosexuals are treated far worse than anywhere in America, countries such as Qatar, Uganda and Nigeria. In some of these places, such as Saudi Arabia, homosexuals can be put to death. Hypocrites much?
As George Will put it: “There’s nothing more tiresome in modern American life than the indignation sweepstakes we get in all the time to see who can be most angry about this and that. Tim Cook … thinks Indiana is a horrible place. He opened marketing and retailing operations in Saudi Arabia two months before a man was sentenced to 450 lashes for being gay. The selective indignation is itself wonderful.”
And those who try to defend the Indiana law are being treated to – yes you got it, discrimination. For example, Ryan Anderson was seeking to explain the reasoning behind the Indiana law when the lefty MSNBC host Ed Schultz actually cut his microphone off! All in the name of acceptance and tolerance of course. Hypocrites much?
Another bit of foolishness, if not hypocrisy, is the way the lefties are claiming that this law is just like the Jim Crow laws which allowed restaurants to refuse to serve blacks. This is sheer nonsense, as Laurie Higgins explains:
For the umpteenth time, homosexuality is not analogous to race. Race is 100 percent heritable and immutable in all cases. Most important, race is not constituted by subjective desire or volitional acts. In contrast, homosexuality is not 100 percent heritable, is in some cases mutable, but most important, homosexuality is constituted centrally by subjective desire and volitional activity, which is perfectly legitimate to assess morally. Much better analogues for homosexuality are polyamory or consensual adult incest.
The truth is, small business owners have a right to exercise discretion as to what activities they promote or not. Matt Walsh mentions a number of cases of such folks being targeted by the homosexual bullies when they acted according to their consciences. He writes:
In all of these cases, offenders have been threatened, blackmailed, bullied, boycotted, fired, or legally punished for, in the minds of the gay mob, “discriminating.” Also, in all of these cases, not a single gay person was singled out, victimized, persecuted, or otherwise preyed upon for being gay. The bakers and bridal shop owners and florists and t-shirt companies and photographers never once “refused service to gay people.” They refused to participate in activities involving gay people, but they never said, “you are gay so you may not purchase a cupcake in my establishment.”
Ex-homosexual Joe Dallas explains this more fully from a Christian point of view:
I really think, in most cases, those objecting to homosexuality have no interest in discriminating against homosexual people themselves. They have no interest in refusing to serve them, make products for them, or welcome them into their business establishments.
Which is as it should be. Surely it’s wrong for a Christian vendor to deny service to someone simply because of their sexual preference, so the idea of refusing to serve a meal to a gay couple, or declining to rent a hotel room to a gay or lesbian person, is and should be unacceptable.
But that seldom happens, and most Christians wouldn’t want it to. Nor would most Moslems, Jehovah Witnesses, or Mormons, for that matter. When people of faith object, it is normally to an event, not an individual. This needs to be underlined: If and when we discriminate, it is not against individuals, but against practices, ceremonies, or events we cannot in good conscience support.
So Christian bakers generally will be glad to bake a cake for a lesbian woman’s birthday party, or a gay college student’s graduation. After all, birthdays and graduations are inherently good, regardless of who is celebrating them.
But that same baker may well object to lending his talents to an event he finds inherently wrong. If other bakers are available, willing, and in the same general vicinity, then no undue burden is placed on the same-sex couple if the Christian baker declines the job. Many businesses, after all, will be only too happy to get the patronage of couples who the Christian, Muslim, or Mormon businessman could not in good conscience service.
Religious freedom has always been a tremendously important social good in America. All that the Indiana law is doing is following in a long and proud tradition of upholding such liberties. As Michael Farris states,
Indiana is a late-comer to this issue. But, there is an enormous body of precedent for the principle that the Indiana law embodies. Not only do we have the federal RFRA and all of these state counterparts, we have nearly 400 years of American history which boldly proclaims that religious freedom is for all. After all, protection from religious intolerance was in fact a primary motivation for a great many of the early settlers of this continent.
But now there are significant forces in society clamoring against this Indiana legislation because it dares to stand with the principle that religious freedom is for everyone. Many Christians and Muslims believe that same-sex marriages are antithetical to their religious beliefs. And we are long past the issue of whether the government can be coerced by the judiciary to grant marriage licenses for such relationships. We are simply debating whether people can be forced to participate in such ceremonies contrary to their deeply held convictions.
Forcing a Christian photographer to use his craft to record a same-sex wedding is tantamount to forcing a Jewish butcher to slaughter pork to sell such products to people who demand a full-range of service. The leftist forces of “tolerance” are demanding unbending adherence to their doctrinal views of sexual ethics. Those who refuse to comply are being persecuted in what amount to heresy trials under so-called non-discrimination laws.
Religious liberty is a far different concept from religious tolerance. The Toleration Act of William and Mary in 1688, allowed very minor deviations from the orthodoxy of the Church of England. You could differ, but not too much, from the standards of the official church or you would be severely punished. Toleration is a cheap imitation of liberty.
We have to decide whether or not we still believe in liberty.
It’s a pity the forces of tolerance are so very intolerant. Let me conclude with the words of Bryan Fischer:
The real bullies and bigots in Indiana are the pro-gay forces who want to silence and punish Christian business owners. All of this hatred is coming from people who claim that they are all about “live and let live.” Hardly. If you have ever doubted that there is something dark and dangerous driving homosexual activism, just keep your eyes fixed on Indiana this week. What you see will alarm you, disturb you, and perhaps motivate you to do your part to push back against what Bill Maher calls the “gay mafia” before they destroy everything in their path.
I sure hope it does.
13 Replies to “Indiana, Homosexuality and Hypocrisy”
So the Saudi’s whipped a man in public for being homosexual? That’s grossly sadistic. But how ironic it is, though, that in San Francisco gay activists are behind that street fair that publicly celebrates sado-masochism.
Whatever happens in the world, regarding religious freedom laws, we are still going to be stuck with a world that contains homosexuals (quite why is beyond my understanding).
” …the idea of refusing to serve a meal to a gay couple, or declining to rent a hotel room to a gay or lesbian person, is and should be unacceptable.”
Why? it’s like condoning their relationship. Christian B&B owners have already been punished for doing just this. I wouldn’t sell my house to a gay person or gay couple, or rent it. It seems to me that the homosexual lifestyle will continue to flourish just fine, even with these new religious freedom laws… because non-Christians will fulfill their needs and requirements where Christians will not. Aren’t we supposed to be trying to discourage people from getting into the gay ways?
In medical practice christian doctors are protected by law if they refuse to perform an abortion because they hold on to the sanctity of all life. I believe this law is an attempt to provide same protection to business owners. The doctor will offer every other kind of service but the line is drawn when it comes to abortion. The business owner should offer services that doesn’t go against his/her faith and should be able to draw the line in other conflicting situations.
So a business no longer “reserves the right to refuse service”?
Certainly not based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.
So, a gay guy goes into a pub, gets drunk, goes up to a bar and asks for another beer. The barman refuses (because he’s drunk) but no, that will be turned around to say the pub discriminated against the gay guy because he’s gay, not because he’s drunk.
And what’s next, the right to walk into McDonalds and demand to buy a lawnmower. “But Sir, we don’t sell lawnmowers”
“My right to buy a lawnmower overrides your right not to sell me one!”
Joseph Goebbels would be proud of the world we are living. It is amazing we once fought this ideology that is now spreading like a wildfire.
As I read about this in the paper this morning I felt sympathy with the person who gave the advice, “Just laugh at it all, even if only hysterically”.
Likewise we have Jeff Kennett from beyond blue sprouting the comparison to left-handedness. A left hand will only write or cut bread, just like the right hand will but someone who has left the God given bounds for his/her sexuality can be an unexpected predator and I believe that is what fuels “homophobia” in the good sense, people just can’t be sure from which direction or towards which person an unwanted sexual advance could come from when sexual orientation is open to anything it fancies.
Australian newspapers have been attacking teenagers in school as “homophobic” because they use the term “gay” as negative slang.
If it’s okay for the homosexual lobby to steal the word “gay” and apply doublespeak, then why can’t teenagers?
While it’s already happening, this is clearly the beginning of a revamped push into schools to permanently establish reeducation programs for indoctrinating kids into accepting homosexuality as good, safe, and healthy.
I have been looking at American websites on this whole Indiana law issue, as well from the leftists on Andrew Bolt’s site, and I am appalled: appalled at the way homosexual militants trample not only on free speech, but on freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. The latter is being interpreted ever more narrowly as the militants trumpet “human rights” (i.e. for themselves), and “non-discrimination” (which for them trumps every other traditional freedom and “right”). I am also appalled at the weak-kneed responses from some people of Christian faith, and even common decency, as they crumple at the onslaught of the screaming militants (although this is understandable in a way).
Let me make the following observations:
1. So far the response from Christians to the “rights” rhetoric has been “responsibilities as well as rights”. This is inadequate. The Bible simply does not talk in these terms. Take, e.g. the Epistle to Philemon (often neglected). Paul not not plead for the human rights of Onesimus the slave (and Paul has often been criticised for this lack). He pleads for his master Philemon to receive him as a brother. I could cite more examples of the way Scripture does not talk in terms of rights at all. It talks rather in terms of duties. There is NO so-called “right” which is not in fact the other person’s duty. Let each take care of his duties and the so-called rights will fall into place. Obsession with rights is really carte blanche to the busybody; instead take heed to yourself!
Prof Cooray, then of Macquarie University, commented in a letter to the Australian 25 years ago, “A rights-oriented society will recognise a few rights: those demanded by the militant, the aggressive, and the nasty; and then trample on the rest”. That is what we now have in our (collapsing) society.
2. As to discrimination, what we see now is how “non-discrimination” is the ultimate evil, and how this trumps everything else. But this is baloney. I was gratified to see today how Newt Gingrich called the bluff of a journo from Huffington Post (with all her smarmy, self-assured aphorisms and pleas) by saying “baloney” to her objection about discrimination. The fact is that discrimination is a good thing: we do it every day. When we go to a restaurant and choose the roast pork on the menu as opposed to the chow mien we are discriminating. Dear me, the Chinese chef may feel affronted that we did not choose the product of his expertise! When we prefer classical music to “rock” we might be offending the guitarists and drummers in the rock band! Perish the thought!
But you may say these are not moral issues. Tell that to the politicians who want to ban “all discrimination”! But when we see a baker or cake decorator hauled before the courts for “discrimination” against homosexuals we have, very clearly, reverse discrimination, which shows how absurd the whole fad and obsession is, and how wrong of us to be, even to some degree, chiming in with this current fad.
Lest some object with a passage such as James 2:1-7, about the rich man treating the poor man unjustly. What we have there is partiality and favouritism, but that is very different from the modern trumpeting of “non-discrimination”. Witness here the cult of celebrities: film stars, sporting heroes, successful business-men – they ride high because they have money, rank and status, achievement, and success. The world sees no problem with exalting them above the rest of us lesser mortals! Remember the warning of our Lord, “what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” (Luke 16:15)
In short, on both counts, as Christians we should be repudiating the so-called ethics of the world, saying “bunk!” to their specious, distorted morality, to get off their train completely, and not be riding on the running boards saying, “We agree up to a point, but…” With that kind of plea the world will (quite rightly) ignore us, and even see us as on their side, albeit with a few misgivings here and there.
I have just received this from Dr Scott Lively who ran for Governor of Massachusetts in the last election so knows what is happening on the ground and what he is talking about. It makes interesting reading (funnily enough the same approach has been adopted by Islamists as well).
Indiana Meets the Borg
By Dr. Scott Lively
“Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.”
That was the message of the Borg to Captain Jon-Luc Picard of the Starship Enterprise on the television series Star Trek: Next Generation. The Borg was a conglomerate of species forcibly transformed into cybernetic drones controlled by a hive mind called the Collective. The Borg grew ever stronger by appropriating and exploiting the assets of whatever new species it encountered as it roamed the universe in pursuit of its insatiable lust for power over the lives of others. Both individual and corporate victims of the Borg were assimilated into the Collective, losing their identity to the hive mind.
This week, the State of Indiana met the Borg, which on planet earth is spelled LGBT. Like Captain Picard, the Governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, has attempted to reason with Borg and learned that there is no compromise with the Collective. “Resistance is futile” said Borg drone Tim Cook, the formerly human representative of the now-Collectivist entity Apple Computers. The refrain was echoed by a chorus of other drones, including some from the newly Borg-acquired National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Interestingly, the Star Trek Borg used a system involving microscopic nanobots to assimilate their prey but the LGBT Borg use media-driven fear-inducing psychological tactics instead (which is exceptionally effective on politicians). Governor Pence and the Republican Party of Indiana are, of course, being subjected to the assimilation process as we speak.
All kidding aside, whether or not it was intended as such by the Star Trek writers, the Borg collective is a chillingly appropriate metaphor for Cultural Marxism, the driving force of the LGBT movement. What we know as “political correctness” is simply the “group-think” of the Marxist hive mind.
No existing member of the American Marxist collective is allowed to dissent from the view that homosexuality and related perversions are deserving of legal protection and cultural celebration. Moreover, any dissent from outside the Collective attracts the entire body of Borg-like drones — like a swarm of hornets — in the single-minded quest to seek and either assimilate or destroy whatever person or entity has been foolish enough to challenge it.
Many Americans are surprised that major companies like Apple, Ebay, PayPal, and Angie’s List are leading the charge against Indiana on behalf of the homosexual movement. They are shocked that government entities like the State of Connecticut have banned all state-funded travel there. Wake up, America! That’s just how the LGBT Borg operates and it‘s getting stronger with every conquest.
The “gays” began assimilating corporations, government agencies and other entities more than twenty years ago. As a newly minted Christian social activist fighting the homosexual agenda in Oregon and then California I began observing and reporting on the phenomenon in the early 90s. It was a simple strategy implemented over and over again with machine-like precision.
Remember, first of all, that there no objective criteria for determining whether someone is “gay” — it’s purely a matter of self-declaration, thus so-called “closeted” homosexual activists can be the perfect “secret agents” for their own cause just by keeping their sexual proclivities hidden from their employers and co-workers. Many go so far as to marry the opposite-sex to protect themselves from suspicion. This is such a common phenomenon among homosexual men that there is even a name for the women they use for cover: “Beards.”
In any case, this is their process of taking over an organization:
They begin by getting one of their in-the-closet activists into a hiring position in the targeted organization. This agent then hires other “closeted” activists for all new openings for strategic positions. They hire some open homosexuals as well. Once they have a large enough body of activists inside the organization and in control of key decision-making positions, the openly homosexual members of their group lobby for and receive approval for the creation of a “Gay and Lesbian Employees Association.” The demand is typically backed by the “closeted” activists as well.
Once this political beachhead had been established, the “gays” begin working to gain control of the organizational culture. This starts with the adoption of a company anti-discrimination policy based on “sexual orientation,” followed by mandatory “sensitivity training” to indoctrinate all employees with pro-homosexual values and perspectives. These training sessions serve the dual purpose of identifying dissenters who are then targeted for termination after a sufficient paper trail is created to give the appearance that the termination is performance related. (As an attorney in California I represented several people who suffered this treatment after vocalizing a pro-family perspective during “gay sensitivity training.”)
Once the LGBT power-block had gained sufficient control, the resources, systems and assets of organization are commandeered to advance the “gay” cause outside of the organization. Charitable giving is diverted to homosexual organizations, business contracts go to “gay”-owned companies, and community influence and goodwill is directed to the support of “gay” political goals, such as the effort to force Indiana to abandon it’s new religious freedom law.
(The Indiana law, by the way, is not an attack on homosexuals. It is an effort to protect Christian businesses from deliberate attack by homosexual activists who use state and local anti-discrimination laws as an offensive weapon rather than the defensive shield they were designed to be.)
This relatively simple process is how thousands of American corporations, government agencies, non-profit organizations, labor unions, sports franchises, media outlets, judicial systems, law enforcement agencies, church denominations and even the Boy Scouts of America have been assimilated by the Collective.
So, America, is resistance to the LGBT Borg futile? Marxist regimes have been overthrown before. (And even Jon-Luc Picard eventually defeated his Borg opponents). I guess the outcome of this battle depends on how much we the not-yet-assimilated want to avoid becoming mindless slaves to the Collective.
Thanks guys. Unfortunately Indiana has already caved in on this. As if that is going to pacify the militants one iota!
Hmm, Naomi, interesting to read of those tactics.
But overall, there is an (il)logical conclusion to all this all-consuming hive mind/Borg stuff.
If the so-called organism has an insatiable thirst for power, once it consumes all “otherness” it will die, because it will be all that remains, and it will then have to consume itself.
With a movement such as the LGBTI activists, they will consume themselves much sooner.
There are some criteria of ethics and morality that cannot be punctured or watered-down without also destroying civilisations.
As though it were not difficult enough to grow a settled civilised culture through stability of the family, the family is now under attack from a new front.
Families and are now also faced with another insidious enemy which has slowly been undermining the stability of the family – the insistence of about 1% of the population who are now ever-more strident in demanding the same kind of “rights” to marriage, until now only afforded as a special privilege to (some) suitable couples.
This group of “gay” individuals now demand the right to appropriate the TITLE of Marriage as though everybody had automatic right to it.
Their REAL reason? Actually to DESTROY (real) Marriage by TRIVIALIZING it.
We must immediately recognise the DANGER: that if couples of the same sex were to somehow obtain this “right” — it would then legally justify and enable for other types of “marriages” to have similar legal “rights“, eg., multiple partners, father and daughter, close siblings, etc.)
This would spell the end of our culture by completely over-turning it.
It would destroy the sacredness of (true) Marriage.
It would destroy the sacredness and stability of family to which children DO have every right.
Ethics and morality (the most comprehensive of which are only provided by Christianity) are like a Life-Saver’s inflatable Rescue Boat: once punctured it becomes a deadly trap for all the occupants.
It is very important to NOTE that most “gays” describe themselves as “NON-believers” and are particularly HOSTILE to any idea of God … therefore all that “gay” “marriage” becomes is merely a distillation of satirical caricature of very bad taste.
This is NOT “gay-bashing”. It is our RIGHT to complain against the willful malicious destruction of our very culture.
It is NO LESS DESTRUCTIVE than if they set fire to our Parliament!
It is interesting to note that even though homosexual groups evidently “don’t see themselves as anything more than 1% of the population, and most saying that they are not even being remotely interested in marriage (because they “crave variety” in partnerships), a growing number of them now openly admit that what they actually REALLY want is “to turn western culture on its head altogether” by “normalising“ their lifestyle:
Why? Apparently desperate to eliminate the burdensome “cloud of guilt” which even non-religious “gays” appear to find particularly unsettling .
1. “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society…”
– Paula Ettelbrick, (ex-legal director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund)
2. “In the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. Since part of the compulsion of homosexuality seems to be a craving on the part of the homophile to ‘absorb’ masculinity from his sexual partners, he must be constantly on the lookout for (new sex partners).
Consequently the most successful homophile ‘marriages’ are those where there is an arrangement between the two and to have affairs on the side while maintaining the ‘semblance of permanence’ in their living arrangement.”
– Former Homosexual William Aaron (William Aaron, Straight (New York:Bantam Books, 1972)
3. “Typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in ‘transactional’ relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months.”
– research by University of Chicago Sociologist Edward Laumann (Adrian Brune, “City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says”, Washington Blade – February 27, 2004)
4. “Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”
– Researcher M. Pollak (M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times”, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster, New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985)
5. It is even more alarming to NOTE that “gays” themselves further EXPOSE their (REAL) agenda:
“…to get the public to affirm their lifestyle” … “to see government and society affirm our lives”
– (United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989).
(again, to lift that inconvenient “cloud of guilt”)
But most disturbing is that part of the homosexual agenda seems to be to alienate people from Christianity – which they perceive as “the enemy“:
“The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form – should be reason enough for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion” –
So what is their “Trojan Horse” strategy?
“DESENSITIZING the public“: “The first order of business is “desensitization of the American public concerning Gays”…..To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with INDIFFERENCE … Ideally, we would have “straights” register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games….At least – in the BEGINNING – we are seeking “public desensitization” … if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing…then your battle for [“equal rights”} is VIRTUALLY WON”
– (“The Overhauling of Straight America.” Guide Magazine. November, 1987.)
— The “gays” own admissions about their (REAL) agenda has put the whole matter in a very different perspective.
It is so important for us to defend WITHOUT DELAY what is worth defending:
– the very future of families and the defence of civilised customs, and
– the stability of family life and a father figure as leader and a loving mother – which every child deserves for a balanced and confident growth to responsible adulthood, and
– wonderful meaningful traditions which are slowly, insidiously being undermined and destroyed by the selfish, hedonistic wreckers of civilisation.
The family has been under serious malicious attack for decades and also by
a spiteful and destructive minority who would have us believe that that they do not ALREADY have legal rights (eg inheritance, superannuation, etc.) under the ALREADY available “legal unions” available to ANY two people (regardless of sex).
Therefore: Let “Gays” take advantage of the above legal avenues if they wish … BUT do NOT allow such irresponsible people to (FALSELY) appropriate the TITLE of “Marriage”.
It is time for the public to take note of this sinister agenda (already admitted by “gays” themselves) — that would terrify even George Orwell himself.