“Opening minds and angravating liberals since 2001”
“I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.”
Genesis 3:19 / John 3:16
My Friends and Fellow Oppressed:
THIS issue was written last week. The subject is still fluid and there have been some activity in this area. I felt it best to leave this as it is rather than to clumsily redact it and I will amplify on this in the Tuesday issue.
On an unrelated note I wish to take a moment to wish all my CHRISTian friends a very Happy and Blessed Easter and to be mindful of the significance of this day. To all my Jewish friends, I wish you and yours a Pesach Same’ach. Shalom. To all my non-believing friends, I wish you a happy day and with hope one filled with good thoughts and service to others. Carry on.
“THIS law does not openly allow discrimination, no, but what it does is create a road map, a path to discrimination” so sayeth one State Representative Ed DeLaney of Indianapolis, Democrat.
In case you have not been following the goings on in Indianapolis, there was a law passed that prohibits state laws that substantially burden anyone with any law that would inhibit them from following their conscience or adhering to their religious beliefs.’
(“Person”, in this case, can be an actual person a legal entity such as a business, organization, religious institution and others.)
Basically, it harks back to the gay wedding cake kerfuffle.
(There was a baker who refused to make a gay wedding cake and was sued. The case went to court and the baker lost and was assessed a $150,000 judgment. That drove him out business.)
Let’s get into the “Way Back Machine”…
Some (not that many) years ago sodomy was against the law. In fact there are still some states which have anti-sodomy laws on the books but not enforced. Sure, everyone knew there were gays. There was the “committed bachelor” uncle or the “spinster” aunt in some families. There were some people on TV and the movies that just did not seem right. Then came the Paul Lyndes and the Charles Nelson Reillys and others. (Not sure who was the first openly gay actor, perhaps Quentin Crisp?)
As it was not “socially acceptable” to be gay, they largely stayed to themselves. To be “outed” was usually the end of a career in many industries, even in liberal Hollyweird.
Then came the end of the Blue Laws (you saw that coming), the permissiveness of the 60s and all of a sudden while not widely accepted by most of Americans, the counter-culture and hippies were like so cool with that, ya know… lie, whatever turns you on man.
Then there were the “Stonewall Riots” in 1969 in Greenwich Village, in NYC, a gay bastion. This was during the time of race riots, still smoldering from the Watts Riots some years earlier and a year after the Democrat National Convention Riots in Chicago and other anti-war riots of the time. (Hippies? They were a riot!)
So, when the smoke literally settled the war was still on, the blacks did get some respect and their civil rights and the gays were coming out of the woodwork as well as the closets.
But there was still a social stigma for many years in the mainstream through the 80s and 90s and into the new millennium. Lawrence v. Texas all but opened the floodgates and “legitimized” homosexual behavior.
To make a long story short there was an issue when cops went into an apartment without permission of the owner and “allegedly” came across two males in flagrante delicto. They were arrested under Texas’ anti-sodomy law.
There were a number of machinations with respect to the arrests went down, the trial and finally the appeal. The thing what was said over and over again by every liberal was “we only want to have the right to do whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy in their own bedroom! That is all! Nothing else! We are not looking to get married, we are not going to dance in the street naked, blah, blah, blah…”
Repeat a lie often enough…
Those of you who were “lucky” enough to get the FISH back then will recall what I predicted. I said that IF Lawrence prevails, there will be partying in the street with every kind of sexual deviancy on display and that is will be a stepping stone to legalize gay “marriage.”
Lemme ask you, what happened?
Yup, the day after the ruling there were parades, the dykes-on-bikes, all but naked folks in the streets in the areas with predominantly gay residents and ever since then a high-pitched hue and cry about gay “marriage.”
Putting on my pyramid-shaped tin hat a few years later I said that the thrust for gay “rights” and “marriage” has nothing to do with that at all. The gays were just one of many mere pawns in a game to destroy the American Way of life and ultimately America herself. (This was in the series of Communism’s roots, goals, history and how the Communist Manifesto is being used by a socialist activist to ruin us.)
By promoting the gay lifestyle, you are simultaneously marginalizing and minimizing the family. (I am not getting preachy and not trying to disrespect anyone. For purposes of this thing of ours the “family” is the “conventional” family.)
All things considered not that long ago, Lucy and “Ricky Ricardo” were married on the show as well as in real life. And their bedroom featured twin beds. How quaint! (How did Little Ricky get here???)
Today, on daytime soaps you can see two “naked” guys in bed, again in DAYTIME. And, how many TV shows feature a gay character, gay themes and so on?
Like the lies from the lawyers for Lawrence, all that they claimed would not happen, did. And we did not care because we were sick of it, sick of hearing about it and has been said, the only thing necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.
I am not going to get into the conspiratorial aspects of the Lawrence case. But, it is a little strange that three “allegedly” drunk gay guys could change the entire gay perception overnight, no?
(I hate to explain myself but I prolly must. For the millionth time, I am not anti-gay, a homophobe or anything of the like. I have gay friends, and they are well, friends and not defined by being gay. You know what I mean. Ditto blacks or anyone else. It is that I am not afraid to open my big fat mouth and say what many are thinking.)
The way I perceive it is just another step by a Godless cabal who are hell-bent for leather to destroy the moral fabric of America and eventually the Country herself.
Baby steps, you see.
I am not saying that this is their plan but this uproar in Indiana is over something that just makes no sense and less difference as you will see. If it was not for this law things could really go south. Left to its ultimate end, if this law is overturned many/all religious institutions might go away.
I know what you are thinking: Just because it is written in the Communist Manifesto that religion must be eradicated and all the evils that have visited us of late are from that book does not mean this will come true, right?
Er, yeah, sure, you just keep on believing that.
But first what have you been told recently by the gum’mint that has been the truth? ISIS? Syria? Iran? Israel? OBAMA’S OBAMACARE? “Shovel Ready” jobs? Solyndra? What else?
This guy is a magician making your freedoms disappear under your very nose, like anything else, this is a distraction, this is not how it appears.
I work hard for my money. That mean YOU need to work hard for my money. If I go to a place and get sub-par services or quality of goods, you lost me as a customer forever. (I went to a chain Italian restaurant in California over 20 years ago. I had a bad experience. I have never set foot in one since.)
If a gay couple felt as I do and they went to a baker and he refused a gay wedding cake, I would take my business elsewhere. I would not make, literally, a federal case out of it. I would not argue my point as then I would be concerned about quality, process, delivery, etc. I would go elsewhere.
Now, follow me here as we have covered some of this in previous issues regarding OBAMA’S OBAMACARE and providing insurance that covers abortions for employees of religious institutions. If the gum’mint can force a business owner to compromise their principles under penalty of law, what is to say that religious institutions will not be forced to perform gay “marriages?”
I mean, what is the difference? Right? It is a service, it is not free ergo the case can be pressed that is covered by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as most religious denominations are nationwide if not worldwide.
(And PLEASE do not bring up the so-called, mis-applied and alleged “Separation of Church and State.” As WE all know, it does not exist, and even if it did, other than in the addled minds of Liberals, it would only work in their favor.)
To recap, the law as written is not discriminatory. In fact, if you really think about it, it is a law of equality.
Lemme let you answer this.
A gay couple wants a wedding cake. The baker (for example, any similar situation would apply) is against gay “marriage.” What happens is one set of beliefs is off-set by another, it is neutral, it is equal. One does not get a cake, one does not make any money. It is neutral, it is equal.
Now, if you FORCED a baker to bake said cake (and for argument there are people to make sure it is made correctly and on time) and the baker’s beliefs are compromised, where is the equality?
Now, you can’t refuse to sell gas to a gay person because they might drive to their boyfriend’s house. There is no moral responsibility or religious belief involved in such a case. But refusing to rent a hall run by a religious organization for a GLAAD meeting, refusing to make a gay cake, refusing to perform abortions, and the like are all matters of religious conscience and must be respected.
The cake is, IMHO, an extreme example on the surface, but the others are less so. I can agree with not making the cake less than making a statement, though others may disagree, but to thwart further erosion of religious freedoms.
If they can make us bake cakes, they can then cite precedence and demand the rental of the Knights of Columbus hall, then demand a Church to perform and bless gay marriages under the penalty of the yet-unwritten law that gay “rights” trump religious freedom.
You think I am joking? Ask 1930s Germany. Ask the 6,000,000 killed in the concentration camps. And if you think I am crazy, by all means tell me your scenario if we give people not “equal rights” but “extraordinary rights.”
Last thing, don’t let it slip by. If we give one group something at the expense of another, it is no longer equality. It is brutality.