Saturday, July 27, 2013

CBN: 'Open Season on Christians after Pro-Gay Rulings'

Oh the poor 76 percent majority.

Religion in the United States
For years conservative Christians complained that same-sex marriage had some mystical effect on traditional marriage. When that stopped working – it never made any sense to begin with – they shifted to the "religious liberty" theme.

The new definition of religious liberty is the right to discriminate against gay people in public accommodations because of one's own religious beliefs. Aside from the fact that this has nothing to do with marriage equality, the special rights that they are seeking would effectively invalidate every anti-discrimination law and ordinance in the United States. Religion would be an excuse (as it was in the past) to discriminate against just about anyone for any reason.

That brings me back to the article on CBN's website titled Open Season on Christians.
Christians who speak out and stand up for traditional marriage are more likely than ever to be persecuted and even prosecuted for it.
When was anti-gay speech criminalized? I need to know because I expect Westboro Baptist Church to come to town one of these days. I would like to first persecute them and then prosecute them. It is absurd to suggest that Christians have lost any of their fundamental First Amendment rights.
According to Ken Klukowski, director of the Center for Religious Liberty, the rationale for this ruling basically undermined the motive of those for traditional marriage only.

"The Court said that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is literally irrational, that it was just the fruit of bigotry and beknighted souls rather than the thoughtful actions of elected, national leaders," he said.
That would be the Ken Klukowski who works for the anti-gay hate group, Family Research Council. Mr. Klukowski should know that law and personal sentiment are not obliged to be interrelated.  

What Klukowski is trying to imply is that the Supreme Court called conservative Christians irrational bigots. I might but the Supreme Court certainly did not. Klukowski knows perfectly well that the Court can only consider secular intent and that "rationality" is a legal, in contrast to social, concept.

It is ironic that people who are so intent on labeling gay people as pernicious perverts is so concerned about how they, themselves, are perceived.

The article continues:
Stage Set for Persecution?

Such talk by the nation's highest court will likely propel pro-homosexual rights groups and pro-gay government officials to go after backers of traditional marriage harder than ever.

"There's absolutely a growing threat under this administration and under this court," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told CBN News.
Sadly, Perkins' constituency actually believes this idiocy. And how are they going to be persecuted? Well they consulted National Organization for Marriage's Thomas Peters for a list (presumably a couple of weeks ago in spite of the article's July 26 date). I could recite their "victims" tally by heart:
"The Colorado baker who right now could spend a year in jail for refusing to give a wedding cake to a gay ceremony, or the town clerks in New York who had to resign their jobs because they simply asked that someone else in the office would sign the same-sex marriage licenses so that they wouldn't have to do it," he said.
No, the moronic baker is not facing a year in jail but he does face the same consequences as if he refused to provide a cake for an interracial marriage. Colorado does not have marriage equality. He violated an anti-discrimination ordinance that has been in place for decades. And that New York clerk? She is paid by everyone's tax dollars. Too fucking bad that she has to do her job.
"Or the wedding photographer in New Mexico who's been fined thousands of dollars simply for saying she didn't want to photograph a gay ceremony," he continued.
New Mexico does not have marriage equality but it does have anti-discrimination ordinances that prohibit public accommodations from refusing to serve customers for any reason.
There's likely to be much more of this kind of legal action if America's neighbor to the north can serve as an example. Same-sex marriage came to Canada in 2005. In a recent five-year period there, 200 to 300 cases against opponents of gay marriage were brought before courts, human rights commissions, and employment boards.
We are not Canada and there is no cause to discriminate against gay people for any reason. Furthermore, marriage does not create opportunities for discrimination. They continue with the usual litany.; The florist, the baker and the candlestick maker. Further down:
Gay Activists: Passivity = Bigotry

Peters and Perkins point out these days the most active of gay rights activists demand affirmation from everyone in society. And these activists suggest it's anti-gay to do anything less than show full support for them.
Rubbish: We neither seek nor require anyone's approval. In fact, the more activist-oriented an LGBT person is, the less they are likely to give a crap about someone's opinion of them. The article continues with whack-job Gerry Boykin chiming in on military readiness. All indications are that the military is ahead of society. They don't seem to give a rodent's rear about sexual orientation. Has there been a single real issue since DADT fell? It's back to Peters:
Peters added that even civilian pastors could face trouble in the future if they serve as civil ministers marrying couples and they won't do gay weddings.
"In the same way that tax status could be threatened," Peters said, "ministerial exemptions could be threatened as well if we continue to embed this false idea into law that standing for marriage equates with bigotry."
Peters is lying. Pastors are never required to consummate a marriage that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Tax exemptions? Seriously? We have not-for-profit organizations in this country with varied belief systems; White Supremacy to Black Nationalism and everything in between. There are organizations of every stripe and conceivable viewpoint. All we ask is that they follow the rules and that they file returns. Neither requirement has anything to do with viewpoint. Get real.

Earlier I mentioned that we are not Canada. We are also not Russia. In this country we do have anti-discrimination ordinances that also include protections for people of every faith. As a society we have determined that people should be treated equally — at least when it comes to public accommodations.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.