Thursday, December 7, 2017

Ryan Scott Bomberger doesn't get enough credit for his bigotry

Ryan Scott Bomberger
Ryan Scott Bomberger's own expression of ego
On Thursday Ryan Scott Bomberger writes: “Sorry, ACLU. Gay is not the new black.” I am delighted that Mr. Bomberger wants to provide a history lesson but he is rather loud — out-sized — in contrast to the size of the Radiance Foundation which he and his wife Bethany run. 2015 revenues were $154 thousand and it ended the year with net assets of $11 thousand.

Bomberger's intent has less to do with history than his ambition to create that proverbial wedge between the black and gay communities. The intent is to undermine LGBT rights. The reasons for doing so are less relevant and less evident than Bomberger's objective.
No matter how many times the leftist ACLU wants to compare LGBT activism to the blood-bought civil rights of black Americans, there is no comparison. Gay is not the new black.

Jack Phillips, a Christian cake artist … (ADF pablum)
Not surprisingly Bomberger has no quote from anyone at the ACLU to cite. The only people who seem to make the cultural comparison are those seeking to demonstrate that there is no comparison in order to disparage LGBT people. In point of fact, in terms of Colorado's nondiscrimination law, race and sexual orientation are legal equals. Both are protected classes. No one in the LGBT community disputes the fact that the experiences of LGBT Americans and African-Americans are very different. No one. To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Having no real substantive argument against someone’s freedom of expression and religious freedom, LGBT organizations decry the exercise of First Amendment rights as an act of modern-day Jim Crow. Cue the hijacking of the civil rights movement. Of course the ACLU, the New York Times and many other liberal fake news outlets repeatedly invoke the 1968 Piggie Park Supreme Court case. Owner Maurice Bessinger, an unrepentant racist, refused to allow black people to eat at his drive-in and sandwich shop restaurants. As always, the Left loves comparing apples with pizza. Gay customers have always been welcome in Masterpiece Cakeshop and could buy anything in his establishment. He didn’t reject Craig and Mullins for “who they are”, but for what a singular event means.
Bomberger is correct. Allow me to quote some fake news:
This case involves a familiar story: Three customers walk into a small business that sells specialty foods. The owner is said to be an “artist” for his unique culinary skills and believes his religious convictions imbue his work. The owner turns the customers away entirely or denies them access to the full range of his products because these religious beliefs forbid him from serving a particular group of persons. When the owner is challenged in court regarding his refusal to serve the customers, he claims that the First Amendment should abrogate public accommodations laws and immunize his refusal to provide service.

This portrays what occurred in 2012 to Mr. Mullins, Mr. Craig, and Ms. Munn in the instant case—but it also describes what transpired in 1964 to three African-American customers at a barbeque restaurant in South Carolina, which led to this Court’s seminal case addressing racial discrimination in public accommodations, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968).
That reference to Piggie-Park was not in the New York Times. Rather, is from the amicus brief of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. Has the NAACP co-opted the Civil Rights Movement? Seriously?

Did I mention intellectual dishonesty? The reason that the Piggie Park case is cited has nothing to do with co-opting the civil rights movement and it most certainly is not “fake news” (how terribly original). Piggie Park is an appropriate reference because the pretext for the bigotry was Bessinger's religious beliefs. It is the same thing that Jack Phillips is claiming.

An establishment might serve Jews all the time. However, if it denies service because a Jewish man is marrying a Christian woman that constitutes anti-Semitism per se. It is indisputable and, as Justice Scalia once opined, a tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews. In point of fact, Phillips discriminated on the basis of who the gay couple were. What “The Left loves” is a coherent argument. And by the way, did I just co-opt the Holocaust? I do not think so.
Never having faced the actual dehumanizing, violent and often fatal discrimination that African-Americans endured throughout our nation’s history, LGBT activists continually co-opt experiences that are not theirs. LGBT individuals were never enslaved. …
Where is the quote from someone worth mentioning who has made an improper comparison? LGBT people have been, and continue to be, victimized by violence. The circumstances and scale are entirely different from the experience of black people. That fact is not in dispute. What should also be indisputable is that violence, under any circumstances and in any scale, is simply unacceptable in a socially advanced society.

This is entirely manufactured agrievement and its purpose is not to address an improper frame of reference. The purpose of this diatribe is to deny LGBT citizens of laws that assure equal protection and due process. Mr. Bomberger doesn't seem to consider the fact that a Supreme Court decision in favor of his friend the baker could seriously impair nondiscrimination laws protecting African-Americans. Perhaps he does not care. Along those lines I will remind Bomberger that the Klan claims to be a conservative Christian endeavor. The histories and experiences are different but when it comes to protected classes we are all in the same boat. It might be a good idea for Mr. Bomberger to stop drilling holes in the hull.

After Bomberger curiously makes an argument about the immutability of skin color (I suppose that he thinks that sexual orientation and sexual identity are choices):
Shouldn’t the First Amendment be #OpenToAll? It’s not hateful to disagree; it’s human. Sadly, too many believe their own hashtag hype. It’s not #LoveIsLove; it’s #GodIsLove. It’s my motivation for illuminating truth.
Bomberger seems incapable of separating faith and truth. One is a belief system. The other is supported by evidence. I would argue that the stated motivation has less to do with truth than for conformity with certain religious beliefs which are subject to interpretation and not universally accepted. Furthermore, nowhere does Bomberger make a religious argument except to now assert that he is on God's side. He should consider the number of amicus briefs in this case submitted by religious organizations of all faiths in support of Colorado's nondiscrimination law.
Marriage is a sacred thing to the majority of the world. It’s not some trivial event. Next to religion, it’s the most important institution in any society. There are numerous events or themes Jack chooses not to provide his artistic talents for: bachelor parties, divorces, Halloween, anything anti-American, anti-LGBT messages or customized cakes that celebrate an unbiblical model of marriage.
None of that is at all relevant. Divorcees, for example, are not a protected class in Colorado.
Jack epitomizes courage. He won’t live out his faith in a closet. No American should. The free exercise of religion means our rights of conscience are not confined to our homes. Oh, the palpable irony that the Trumpeters of Tolerance demand their sexuality be universally celebrated and on full display while trying to fine, jail, bankrupt and shut down anyone who dissents.
“They” always undo themselves with no help from me. This “universally celebrated” nonsense depicts the obsession of the holier-than-thou set with the concept that we we want their approval. We do not require their approval and we damned sure do not seek it. Bomberg's is an expression of homophobic drivel and hate. What is unacceptable to these sanctimonious schmucks is the fact that we are not interested in their approval. The go out of their way to demonstrate their disapproval in an effort to nullify our disinterest.

Approval is not a condition of service. It is not found in any nondiscrimination measure. In fact, that is the very intent of nondiscrimination laws. They serve to objectively remove approval and opprobrium from consideration. Phillips is not courageous. He is a law-breaker and a bigot who seems to think that he deserves a say in the marriages of other people.
I’m a creative professional. I don’t want politicians or judges dictating where and when I must provide my artistic expression. If the government, whether local or federal, can control what we say creatively, they will eventually control what we say, period.
No problem and no comparison. Bomberger is not a public accommodation. In fact it is a dishonest comparison — assuming that Bomberger knows that he is not a public accommodation. Perhaps he does. Perhaps he does not. There seem to be many, many things that Mr. Bomberger is ignorant of.

Related content:



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.