Thursday, May 16, 2019

Brian S. Brown is merging email lists

People who lose a chunk of their business for refusing service to LGBT people are not victims of anything other than their own intransigence and poor judgment.
Brian S. Brown
It should come as no surprise that people who respond to one of the phony National Organization for Marriage petitions are then added to the World Congress/International Organization for the Family email data base and perhaps that is the point. Clicking on the petition link is processed through:[your coded email address].

World Congress of Families/International Organization for the Family is an anti-LGBT hate group.

As for the email, it is titled: We must defeat the Equality Act.

The Equality Act has enough co-sponsors in the House to guarantee passage on Friday. Thus, NOM's petition is a futile enterprise.
Brian S. Brown lies — again:
… the legislation effectively makes showing support for traditional marriage to be illegal discrimination under federal law. We've never seen such a sweeping, damaging proposed law.
At least Brown has evolved (for the moment) from belief to actual action (“showing support”). Nevertheless it is a lie. A demonstration of support is not the equal of discriminatory conduct. Furthermore, it ignores the apportioned impact. The overwhelming majority of NOM supports are not in a position to discriminate against LGBT people as they are not proprietors or managers of public accommodations or employers. Brown is suggesting that HR5 will affect everyone in the same way as it affects those business owners and managers.

Ironically, the effect on people in the hospitality industry is to help them make more money. Following the logic of “Render unto Caesar …” they are not compelled by their god to refuse service to anyone. The discrimination that remains is at the hands of people who feel obligated to express their disapproval. If that is the case then they need to decide why they are in business in the first place. Disapproval; “tsk tsk”  is certainly not a right defined by law.

People who lose a chunk of their business for refusing service to LGBT people to demonstrate disapproval are not victims of anything other than their own intransigence and poor judgment.
A feeble explanation and the lie restated:
Under the Equality Act, an individual exercising his or her constitutional right to decline to personally participate in an LGBT ceremony that violates their religious beliefs would nonetheless be open to charges of illegal discrimination. That's because the bill declares the belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman to be a "sex stereotype" under federal law. Further, the bill makes discrimination on the basis of a sex stereotype illegal. This means that any tangible step to refuse participation in a gay 'wedding' would be illegal discrimination under this legislation.
People do not have a “constitutional right” to discriminate. Furthermore, no reasonable person believes that wedding vendors are participants in the wedding. As you can see, Brown has returned to belief as a violation of the law. People are free to believe anything they want. They can worship kosher chicken if they want.

Many people think that the marriage of a Christian to a Jew is sinful. Many people (probably including Brian Brown) think that the marriage of divorced people is improper (both are adulterers if their prior spouses are alive). Would anyone refuse service on these bases?

Is there any difference between refusing service to a couple intending to enter into an marriage when one or both are previously divorced and refusing service to a couple intending to enter into a same-sex marriage? According to Christian dogma, the answer is “no.”

Brian S. Brown has never championed the right of vendors to refuse service to mixed marriages or divorcees. He never will because those refusals would be obviously unreasonable. Brown is incapable of realizing that refusing service to a gay couple is equally unreasonable. Brian S. Brown will not answer the obvious question explaining the difference.
We've launched a nationwide ad campaign using the following ad to promote our petition.
No ad actually follows (revenge of the cut & paste). Furthermore, who would donate for NOM to air an ad opposing a foregone conclusion? It is reminiscent of people who donated to NOM to sue the IRS.

That misadventure cost NOM about $600,000 in legal fees to reach a settlement of $50,000 for an inadvertent clerical error. NOM knew that it was unintentional but Brown claimed otherwise in its fundraising endeavors. I bring this up only to demonstrate a pattern of deceit when it comes to asking for others' hard-earned money.
The conclusion of this email is predictable:
Make a contribution to NOM so that we can do more to oppose the Equality Act. With additional funding we can reach even more people.

We need to reach as many people as possible, and can't do so without funding. Fortunately, we have been blessed with a tremendous opportunity: Every contribution we receive through the end of May will be matched dollar for dollar up to a total match of $50,000!
Matching donor schemes are a scam. More deceit. The holier-than-thou set has no problem deceiving donors. Is that not sinful?

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.