I have been and continue to be discriminated against as well as been harassed, called names, and otherwise maligned. For instance:
- I have been denied entrance to various places of business.
- I cannot enter various government buildings unhindered & without scrutiny.
- I cannot step onto the property of the Post Office without committing a Federal crime.
- I do not have a criminal record, but am often portrayed by the media as a criminal.
- Various public figures have indirectly called for my incarceration or worse.
- I have been called “a nut” and other names by the media.
Can you guess why?
It is because I hold a Michigan CPL (Concealed Pistol License), and believe in our Second Amendment.
As to the first three items in the list: Yes, I can go to these places, but only if I disarm myself & leave the safety of my family and myself to others (why would I want to do that?). For the next three, various media outlets and celebrities call for my forcible disarmament and/or incarceration and/or bodily harm for simply exercising my Second Amendment rights.
Now my reaction to a lot of the above is to simply avoid these establishments except when absolutely necessary. It’s not to run and scream to the media or hire attorneys to sue these various entities into compliance. Quite unlike another group…
The reaction by the militant arm of the LGBT lobby to my home state of Indiana’s passage of their version Religious Freedom Restoration Act has, in my opinion, been way over the top. Considering that there has been a Federal law signed by their hero Bill Clinton and 19 other states, my question would be: Why now?
Their vocal objections to the law has nothing to do with a baker or pizzeria denying catering a homosexual wedding based on a religious point of view. If it did, then why only target a Christian-based business? Why not a Muslim-based business offering the same services? Here’s my humble opinion why…
The LGBT lobby is wanting to force religious organizations to remove bans against homosexual behavior in not only their policies, but scriptures as well. They want to do this by having judicial decisions and laws passed banning discrimination based upon any religious practices to the contrary, and to ban scriptures describing homosexual behavior as a sin as hate speech. This way, their lifestyle is then legitimatized from both legal and religious standpoints.
Since the dominant religion in the United States is Christian-based, then this will be the religion that will be targeted. It also does not help that the Christian religion is tolerant (hate the sin, love the sinner), and several denominations have reversed their stances on homosexual practices within their church.
Thus, this is more about forcing acceptance and tolerance over the rights of others rather than respecting those differing opinions and rights. The militant LGBT would rather ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to further their agenda. Otherwise, those same people who were supposedly denied service by a baker on religious grounds would do exactly what I would have done – find another bakery to fill their requirements. Surely, there must be LGBT friendly bakers somewhere in that city…
Dr. Brian Joondeph has the following to say about the Indiana law on AmericanThinker.com (excerpts from article):
What exactly is so controversial about this Indiana law? It “Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion,” unless there is a “compelling governmental interest.”
Maybe this is why the left is in a lather, as their worldview is that most of what we do in our mundane daily lives is a “compelling interest” of the government. What light bulbs we buy, how warm or cool we keep our homes, what size soft drinks we order, whether we sprinkle salt on our food, and so on.
One man’s compelling government interest is another man’s liberty or pursuit of happiness. As I wrote last year, what is the compelling government interest in whether a Christian baker chooses to not bake a cake for a same sex wedding? Or whether a kosher Jewish deli refuses to serve a ham and cheese sandwich? Or whether a Muslim printer declines to print copies of a Mohammed cartoon?
These are the freedoms enshrined by the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If a Muslim female wears a hijab to school, this is a constitutionally protected right. Why are bakers and photographers not afforded the same constitutional protections?
Indiana, along with 19 other states, enacted a law allowing its residents to practice their religion free from government scrutiny. It took the 20th such state law to garner the attention of the left.
Yes indeed…it took them this long to figure out that many people, including their beloved Democrats, actually believe that the right of People to follow their religious convictions rather than the demands of a few.
The First and Second Amendments of the Constitution reinforce the Rights of the People that no government or organization can legally or morally subvert. These are the Rights of the People to be respected by all, not excepted by a few.
(In the interests of full disclosure, I have friends and a cousin who are homosexuals. While they want legalization of their partnerships, they also respect the rights of others.)