fbpx

THE LEFT’S CONTROL OVER THE LGBT+ COMMUNITY: WHO DECIDES WHAT IS DISCRIMINATION?

 Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission | The Raging Patriot
LGBT+ themed wedding cake

As most of you know from my previous work here at The Raging Patriot, I’m an anomaly. Not only am I Conservative, but I also happen to be gay… and Christian. I do not think with my sexual orientation, and thus I’ve been excluded from the very group that claims to be the most ‘tolerant’ because I am a free thinker. I believe in facts, not baseless rhetoric, to defend myself on an intellectual level. Thus, I am rational, not radical, and I believe in protecting the Constitution and the rights it gives all Americans.

LEFTIST TYRANNY INFILTRATING THE LGBT+ COMMUNITY

The rainbow flag has come to represent the leftist tyranny of thought and oppressive agendas. That flag and its adherents claim to (and yet they do not) speak for all of us in the LGBT+ community. That flag, so diverse in its colors, is betrayed by its conformity of mind its goodthinkful dogmatism. I believe individuals who would seek to infringe their will on the rights of others like these LGBT+ individuals who sued a bakery multiple times for refusing on religious ground to bake them a gender transition cake or a same-sex marriage cake do not truly understand our 1st Amendment rights. You are not oppressed if a business owner refuses to serve you by citing their religious convictions i.e. when proven they are not doing so arbitrarily. They are protected by the 1st Amendment.

I would also like to point out that thanks to capitalism, we have free markets. Why not get a cake baked elsewhere for your needs? Why force someone against their will to appease your request? Why would you give your money to a business owner that believes your existence is an abomination? For me, this calls into question the motives of such individuals who would try to abuse the powers of the Federal government to get their way.

I would like to note that at this time, there are about 20 states have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include language protecting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

BASELESS ARGUMENTS

Some would argue that if we allow religious individuals their right to refuse service based on their convictions, we must concur then that they could refuse service to people based on skin color, sex, and other factors.

The entire United States is protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. However, nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law. For individuals with disabilities, they are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

MY TWO CENTS

As a gay man, I would side with a business owner’s right to exercise their religious freedom – even if that meant I couldn’t get a wedding cake baked. As stated earlier, I could take my business elsewhere instead of trying to destroy their livelihood by suing. I understand that their right is protected by the law (even if I, or others, view it as discriminatory).

I would not force someone to do something against their convictions. As a Christian, Romans 14:13-23 comes to mind in asking us not to cause another to stumble. For me, forcing the law on my side to strong-arm a business owner into baking me a same-sex wedding cake would very much force a brother or sister to stumble against their convictions. Not everyone would be as understanding, as I’ve gotten into several debates with friends over this very topic.

People interpret scripture differently, which is why context is key when reading scripture as well as doing word studies. The Bible requires context. And a failure to appreciate that context leads to its misappropriation and consequent weaponization. It can even lead to oppression. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 for example, has been used against women to prevent them from holding leadership positions and Ephesians 6:5-7 was used as a means to justify slavery. You can see where the problem lies in taking Scripture out of context, and where some would argue religious freedom allows people the ability to discriminate based on the Bible being taken out of context and being weaponized against many different groups of people.

CONCLUSION

I am in a unique position to see both sides of the coin with the Conservative community as well as the LGBT+ community. If discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation towards LGBT+ individuals became Federally recognized and illegal, the question then becomes:

Who defines what discrimination looks like?

Let me know your thoughts in the comment section.