Friday, November 15, 2013


This 45-year-old man, under ENDA (and other LGBT nondiscrimination ordinances), would be granted full access to all sanctifiably-feminine public facilities. He's already got them statewide in Washington, lounging nude in a locker room used by girls as young as 6:

Gay nondiscrimination - ENDA and "fairness" ordinances codify anti-Christian bias into law. It is the forceful epulsion of Christian morality from the public square - forcing moral-minded people to forfeit their values for economic freedom; forcing them to have to choose between conscience and commerce. Despite the feel-good nomenclature they're defined by, these ordinances are but a tool for tyranny, serving as a powerful platform that gays use to elevate themselves to an incontrovertible, invincible status, where disagreement with their societal goals becomes a punishable offense.

"It's a solution-in-search-of-a-problem.", says Tony Perkins, F.R.C, regarding such legislation. For there simply is no climate of systemic, institutionalized bias against gays.

 It's a broad, totalitarian brush -such bills- superimposing the depraved goals and values of a tiny minority of activist zealots onto the rest of society.

It's an immense, totalitarian boot, stamping out opposing views, Nazi-style. This isn't soft  tyranny, this is hard tyranny.

"We must also remind other Americans that we demand more than simple legal equality -- we demand LGBT-affirming education in all of the nation's public schools." -from the front page of the gay liberation network, a highly influential activist organization.

LGBT nondiscrimination (and deceptively-named "Fairness" ordinances,  plus "anti-bullying" programs in Public Schools) serve to render dissagreement with homosexuality a punishable offense, sacrificing peoples' First Amendment freedoms on the altar of political correctness. Remember "thought crimes" from Orwell's novel? Same exact thing.

“The First Amendment? That’s so 1776. This is 2013. Speech isn’t free, you know. Intolerance will not be tolerated".

-Randy van Grindr, Spokesman of  H.R.C., America's largest gay advocacy group.

Gay nondiscrimination ordinances are inclusion-by-exclusion - excluding the majority to enshrine a minority (Imperialism). What it directly does is add sexual orientation to enumerated lists within nondiscrimination policies. "Religion" is also among those protected classes. LGBT nondiscrimination allows one (sexual identity) to supersede and overrule another (religion) - a kind of "more-equal-than-equal" idea, a-la Orwell's Animal Farm display of hypocrisy.

LGBT nondiscrimination grants a badge of civic invincibility to LGBT's; an unfettered, all-access pass for flooding the Culture with their values and ideologies, and as an avenue for foisting  gay social-engineering mandates onto the infrastructure and institutions, including public schools (K-university), as has happened in many locales. These bills are but a foot in the door for seizing seats of power for gaining control of the socio-political landscape.
A recent gallup poll found that 78% of Americans accept Christianity. Christian doctrine is deeply interwoven in the tapestry of the Constitution, Penal Code ("eye for an eye"), Declaration of Independence, Constitutions of all 50 states, and on and on. Our Constitution was formed around a biblical frame of reference. The very formation of our Country itself was based around religious liberty, in fact. LGBT nondiscrimination abolishes and overrules religious liberty, forcing Christians to violate their consciences and core values in the name of "tolerance". Problem is, L.G.B.T. "tolerance" is unilateral tolerance - a one-way door. The gay lobby, with the Media locked tightly within it's serpentine strangle hold, have elevated themselves  the self-appointed arbiters of  tolerance - the gatekeepers of the door to the Marketplace of Ideas, and using their tremendous political clout to execute near-total control over the public dialogue and flow of information regarding homosexuality. I call their Media position, the Blacklisting Industry - their main sword-wielding, Christian-vanquishing platform

"The question will be raised, and raised and raised...that our ads are lies. Of course we know it, but it makes no difference that our ads are lies, so long that they're used to ethically good effect..."

-from the book "After the Ball" often cited as "the gay rights playbook", probably the most influential work in the history of gay rights.

"People do not want to be forced to transgress their beliefs even though they must leave the sanctuary of the church and exist in the world. Where is the need to rob the most basic rights of association and conscience, forbid people from the public market by ordinance unless they submit to participation in repellent behaviour, and clear the way for lawsuits to obliterate remaining dissent? Let people do business, and let them succeed or fail on their merits. Let others arise without religious compunctions and provide the services unconscionable to the religious. Where is the need to morally enslave those who disagree with you? "  --anonymous commentator

LGBT nondiscrimination functions less as a shield of protection against bias, but more as a sword for punishing moral opposition - marginalizing Christians and silencing them.  It's use is more punitive than preventative. Gay activists have a most cavalier indifference and wanton disgust for any opposition.  I've documented dozens of examples of damage inflicted with this 'sword':

The activist proponents use superficially-coherent-and-rational-sounding pleas to justify E.N.D.A , "fairness" and nondiscrimination. They spin compelling narratives, replete with down-home sentiments about universal values and fairness, conflating their plight with historically-oppressed Blacks and women, scripting a very compelling victimhood of themselves as this aggrieved, powerless  minority fighting to survive in a world of intensely-focused bigotry against them. They say all the right things with these portrayals via the complicit Media,  and policy makers eat it up. What I've found is that the gay activism is almost universally dishonest. And the activists and their narratives/portrayals are about as phony as a 3 dollar bill. Their deplorable ethics and cavalier modus operandi are so predictable, you could set your watch to it. There simply is no actual, tangible threat(s) to their livelihoods, and their chorus of disgruntled voices are conjuring the same specter: the theoretical possibility of bias and exclusion, not the actual presence of it - all based around unfounded, unsubstantiated paranoid delusions.

Christians Having Their Conscience ViolatedChristians -true Christians- are bound by their faith - expressed in Scripture - to not affirm or endorse expressions of sin. Ezekiel 3:18 tells us our own salvation is in jeopardy when we affirm the sinful choices of Another.

In Kentucky, a Christian-owned apparel Co. is being sued for refusing to print t-shirts for that city's gay pride parade. Christian bakers Nationwide are being sued for not designing baked goods which affirm and celebrate gay unions. Wedding photographers, ditto. A Christian Florist, sued by WA. Atty. General for refusing a gay wedding floral arrangement order. Many, many more cases of exactly this phenomenon, like the national trend of Christian B&B owners -who operate out of their own, private homes- being fined or shut down for declining single-occupancy rooms to gay couples, or refusing to host gay events at their property.  For these reasons,  religious freedom in America is under attack in unprecedented ways. These scenarios would be the same as, say,  forcing a Muslim-owned apparel company to make t-shirts advertizing ham.
-or forcing P.E.T.A. to hire a high-ranking member of the American Cattle Association.
-or forcing a gay-owned apparel company - under penalty of law- to fulfill a church's request for t-shirts with the Leviticus 18:22 condemnation of homosexuality.
-or forcing a Black-owned printing company to create a mass order of white-supremecist fliers for the K.K.K.
-or forcing a Jewish-owned apparel company to produce t-shirts of David Duke.
And for clarity, this is not a benign, innocuous deviation from the norm. This reality (LGBT) is typified by lifestyle turmoil, profound medical liabilities, and emotional and spiritual decadence.
Let us take a hypothetical example of nondiscrimination's harm. A reputably Christian-themed publishing company, one with a long list of clientele of Christian authors, would be forced -under penalty of law- to host the works by, say, a gay sex-advice columnist. This would not only violate (that publisher's) Christian conscience, but would offend, alienate and drive away his Christian clientele. Or say, a Christian bookstore owner who refused to hire a cross-dressing man to run his store. Enda would render both of these companies liable for damages.

Or what if a moral-minded Someone is advertising renting out a room or a unit within their rental property. And say in both situations, that potential renter would be living in close quarters with [their] children, whom they've raised with moderation and godly sensibilities. E.N.D.A. would force the decision away from them from declining on someone who exudes, proudly exhibits and defines themselves by sexual deviancy.

Or a secular example, say any business which is reputable for  hiring attractive women, we'll use the example of the restaurant chain Hooters -who have a very storied (and lucrative) reputation for voluptuous, virtuous, scantily-clad female employees. And say Hooters has a transexual man -fake breasts and all- apply as one of their models. If they hired him, it would send the male customers to the exits in droves and ruin their lucrative reputation they've based their business model around. If they refused? Under ENDA, they'd be liable for damages.

In the U.F.C. fight league, female combatants have expressed misgivings about fighting a "transgendered" (the T in LGBT) man, who defines himself as a woman.  This is EXACTLY what such legislation brings rise to. ENDA is a government-enforced-separating of peoples' own personal ethics and values from their business models and livelihood, and that's the most UN-American thing I could possibly think of.

Chai Felblum, a lesbian activist, Obama E.E.O.C. appointee and chief architect of ENDA, when asked her view on the inevitable conflict between religious liberty and gay rights, candidly stated, "Gays win, Christians lose" and that this is a "zero-sum game" - a winner-takes-all mindset which she reaffirmed her stance that she "had a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win".

Allow me to just simply state, Felblum is not just some irrational fringe extremist within the overall gay rights movement, but her brand of totalitarian sensibilities reflect those of almost every other gay activist I have ever read/viewed statements from (I've listened to dozens).

Freedom of Association is enshrined within the First Amendment - freedom to associate with like-minded individuals. ENDA is the ultimate execution of Orwellian prophecy. It's the gay lobby's tyrannical strangle-hold on the marketplace of ideas with it's suffocating political correctness.

French Philosopher Voltaire once wrote, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you're not allowed to criticize." Everywhere, examples are emerging of people getting fired, fined or blacklisted for something so simple as a gay-critical tweet.. Even the most rugged of professional athletes are forced into taking "sensitivity training" for making gay-offending comments. Politicians everywhere are afraid to speak freely about them.

The gay lobby, with the Media and much of Corporate America locked tightly within it's serpentine coils have browbeat, brainwashed and indoctrinated a generation with that platform.

"we mean… conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.” “…our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.” – Kirk & Madsen, After the Ball, 1989, page 153.

Gay activists exaggerate, aggrandize and synthesize a compelling victimhood with their Media platforms
The fact is, there simply is no climate of institutionalized, systematic bias against LGBTs
. It's like the tooth fairy - doesn't exist. It's a glorified, unfounded paranoid delusion of those who demand public policy validate them because they cannot validate themselves.

Also like the tooth fairy is the dishonest portrayals of homosexual couples  by the gay-complicit media, painting them as domestically-stable, Norman Rockwellian homebodies of stellar repute. But from studies on gays, we see them to live a freewheeling, rootless and unhealthy existence - the polar-opposite of what they're marketed as.

Immutability and personhood.
There is not a single shred of biological ideology in support of homosexuality. There's no gay gene. Even G.L.A.A.D. has publicly given up the quest to find it. According to the aforementioned "After the Ball" book:  “We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay–even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.”
Replicated studies on identical twins have consistently found that when one twin was gay, the other very rarely was. Identical twins + same D.N.A. = no gay gene.

Gay activists demand society codify carnal desires as the very seat of their own personhood, trying to piggyback onto the Blacks' Civil Rights Supreme Court standard of personhood. Problem is, sexual attraction does not a person make. Intangible, invisible and transient characteristics do not a civil right make.
Homosexual inclination and gender confusion, evidence points to, arises from early-childhood sexual trauma or role-model deprivation; an identity who's very genesis is centered around abuse and neglect in childhood. Gay icon Ellen DeGeneres (who promotes "born that way") lived as a heterosexual for decades until a string of victimizations by her step-father made her swear off men (as detailed in her mother's autobiography). Little Richard is an ex-gay, as are Actresses Anne Hech and Cynthia Nixon. There are a large contigent of ex-gays, people who left behind homosexuality. They could because it was a choice. A lifestyle choice. A transient, changable, temporary fixation. People just don't alter their skin color or national origin. They do, however, for sexual fixations.

Homosexuality falls far below the Supreme Courts Civil Rights standards regarding immutability. As such, how can we prescribe a permanent solution to a temporary reality? Why should society be forced to reassess all it's public policies to extend special protections regarding a transient reality?

How can a tiny subset of society demand special rights on the basis of a characteristic or trait that has zero distinguishing merits or standards of proof to even validate it? Researchers have constantly failed to locate biological indicators for homosexuality. Blacks and women can objectively verify their personhood by a tangible standard. Gays can not. American Justice demands tangible, objective evidence to merit policy change . The validating standards respective to homosexuality exist solely in the realm of subjectivity. And since there's no tangible distinguishing merits, how can it ever be proven that they are being discriminated for that invisible, subjective trait? How can it be demonstrably proven that someone is the victim of bias based on such factors? And how can a would-be *offender* of gay discrimination even be proven to have had knowledge of a would-be *victim's* sexual preference to begin with?. They couldn't. Not by the standards of our Justice System (and common sense).

Just recently, Attorney John Ker, addressing a committee in Texas on the possible need for an LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance there pointed out - after proponents admitted they don't have data in support of the presence of discrimination - said this:

 No necessity...We don’t have any evidence of discrimination occurring based on sexual orientation,” he said in an interview. “If there’s is no evidence, there’s no necessity to modify the policy to take care of something that is not happening.”The gay activist community are a libellious group of people, with their mega-funded Human Rights Campaign and the ACLU waiting constantly in the wings to swoop down with a crippling lawsuit anytime, it seems, anyone so much gives a cockeyed glance at an LGBT person. Gay activists are hyper-litigious - thin-skinned and intolerant. Don't like their modus operandi? They'll sue. Like when:

a Granbury, TX gay man sued his bank employers for discrimination because his job promotions didn't come in a timely-a fashion as he felt they should.

Or a gay employee of Ohio Bell Telephone Co., who sued his employers because they didn't honor his new surname from an out-of-state marriage (gay marriage being illegal in Ohio).

Or a gay daycare worker in Ashland, KY, who sued his employers for firing him, only to have it revealed they were merely acting out of economic hardship.

Or when a Washington, D.C. cross-dressing man sued a Christian-run women's homeless shelter for denying *him*.

Or gay employees of both Cracker Barrel and Exxon-mobile, suing for gay discrimination -literally- because they accuse their supervisors and co-workers of sharing homophobic conversations with each other.

These are but a few cases showing the hyper-litigious mindset of this demographic, quick to unload frivolous lawsuits anytime anybody disagrees with them. ENDA, or "fairness" or "nondiscrimination" ordinances, foster this climate of legislative insanity. Nondiscrimination ordinances are wielded as a very formidable sword, indeed. ENDA will unleash torrents of workplace litigation everywhere.

The entire gay rights movement has been the most corrupt, un-democratic pathway to "rights"  This subgroup of Americans -the activists in particular - have proven to be very hyper-sensitive, vindicative, thin-skinned and intolerant. It is constantly in the news where so-and-so is being penalized for "homophobic" remarks. What is "homophobic", anyways? Far as I can tell, it's an imprecise, aggrandized shaming word for those who forget to wear their Free Speech-silencing muzzle of political correctness. What human characteristic is so incontrovertibly, sanctimoniously righteous that it's forbidden to even question it's merits?
Homosexuality and gender confusion are demonstrably disordered, demonstrably unhealthy lifestyles. The A.P.A., C.D.C. and A.M.A. have all linked homosexuality with various serious health risks at rates greatly elevated above the general population (and LGBTs only comprise about 3.5% of the population). This is no benign, neutral trait.

One of the least desirable aspects of LGBT nondiscrimination policies is the issue of transsexuals - forcing the rest of society to engage in the same exact delusion that they do. Under ENDA, employers could be sued for calling such a person by the pronoun respective of that persons gender at birth. But more startlingly than that, cross-dressers -under most nondiscrimination policies nationwide- are granted access to all public facilities designated for the opposite gender. Locker rooms, showers, restrooms, fitting rooms. And the body-mutilating surgery is not prerequisite to this access. Girls in a Florence, CO High School are aghast at the presence of a cross-dressing boy in their restrooms...and there's nothing they can do about it - courtesy of a statewide LGBT nondiscrimination ordinance.

 In California -where gay rights legislation has spun out of control- gays wield incredible influence and intimidation of the political landscape, like the 2007 of the San Diego Fire Department being forced -against their will- to ride in the gay pride parade. Or Brooklyn, N.Y., where that City's District Attorney was fired by the City for something so trifle as sending a gay-critical tweet.

                                                    Traumatized child, gay pride parade.

To those of you who are lawmakers, perhaps even you have a close companion or family member who is gay. Do not allow your reverence and personal loyalty to them to translate into legislative bias, especially with such a broad, overreaching provision as this. We enact laws for the prosperity of the Many, not the molly-coddling of the Few.

-What follows are a few testimonials by homosexuals themselves refuting the need for ENDA, plus people in Texas submitting their observations refuting such legislation there."I'm facing more discrimination now as a Christian than I ever did as a member of the gay community", says an ex-gay caller of Dr. Michael Brown's radio show.

KCRob   on  Nov 7, 6:07 PM  said:

 "Here's the problem: how do you prove it was (or wasn't) discrimination. If you're a bad employee and I show you the door, what's to stop a gay employee from claiming discrimination (as some black employees do)? Unless the employer is dumb enough to say, in front of witnesses, that he won't hire gays then ???
 I've never found my orientation an issue at any job I've had... but then I don't "act gay". I'm not closeted but I don't make an issue of it either. I have known people who made damn sure that everyone in their building knew they were gay - just to make a statement - yet still kept their jobs. I wonder how often "anti-gay" bias in the employment actually happens.
 Note that when I say "employment", I'm referring to management... if someone makes a big show of his/her gayness in front of tough old welder or truck driver and gets a rude comment in return - that's just life. Move on. "

Jay Henry Smith, in a facebook post says,
What a load of crap. I've been an open gay man in San Antonio and the only time I was verbally bashed was in Austin, not here. And I've never been physically attacked. Our police chief was the grand marshal of our pride parade a few years ago, we have a gay man on the city council. But because one council person has anti-gay feelings we are on a 'travel alert'? I've never heard of your group until today, and you are obviously trying to scare people to raise your own profiles. Shame on you. This is why I can't support most national/statewide GLBT groups, so many of you are in it for personal gains, not for the betterment of the community"

And this gay commentator who truly 'gets it': "As a gay man myself, I would never turn away gays...especially beefy, hairy ones. The more the merrier really. It's the principle that I'm talking about. Businesses don't need more regulations hanging over their heads. If, as a business, I do discriminate, feel free to voice your opposition and boycott. That's how it works y'all"  ""
Here, gay activist, Editor and media icon Andrew Sullivan eviscerates the rationale behind ENDA-type legislation:"...I defended the Irish parade's right to exclude gays. The right of a bigot to walk down the street is the same as the right of a drag queen to walk down the street. You attack it for one group, every group will suffer....I believe a free country is freedom for bigotry.  I think it's great they can say what the hell they want and we can fight back with words, but shutting people down, criminalizing them, is not a free country."

In Waco TX, a city who's activists are pushing for an ENDA-type ordinance, the gay activists themselves have admitted the absence of discrimination to a reporter of the Waco Tribune:

Carmen Saenz [a prominent gay activist] said she knows of no cases of employment discrimination against LBGT workers in Waco city government. Nor has she ever faced discrimination living openly as a lesbian for 11 years in Waco.
And Waco gay activist Erma Ballenger is saying the city doesn’t need to have hard evidence of discrimination to justify a nondiscrimination policy.

No comments:

Post a Comment