Fascist Constitutionphobes and Religiophobes Hope You Won't Read

Have you heard about the legislation recently passed by the Arizona legislature? Have you heard that it is "anti-gay"? Do you know the name of the legislation? Have you even bothered to read it? It's not very long or hard to find. I easily found it here. It is SB 1062.

The way the marriage neutering and homosexuality advocates have been engaging in their dramatic whining and over-the-top theatrics, and the way so many of their repeaters in the MSM have called it "anti-gay", you'd think the legislation authorizes people to hunt down homosexual people where they live and burn down their homes.

Go ahead and search through the text.

You won't find one mention of any of the following words or phrases:

gay
lesbian
homosexual
sexual orientation
same-sex
heterosexual

You won't find euphemisms for those words or phrases, either.

What you will find is that the core language of the legislation is:

"STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion..."

However, there are some very important and sizable exceptions:

"In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest."
"The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

More core language:

"A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding..."

Again, there are some very important and sizable exceptions.

What is the big deal?

This seems to me like this is an application basic rights - rights specifically enumerated in the First Amendment.

If we consider this in the context of recent government actions, then this would appear to be a reaction to recent cases involving bakers and photographers who have opted out of participation in events that have offended their consciences and sincerely and strongly held religious convictions that have a long, public, mainstream, and widespread tradition and can be informed by a basic reading of Scripture. These businesspeople have been sued or prosecuted by their own government. These situations have also been misportrayed as the someone "refusing to serve gay people". I recall that one baker in particular had gladly served the homosexual people in question on different occasions. It was only when the baker was asked to participate in a specific event, a same-sex "wedding" ceremony, that the baker declined. Still, some people might insist that such a denial was "anti-gay". However, I can demonstrate that it wasn't. The same baker would have refused if two heterosexual women had asked for the baker to participate in their "wedding".

Notice that the legislation does not mention such professions or events. The legislation could apply to many other things that have nothing to do with what homosexual people do with each other.

So why is it being called "anti-gay"?

I can think of two reasons right now.

1) Leftist homosexuality advocates are malignant narcissists. Everything in the world has to be about their orgasms. They see the entire world through their genitals and anal openings. Other people are to be judged by whether or not they think it is just groovy that one man likes to stick it in another man's anus. They have some bizarre fixation on what other people think about their private bedroom (or public restroom) behavior. Legislation is to be evaluated by whether or not it will encourage one man to stick it in another man's anus, or whether or not it empowers or celebrates such men nor not.

2) Homofascists want to reorganize all of society around their feelings, including the practice of religion, and anything that exempts anyone from being under the control of homofascists is labeled "anti-gay". That would mean they are getting so upset because they fully intend to use the force of government to force everyone, even the deeply religious, to celebrate homosexual behavior.

Whatever happened to "leave us alone"? Now that's not enough. Now they seek you out, quiz you, and if your answers aren't right you're facing a trip to economic Siberia.

Even if you disagree with the legislation, the hysterics from the Leftist homosexuality advocates, and the lockstep following of low information voters should concern you. Really, if signed into law and implemented, how would this law hurt a single homosexual person? Someone might ask a baker for a "wedding" cake with two grooms on top of it. The baker would say "Can't do it." Then the homosexual person could go to another baker. Who got hurt? Judging from the circus-like response to the legislation, there would be plenty of other people willing to participate in the "wedding" by making a cake. Comparisons to Jim Crow do not hold up. Jim Crow included government-enforced blanket segregation based on skin color. This would be a business, not government, deciding they could not participate in an event.

Is such legislation Constitutional? I don't see how it isn't. It is essentially a building upon the First Amendment.

Will it actually be implemented if signed into law? Don't count on it.

As we're seeing repeatedly, the Constitution doesn't matter. The Executive Branch is under the control of Leftist homosexuality advocates who do not believe in letting states handle their own matters or being bound by existing legislation, and they have more and bigger guns than Arizona. Don't kid yourself. That's all it boils down to these days. Even if Arizona refuses to prosecute a baker for being true to their faith, Obama's Department of Justice will.

UPDATE:

A question opponents of Arizona SB1062 don't seem able to answer: What is the objectionable text in the bill?

Parting With Bias at the Red Sea

Every once in a while – usually around Christmas, Easter, Passover, or some other Jewish or Christian holiday – we get MSM stories that report that research shows some Biblical miracle can be explained by known natural processes. In this case, it was the parting of the Red Sea - again. This is usually done to promote a book or television show.

What is fascinating is that there is often assumption that God could not have performed a miracle, and no matter what, the conclusion will lead there.

The first way this is exhibited is usually by denying that what the Bible records ever happened in the first place.

But if someone posits a series of conditions that could have possibly happened as a result of natural processes, then that is supposed to mean that the occurrence recorded in the Bible could not have been a miracle of God.

It's heads I win, tails you lose.

It's an atheistic bias.

However, if God exists, He can certainly perform miracles. And if God performs miracles, there's no reason why He can't perform a miracle that has some parallel in nature. People recover from disease, but that doesn't mean that God can't heal someone miraculously. Turning water into wine instantly is a miracle, even though grapevines do the same thing… slowly.

People are certainly free to deny the existence of God, or categorically deny His involvement in history. But let's not deny when an atheistic bias is at work.

The Religious Right- an American Reaction, Not an Imposition

The Left loves to portray the Religious Right as some insidious, extreme, relatively new influence that foisted itself upon America, when, in fact, the Religious Right (RR) arose as a response to organized and extremist Leftist activism that sought to reshape America and Western civilization. These people in the RR organized to conserve the culture – the traditions, institutions, morals, ideals, and standards – that they saw as worth conserving.  There would be no organized Religious Right if it weren’t for things like Roe v. Wade and other landmark court decisions.

Leftist activists, atheists, parental authority subverters, abortion pushers, those who despise masculinity in men and femininity in women, and decadent hedonists had organized and were exerting influence from within and over politics, media, academia, corporate America, and even churches. Their tactics included undermining parental authority, reducing church influence in the public square, and reducing self-discipline with the ultimate goal, apparently, of transferring reliance on self, family, and church to reliance on the state, thus making it easier to spread the costs of malignant narcissistic hedonism to society at large while disarming that society's ability to reinforce traditional behavioral constraints. In practical terms, this meant bringing homosexuality out of the bedroom and into every aspect of life and denying heterosexuality as the norm or as qualitatively different from homosexuality. This meant denying the differences in the sexes. This meant immodesty in attire and behavior. This meant men and women abdicating their restraints, roles, and responsibilities. This meant removing reminders that our nation was founded by Christians. This meant ridiculing and ostracizing the devout.

The results have not been good.  Judging from what their activists are saying, radical feminists, homosexuality advocates, and atheists are still feeling uncomfortable, insecure, excluded, oppressed, and offended. So, according to them, their goals have not been realized. Meanwhile, the negative effects from the changes have touched every area of our lives.

Easy access to contraception and abortion was going to provide us with guilt-free and consequence-free sex, and make sure that no child would be born into an abusive situation or into poverty. Didn’t happen.

Shacking up was going to make sure that people only got married if they were right for each other and ready. Didn’t happen.

Instead, we had an explosion of STDs, including AIDS, and divorce. Too many people can no longer clearly see the difference between real marriage and counterfeits. We have more broken homes. Children are being abused, neglected, or primarily raised by a series of strangers and exposed to an endless line "surrogate parents" (their parents' sex partners). Newborn babies are being thrown into dumpsters even where there is easy access to abortion and where babies can be surrendered safely with no strings attached in the first 72 hours after birth. Human beings are being treated like commodities. There has been an increase in the diagnoses of emotional, social, and behavioral disorders. And, surprise – there has been increased dependence on federal government.

While the past was never perfect, the present results of Leftist activism has made many things worse. Even as people didn’t always live by their ideal morals, it was understood that sexuality was a private matter, that sex was best saved for marriage, that men and women were different and should be able to socialize as groups and raise boys to be masculine men and girls to be feminine women, that children were best raised within a marriage, and that parents should be supported in childrearing instead of undermined. The Christian aspects of our national heritage were acknowledged and respected, even though everyone knew that non-Christians and even non-theists were a part of our society, too. Commercial entertainment was sought after to inspire and reinforce good, not feed off of and push our lusts.

The thing about the Left trying to disarm the Religious Right by trying to herd evangelicals into their corner is… the result, if they were to succeed, would be ugly. Even more churches would fail to be salt and light to the world. Higher taxes and inefficient government bureaucracy would be seen as a replacement for private charity.

One of the frequent criticisms of the RR is that they are intolerant and want to control the bedrooms of other people. My experience has been that most in the RR simply want what goes on in the bedroom to stay in the bedroom and for people to accept the consequences of their private actions. While they condemn what they think is negative deviance, that is not the same thing as being intolerant.

Meanwhile, the Left wants even more control over your wallet, your closet, your workplace, your home, your lightbulbs, your shopping bags, your investments, your dinner table, your children, your car, and your speech.

If the RR were to die, the results would be very bad. Thankfully, it hasn't died. But the Left will keep dreaming.