Posted on 08/05/2016 6:31:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
Several months ago I received a scathing rebuke from a gay professor who we will call Rod – because that is his name. He was angered by my insistence that a Christian musician should not be forced to perform at gay weddings. He asserted that the “cost of doing business” is that you must “accommodate” all segments of the population, regardless of your religious beliefs. In other words, he articulated the belief that every single business has to serve every single customer in order to “accommodate the public” – even if that means attending religious services that violate his conscience. In that sense, he seemed every bit as unhinged as Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson.
I did not think much of Rod’s statement and simply discarded it without a second thought. The reason for my flippancy is that Professor Rod writes me quite often. He messages me on social media and emails me repeatedly. For a guy who seems to hate me he almost seems to like me. So I generally ignore him in the hope he will go away.
Last week, however, Professor Rod sent a message that I simply could not discard. He was writing again in anger – this time over my criticism of the NBA for doing business with communist China while simultaneously boycotting North Carolina. With no sense of irony, he actually stated the following: "As a capitalist you should know that private businesses cannot be forced to do business with anyone against their will."
It was just so rich that it inspired me to make Professor Rod the subject of my weekly column - although I have omitted his last name and institutional affiliation. (Note: I sometimes omit the names of obscure professors when I am convinced that they are simply tying to pick a fight with me to increase their visibility – or to get promoted to an administrative position in the Division of Diversity and Inclusion).
Professor Rod’s remarks are significant when taken together because they show how members of the LGBT movement are often falsely accused of supporting fascism. In fact, I often hear them referred to as “homo fascists” - and I detest the term because it is inaccurate. (However, despite its fascistic overtones I do still occasionally employ the term “gaystapo.” Old habits are hard to break).
Put simply, LGBT activists are not seeking to have the government control all private businesses – as would be the case if they were truly fascistic. In reality, they are only seeking to have the government control all Christian organizations as well as individual Christian entrepreneurs. If you need any evidence of that just consider the two positions embodied in Professor Rod’s two separate communications:
1. Christian musicians (and photographers and florists and bakers) should be forced against their will to “accommodate” all segments of the population.
2. Secular organizations like the NBA should be allowed to decline anyone’s business free from government interference – or, as he put it, “force.” In other words, secular businesses and organizations do not have to accommodate anyone.
Professor Rod’s remarks demonstrate clearly that he is not a fascist – simply because a true fascist would try to assume control of all businesses, not just religious ones. His remarks are also significant given that the Tenured Left regularly accuses the Christian Right of trying to set up a “theocracy” in America. In case you didn’t yet notice, let me state the obvious point that Professor Rod is a theocrat, not a fascist.
A theocrat is a person who advocates a government ruled by or subject to religious authority. It has become increasingly clear the LGBT movement is theocratic in the sense that it seeks to use the government to purge from the public square all religious ideas that run contrary to their own. Of course, the end result of banning all religious opposition to homosexuality is to make secular humanism the default religion of the entire nation.
But setting up an ideal theocracy requires mandatory worship – and that calls for a shift in the tactics of the LGBT movement. For years, they have relied upon various tactics such as political campaign disclosure laws to identify Christian businesses and individuals who contribute to pro-family causes and support traditional marriage ballot measures. The obvious goal of this “transparency” push is to launch boycotts against businesses (and to get them thrown off college campuses in the name of inclusion). Such measures are also meant to prompt shareholders to pressure companies to fire their Christian CEOs – all for the crime of having convictions and the desire to lobby for them in the political arena.
As Professor Rod’s remarks demonstrate unequivocally, the movement has now shifted gears and is seeking to force businesses to actively affirm homosexuality. Make no mistake about the fact that churches are their next targets. That is precisely why they went to the courts to achieve the goals they could not accomplish at the ballot box. They are gearing up for a war of “competing constitutional interests.” The conflict will test the question of whether religious freedom is trumped by sexual liberty, which has now taken on a religious dimension.
In the end, the theocratic LGBT movement envisions an America where every knee bends, every head bows, and every tongue confesses that homosexuality is good. Thus, the movement has become more like a denomination than a quest for “civil rights.” Pretty soon their denomination will have the full backing of the state. Professor Rod said it best when he warned prophetically that, “You will violate the law at your own peril.”
Compelled affirmation is truly the mark of a primitive theocracy. In the end, it is one that legalizes rape in the midst of orgiastic proclamations that love has won the day.
Please Freepmail me if you want to be added, readded, or removed
They think business is an arm of government. "You didn't build that." Therefore, business owners exist only to generate tax revenue for the State and provide employment to Democrats and must obey whatever whims the central bureaucracy comes up with - or else.
If it were “only a denomination” it would still be able to be avoided by those who didn’t want something to do with it; a Roman Catholic could legally avoid Baptist affairs or vice versa, to give an obvious example.
It wants to be something like a supra-denomination that doesn’t even brook this kind of choice.
Dominance, not equality. Homosexuality is the press by which marxists intend to crush the church, or worse, to convert it into a servant of darkness.
I agree and we should all use it.
Dominance is exactly what they want.
Excellent article, Kaslin.
The irony pointed out by Adams has not been missed by many of us. NBA can withhold business, even break existing contracts over their beliefs, but a Christian baker cannot bake you a cake but only do decorating within their belief system.
I think this would be a good article to email to fence sitters.
It is a nice phrase. I like it much more than Ayn Rand’s clunky “sanction of the victim” which has, I think, the same meaning.
Ping to article
Lately it damned near IS that obvious.
Love ya, Mike- but STOP using GAY to describe their perversion. Homosexual or sodomite are truthful.
HOMOSEXUAL, because there’s nothing GAY about it.
The progressive agenda is attempting an impossible task; that is to remove from society a diversity of thought.......a diversity that includes the right of prejudice or to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil and moral and immoral. That is why they go after Christianity or any religion that articulates these distinctions.
I prefer to use the phrase “fag” marriage to Gay marriage. Which is a word they actually stole. The original meaning of gay meant happy. Homosexuals are anything but happy.
If it’s good for one then its good for all, the gubmint tells us just that. Sooooooooooooooooo, with good intent (and a lawsuit waiting to be filed), I am going to demand that ALL, you know what “ALL” means, I’m going to DEMAND that ALL Muslim businesses that handle ANY KIND OF fresh or frozen MEATS, immediately start proving fresh pork products in their stores or close forever. How far will the gubmint go to insure that the muzzies actually do that? Then, if the gubmint refuses to make the muzzies provide fresh pork products, I will name the gubmint in the same suit.
It is well past time that Christians be treated as criminals while muzzies are left to their own choosing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.