Your freedom of speech, religion and association are only permitted if you support the Homosexual and Leftist agenda. Principles contrary to that are to be deemed criminal.
The right to religious freedom and it’s exercise if you are Christian looks like it will no longer be permitted in a culture that has decided Homosexuality is a superior morality. The BIG LIE and Narrative the Praetorian media is fostering every hour on the hour, is that Christian religious liberty and free speech is automatic discrimination against homosexuals or whatever group they choose to apply the smear.
Today, listening to the sheer hysteria, apparently the First Amendment applies only to those whom agree with and speak the Leftist/Homosexual agenda. The right to freedom of speech, belief and religious exercise should be restricted, regulated or abolished altogether if it does not follow the cultural zeitgeist . Indeed, some animals are more equal than others in this twisted Liberal Leftist utopia from hell.
The narrative in America right now is that if you are a biblical Christian, and you think aberrant sexual behavior is sin, your faith is discriminatory and therefore criminal. You are deemed a threat to the well-being of the public. This meme is reaching fevered pitch and being repeated on social media; Christians who hold to biblical faith and refuse to accept behaviors they consider sinful, are evil and worse than Nazis.
In response to the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects businesses from lawsuits intended to put them out of business for refusing service to agendas and behaviors contrary to their religious beliefs, Labor Department employee Elizabeth Ashack took to Twitter and wrote “People in the red states vote for nazis to govern, and then call themselves Christian, it will not end well for them. #BoycottIndiana,”
So she says Christian Conservatives are Nazis, which , is a growing belief in this country. Her tweet was captured by SooperMexican.com before it was deleted. She now denies she sent the tweet, and claims her account was hacked. How convenient. She obviously attended the same class Hillary Clinton did on what to do about your social media correspondence. The sentiments of accusatory discrimination heaped on Christians are being stoked and repeated ad nauseum everywhere.
Note Ashack’s comment that it will not end well for Christians in Red States. Leftists are always stoking for that violent revolution or final solution for those people the Leftists hate and want eliminated. This seems to be the path this country is on, and apparently we cannot avoid that inevitability anymore.
To the Gay Leftist Revolutionists, Religious liberty laws are an act of discrimination by Christians and therefore, an act of war. That the act also protects Muslims and Hindus in their businesses is not an issue of consideration. The sole focus of rage is against Christians who benefit from the protection that these religious freedom acts enshrine.
To some of us Christians who are awake – we recognize where this kind of mob mentality always leads. The hatred of God and His Christ is visited upon those who follow Him, and that hatred is rising in the United States. Sadly for Christians in America, the majority of them are fast asleep or quick to compromise their faith and principles so as to avoid ‘persecution’.
History teaches where the kind of radical zeitgeist being preached by Leftists always leads. Truth is a lie. Lies are truth. Good is now evil, and evil is now good. Woe to us all in this country.
In the interest of engaging in a revolutionary act by telling the truth in an age of universal deceit, Ben Shapiro lays out the lies and myths that the media, lobbying agendas and government are laying upon various RFRA laws across the country.
INDIANA BACKLASH SHOWS LEFT’S HATRED FOR FIRST AMENDMENT
In the wake of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the media have been stacking myth upon myth in order to drive the narrative that right-wingers desperately want to harm gays and lesbians. Nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives merely want to protect a basic notion of freedom from the tyranny of the left: the notion that individual rights, even those exercised in ways we would not always like, are still rights. Those rights extend to your conduct of your own business, given that there are no externalities – and refusal to engage in a voluntary transaction does not amount to an externality. That is the essence of liberty.
Here are the top myths pushed by the media left in the wake of the RFRA:
RFRA Discriminates Against Gays. No, the RFRA does not. The RFRA is explicitly designed to protect practice of any religion. It says that “a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” That can be overridden if the government’s action “is in furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is also “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.” If government does act against someone in violation of their religious principles, that person or entity can assert that violation “as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding.” So, if you are a Muslim, and you want to wear a beard while a police officer, the RFRA protects you. If you are a Jehovah’s Witness and you don’t want to get a blood transfusion in violation of law, the RFRA protects you.
The reason many on the left believe the RFRA discriminates against homosexuals is because homosexuals have sued private religious businessowners for refusing to service same-sex weddings. The RFRA protects such religious businessowners from antidiscrimination laws – although Indiana has no such antidiscrimination laws with regard to sexual orientation anyway. So Indiana’s law has not even changed one iota with regard to private businessowners’ treatment of homosexuals, let alone gay marriage (refusing to service a same-sex wedding is not the same as refusing to serve someone gay, by the way).
RFRA Is a Republican Plot. No, it is not. The original federal RFRA was passed in 1993, signed by Bill Clinton, and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. The bill passed the United States House of Representatives unanimously, and the Senate 97-3. It was co-sponsored by probable incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). In 1998, then-State Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) voted for a similar law. It passed unanimously 56-0.
This Is Like Jim Crow. No, it is not. Jim Crow was a mandatory set of regulations springing from the government – the same government the left now wants to use to discriminate against religious people for failing their tolerance test. Alabama’s Jim Crow law explicitly prevented private businessowners from serving blacks at its lunch counters:
It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment.
The same homosexual advocates and allies who want to use the government as a club to beat those who engage in certain voluntary conduct were surely against that tactic when the government was discriminating against homosexual conduct.
This Will Allow Discrimination Against Blacks, Too. No, it won’t. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents such discrimination. The supremacy clause means the Civil Rights Act trumps state law. It is worth noting that the Constitution itself should not permit the federal government to intervene with regard to private businesses involved in making judgments about whether to engage in certain voluntary transactions, no matter the excuse for that refusal. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) used to rightly oppose that aspect of the Civil Rights Act, but has since backed away from that libertarian position.
In a free society, we understand that societal disapproval of activity does not, on its own, justify violation of individual rights. But not the left, which is happy to bring a gun to the party, just so long as it is the party wielding the gun.