BullyingPreventionAct

Arizona Rejects Bullying Prevention Law

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

Well, once again, deception rules the day and the bullies pushing homosexuality in our culture win again—at least for now.

Arizona governor Jan Brewer vetoed Senate Bill 1062, a bill on religious freedom, or as I like to think of it, a bullying prevention law for grown-ups.

Why did she cave? Because Senator John McCain, other liberal Republicans, the shallow media, and amazingly, the NFL, joined the always complaining and usually inaccurate homosexual lobby in screaming about this bill, claiming it would lead to wide-scale refusal of services to homosexuals. A similar bill has also been unfortunately withdrawn in my home state of Ohio, at least for now.

The reality is, this fiasco was all about anti-Christian bigotry leading toward denial of religious freedom. And it’s mostly sodomy that is taking America to this dark place. Did we not understand the message of Genesis 19? The rabid, sexually corrupt mob is serious, they hate the authority of God and they will twist the facts, or just flat-out lie, to silence those who speak the truth.

Let’s understand a few basic facts. We already have religious freedom in our Constitution, so this isn’t a shocking concept. But that doesn’t mean this bill wasn’t necessary. First of all, it was a bill to strengthen a religious freedom measure already existing in Arizona. And we have a similar federal religious freedom bill passed in 1997 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton after nearly unanimous votes in both houses of Congress Were they all being “anti-gay” in approving such a measure?

No, it’s just that the whole country wasn’t yet subjected to the tyranny of the pink lobby, and politicians weren’t yet ducking for cover right and left. They are now.

Such bills have been made necessary recently to restore a “strict scrutiny” standard when applying First Amendment rights. Photographers, bakers, florists and others have been sued when they would not provide their services to homosexual couples for a so-called wedding. Homosexual activists want to force Christians to honor what we consider sin. Similar bills have already passed in 17 other states, so again, this shouldn’t be at all controversial.

No, what happened is intentional misinformation, even by self-declared Christians jumping into the discussion claiming this was a “Jim Crow” law and that we Christians should never refuse to serve anyone.

Well, I disagree. It’s not a “Jim Crow” law regarding homosexuality because homosexuals are not born that way. It’s not like race. That evidence does not exist and there are many ex-homosexuals attesting to the mutability of same sex attraction and behavior. When are we going to get back to objective truth? Race is inborn and it’s neutral; homosexuality is not, and it’s harmful. Check the CDC HIV Surveillance page if you doubt this.

Some discernment is needed. Should a Christian plumber think nothing of cleaning drains clogged with baby body parts at the local abortion mill? Or should he take a stand and say, no way? What do we really think Jesus would do?

These questions generally revolve around how the left is trying to use “public accommodations” policies as a club.Their claim is that, as long as a business deals with the “public,” it’s the values of the customers that must dictate what the business owner does. This is selectively applied, as usual, only in defense of cherished causes like the promotion of abortion, homosexuality, any-faith-but-Christianity, etc.

But liberals are wrong again, unless America is going to strip business owners of First Amendment rights, and apparently, we are on the way to doing just that. It’s exactly what the Human Rights Campaign and other homosexual pressure groups want to do.

Yet look at the practicalities. A business owner wants customers, or he or she won’t be in business for long, so there is a big incentive to not turn people away, to serve as many people as possible. Businesses aren’t like social service agencies. They actually do want customers.

As for Kirsten Powers and others who believe Christians should serve everyone and that Jesus would probably bake a cake for a same sex couple, really? Would Jesus actually be smiling as He hands over the multi-tiered, frosted concoction with two figures on top in tuxedos? Can any true believer picture this?

Not if they have read Scripture and take it, and what our Lord calls sin, seriously. Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Leviticus 18 and many other chapters come to mind.

Can we please apply some discernment here? A proud homosexual or gender- confused person may be someone a Christian bakery owner may want to serve, or not—his choice. If it’s just a cake, we are only talking about food, no matter what else is going on with that person. At that point, just as Jesus ate with open, known sinners, the baker would be doing nothing that would violate a mature Christian’s faith. It’s just about eating.

But some Christians rightly draw the line at servicing something that goes beyond food consumption, or a bouquet for the table, and that is honoring a homosexual “wedding.” At that point, the Christian would be putting a stamp of approval on sin. The same goes for supplying abortion-causing medications through employee insurance plans. That’s the ending of a human life.

Religious freedom laws are unlikely to result in people being turned away at restaurants or taxi drivers refusing rides. If it’s sin, we should refuse to honor it, but if it’s just eating, or riding, or holding a bouquet, it’s not honoring sin.

But when do we hear that perspective? People are too busy jumping on the pro-homosexual bandwagon or going along with anti-Christian smear campaigns.

Even the NFL, which makes me ask, what’s going on with them? Can we please get a little manhood going again?

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

comments

  • climate3

    Kind of an inaccurate ugly twist Ms. Harvey. No wonder your organization is an SPLC-designated hate group.

    • thisoldspouse

      That designation is a distinct honor. It means the perverts hate you.

      • climate3

        It actually means that the rabid dog who cause too much trouble and therefore has a bell put around its neck mistakes the meaning of the bell.

        • thisoldspouse

          Rabid dog? Are you referring to the SPLC-directed would-be mass murderer Floyd Corkin?

  • Alencon

    As Carl Sagan and others were fond of saying, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

    I am ashamed that you consider yourself an American.

    If you do business with the public, then you must serve the entire public except for specific people violating specific acts that apply to everyone (example: no shirt, no shoes, no service).

    Store owners serve people that they disapprove of all the time. I don’t see how baking a cake for a gay couple impacts your freedom of religion. The privilege of persecuting or discriminating against those you disapprove of isn’t part of that freedom.

    • thisoldspouse

      Who says that “if you do business with the public, you must serve the entire public?” When did that rule make it into the Constitution?

      You are just making things up, like most inane Leftists. If you hate freedom so much, move to N Korea. You’ll obviously love it there (they HATE Christianity! to boot.)

      • MarkSebree

        “When did that rule make it into the Constitution?”

        14th Amendment

        • thisoldspouse

          You don’t even know what the 14th Amendment says.

          • Mike

            Of course I do and I know that it means exactly what those above posters said and not what you seem to think it does.

      • Alencon

        As you’ve already been told, the 14th Amendment requires equal protection under the law.

        That includes not being refused service at a public shop because the owner thinks your sexual orientation is “sinful.”

        Do you know what you call leftists actually are? People who are evidence and fact oriented regardless of the consequences of those facts or the unpleasantness of those facts.

        We also understand the difference between knowledge and belief. Here’s a hint. Just because you believe something is true, doesn’t mean that it is.

  • Clint Batterton

    By your logic, the young African-Americans who staged the sit-ins were “bullies” and the lunch counter owners who refused to serve them were “victims.” Fundamentalist southerners claimed that the Bible justified segregation and even slavery, and that you couldn’t be “Christian” and favor “race mixing.” The civil rights laws have not, and should not, include “religious” exemptions. Proclaim hatred from your pulpits and refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, as is your right. But there is no faith tradition that requires “Christian” businessmen to refuse to sell to gay or lesbian customers, and most main stream Protestants do not countenance discrimination even if they consider gay people to be “sinners.” Even Cardinal Ratzinger, as protector of the doctrine of the Catholic Church, said that gay people should be afforded the same human dignity as everyone else.
    Your ridiculous lies – that the Arizona law was somehow a minor thing, or that gay people could somehow change – contrary to the 100+ years of observation of the mental health community, its task force on “reparative therapy,” and the conclusions of the last President of Exodus International, who said that they had a 99.9% failure rate in changing sexual orientation – are just irrelevant. Religious bigotry is still bigotry – it just seems to make some folks so hateful to gay people, who have done nothing to them, that you have to wonder what really motivates them.

  • http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com/ Emelye Waldherr

    Since I choose to follow a version of Christianity that doesn’t ostracize LGBT people should a fundamentalist baker refuse to honor a heterosexual wedding performed in my church? Would that be his right as he is exercising his special right to discriminate on the basis of his beliefs? If you call a florist who is Muslim, should she be able to refuse service for a Christian wedding, or any woman who doesn’t cover her hair, for that matter?

    I’m trying to determine the limits of the “religious freedom” laws being proposed around the country and haven’t really seen any credible answers to these questions. Can anyone here help me out?

    • thisoldspouse

      Yes to all questions.

      Freedom is freedom when it comes to directing your own resources. Any unintended negative economic consequences will self-correct any unreasonable discrimination.

      You should ask, rather, why anyone doesn’t ever consider the converse, why it’s perfectly okay for a customer to refused to do business with a merchant based on disagreement with their world view? Why shouldn’t “anti-discrimination” laws work for the business as well as the customer? Unequal treatment, anyone?

      • http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com/ Emelye Waldherr

        Let me be clear about this. You thus feel that any kind of nondiscrimination law should be done away with?

        • thisoldspouse

          Yes. We all already do discriminate. We must. It’s just that now all discrimination is not being treated equally.

          How is it that you people are so blind to the fact that in a very real sense, these Christian businessmen are being discriminated against by being told that their belief system must be subordinated to another belief system, that homosexual behavior is to be honored with the fruits of their labor?

          • http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com/ Emelye Waldherr

            “You people?” I’m only asking questions here, where did that come from?

            You didn’t answer my question, though. Does your belief include eliminating all nondiscrimination laws? It seems, by inference, that you do but I really would like clarification so I don’t make any uninformed decisions.

            Could it be that the Freedom of Religion is a personal freedom that doesn’t apply to a business and thus can be
            regulated in business dealings? Or do you feel that businesses should be afforded the same rights as individuals? Where’s the line? Should there even be a line or not?

          • thisoldspouse

            Yes, all non discrimination laws regarding private businesses, organizations, property, etc. should be eliminated. They are all unconstitutional. They all coerce the promotion of one world view over another.

            Am I clearer?

          • http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com/ Emelye Waldherr

            Yes, thank you.

            I note that the Supreme Court disagrees with your opinion that nondiscrimination laws are unconstitutional.

    • Clint Batterton

      In an attempt to answer your question, where LGBT Americans are included in civil rights laws, those laws would equally prohibit a gay businessman from refusing service to hateful fundamentalist bigots, based on their allegedly “Christian” beliefs. If a “fundamentalist baker” refused to cater a heterosexual wedding based on the religion of the celebrants, that, also, would be prohibited. Back in the 70’s, the fundamentalists at Bob Jones University refused to admit black students, and the US Supreme Court had no problem affirming a decision of the IRS that they forfeited their tax exemption as a result despite their “firmly held” religious belief in bigotry.

      • thisoldspouse

        But that’s not happening, is it? New Mexico Governor Martinez has been refused service because of her beliefs in natural marriage. But we don’t hear about the Human Rights commission coming down on the hairdresser. Conservative Alan Sears was refused Photography services in California with his beliefs cited as the reason.

        Crickets is all we hear. Hypocritical crickets.

  • shepetgene

    Also, how ironic that at the end of an article arguing this is some sort of anti-bullying law she writes Even the NFL, which makes me ask, what’s going on with them? Can we please get a little manhood going again?”

    Wow Linda, you’re right. All gay men are effeminate and lack manhood. That’s not a completely unfounded statement used by bullies all over this nation from middle schools to apparently the “esteemed” news site Barbwire.

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!