DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Friday, June 16, 2017

Gays, Abortion, and the Force of Government

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

While waiting for our seat at a restaurant, my wife asked me if there have been any other attacks through governmental pressure by homosexuals against Christians. I told her that actually there had been a legal case that set a precedent that set back the gay agenda a little while ago.

In Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky, the gay agenda has lost twice on a case they are now appealing to the State Supreme Court regarding.  The issue is that while people who are running businesses must serve all people equally, they don’t have to treat all messages equally.

A T-shirt printer was sued by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission for refusing to promote “gay” rights, and the Fayette Circuit Court decision sided with the business owner, saying he could not be forced to violate his faith by “gay” customers demanding he print their agenda message.

The gay agenda calls the T-shirt printer's actions "discrimination."

If a Christian went to a gay printer and the printer refused to print the Christian's message that says "God made marriage for a man and a woman," would that be discrimination?  Should the Christian be able to sue the gay printer?

In the case of the Oregon baker who refused to bake the gay wedding cake, the business owner was sued, lost their business, and then lost everything and was forced to file for bankruptcy.

If a Christian went to a gay baker and the baker refused to bake a cake with an anti-gay message, should the Christian have the ability to sue the gay baker?

The problem is, I explained to my wife, is that we have groups using the law for preferential treatment.  That is not what the law is supposed to be about.  What the gay agenda is doing is a form of totalitarianism and divisive politics.  You could even say it is fascist in nature.  The Constitution requires that everyone is treated equal under the law, yet the gay agenda is forcing their will upon others demanding preferential treatment under the law.

"You mean," said a woman nearby, "like you Christians try to force preferential treatment against the woman's right to have an abortion?  You stick your picket signs in people's faces, and bomb abortion clinics.  People like you make me sick."

I turned to the woman.  "Actually, it's the opposite.  It is the pro-abortion crowd using the law to force pro-life organizations into compliance with the goal of preferential treatment for the pro-abortion agenda."

Before she called me a liar, I continued quickly.

"Planned Parenthood receives federal funding (despite the Hyde Amendment), but pro-life centers do not.  In many States laws requiring ultrasounds for pregnant women have been fought against because the choice to view an ultrasound reveals that the life in the woman's tummy is a baby, so pro-abortion crowds have been fighting to eliminate the use of ultrasounds at pro-life pregnancy centers, or any requirement that they be used in hospitals or other medical centers.  In California, it is now law that forces pro-life pregnancy resource centers to recommend abortions in their clinics and on their printed materials or be fined. . . there is no law
requiring abortion centers to advertise or recommend pro-life centers. Other States are seeking similar legislation. A California bill (AB 569), as it is currently written, disallows any organization or business, including churches and pro-life pregnancy centers, from using religiously motivated moral codes in their hiring practices - which means it will be illegal for a pro-life center to not hire someone because they are pro-abortion.  Is Planned Parenthood required to hire someone no matter what, even if they are pro-life?  So I ask: Who's using the law to force preferential treatment by government to fit their agenda?"

The woman replied, "See, you religious people think you are such victims."

The conversation was almost as bad as the one I had with the woman condoning murdering babies up to the age of 2 years in the name of post-birth abortion.  When I mentioned that conversation, she stormed off to a different party of the waiting area.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: