Big Gay Blog Post, or The Jan Brewer Bashing

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Labeled the "Anti-gay bill" by leftist groups and the homosexual agenda, Arizona's legislative attempt to protect businesses owned by religious owners (other than Muslim) that are determined not to provide services that go against their faith, such as a gay depiction on a wedding cake, was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer.  Her decision came after a massive bullying by the media, the political establishment, and dominant left-wing cultural personalities.  In other words, the liberal left, and homosexual lobby, are using the force of everything at their disposal to take away religious freedom, while establishing their own religion of progressivism as the official dogma of the United States.

Nothing new, I know, but this one ranks among the most glaring examples of recent memory.

The pressure, and the threat of personal destruction by democrats, media, and the liberal entertainment circuit, was enough for Jan Brewer, the politician, to go against her legislature, the conservative base of the Republican Party, and likely her own gut preference.  A veto was the only choice.  She could see the noose being swung over the branch by the leftist establishment, and she could see the snarls on the face of the moderate republicans demanding that she go along to get along.

Principles, religious, or otherwise, be damned.

If Governor Brewer decided to not veto the bill, the liberal left would love it.  They would scream, accuse, and use it as just another example of how the GOP is loaded with a bunch of racists.  Then, it would be challenged, go to court, and the next liberal judge would declare the law unconstitutional.

Liberals don't allow laws they disagree with to remain in place for long, regardless of the percentage of legislators, or the percentage of voters, that support it.  They don't care about history, religious freedoms, or the constitution.  If they don't like it, it's going down, either by bullying the politicians or voters involved, or by striking it down later with one of their comrades in a black robe.

The liberal left is interested in forcing, through the force of law, and the threat of whatever they can throw at you, their version of morality.  What is important to them is not moral standards, or religious freedom, but how they define moral standards, and that religion shuts the hell up or is also forced by law to conform to their twisted version of moral standards.  Don't like it?  Dare to stand against them?  Prepare to be bullied into submission like Governor Jan Brewer was.  She was bullied even by the NFL, who told her they'd take the Super Bowl away if she dared buck the liberal system.

I could use the ol' standby, "but you know, if it was conservatives bullying a democrat governor. . . "

Wrong answer.  Then, it would have been wrong to pressure the politician like that.  Political Bullying is wrong, or right, depending on the politicians, and the bullies.  Since the left is convinced theirs is the right thing, there are no rules.  Bullying is acceptable.  Lying is acceptable.  Stomping all over the constitution, denying religious freedoms, and using any means necessary to silence and stop the opposition is fine.  But, if the table was flipped, then the republicans involved would be characterized the same way they attacked George W. Bush.  We'd hear cries of discrimination, hate, bigot, or worse.

What the leftists wants is all that matters, no matter how it is obtained.

The leftists do not accept laws they don't agree with.  Obama has proven he won't enforce laws he doesn't agree with, and then will put into practice laws he thinks should be on the books, without the benefit of Congress.  The law is whatever benefits the liberal left the most.

What about the legal angle?  What about a business's right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?  Do you remember the stories of Christians escorted by security out of malls for daring to talk about their faith, or wearing a religious shirt in a business, and so their business was refused by the leftist business owner?  That was fine.  The business owner, we were told, has a right to run his business anyway he wants.  If he doesn't want the damn Christians in there, he has a right to have them escorted to the curb - but if homosexuals want to force a Christian business owner to bake a gay cake, or take gay wedding pictures, tough.  Do it, or face the full consequences of the law by the liberal left establishment.  Conform, or be shut down, fined, and possibly jailed.

As for that bill in Arizona, was it really an "anti-gay" bill, or was it a law designed to protect religious freedom from militant homosexualism and frivolous lawsuits?  By not protecting the religious freedoms of these folks, gay activists are going to target these businesses, watching for just the right moment, and jump all over them.

We can argue about the morality of homosexuality all we want, but it doesn't get to the heart of the issue regarding the gay agenda in America.  According to one side, the activity is a sin, and though they have no interest in legislating morality, they don't want to be forced to accept it as a natural part of society, either.

The premise set by the homosexual agenda is that gay marriage, and any other issue directly related to the gay movement, fall into the category of civil rights.  This is a necessary label, if the gay agenda is going to have a chance to pull off the normalization of their sexual lifestyle.  Without convincing everyone that gays are born that way, can't help it, and that to dare to oppose their agenda is discrimination in the same vain as was forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus, or separate drinking fountains depending on the color of your skin, the gay lifestyle becomes nothing more than a bad decision, a sexual perversion, and just another agenda trying to line its own pockets or force its way into the American mosaic - whether you like it, or not.  Without the "gay plight" being labeled as a civil rights issue, the movement has no legs.

Since gay marriage was the ignition point, that means that first homosexuals needed to convince everyone that they are a monogamous group, only interested in a meaningful relationship with a single spouse, and raising their family without the "hateful discrimination" from a bunch of ignorant, bigoted Bible-thumpers.  Since the Christian community calls homosexuality a "sin," the gay agenda must convince everyone that either it is not a sin, that it doesn't matter if it is a sin, that the group of people making the accusations lack credibility, or a combination thereof.  In other words, the people of America must be convinced they have been fed false information from an untrustworthy source, and then their hearts and minds must be changed to accept the new reality.

Break it down anyway you want, in the end it is still about convincing the public that God is wrong, God is unfair, and that if God is not supposed to be wrong and unfair then He must not exist in the first place.

The drive to normalize homosexuality, then, is not really about the gay lifestyle as much as it is about destroying all opposition, and ultimately, eliminating God.

Liberalism as defined by the current leftist ideology plays by old rules established by ancient purveyors of collectivism and statism.  Language is being altered to reflect something different than originally intended.  Language being is used to mask truth, ridicule and silence opposition, and convey a message of good intentions and caring aims.  In the end, the left refuses to define their terms truthfully, and instead uses confusion and deception to achieve their goals.

After the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in order to convince the skeptics in New York to ratify the new constitution, 85 essays were written to the New Yorkers in an attempt to convince them that a larger government is necessary, but that through the chains of the constitution, it would be restrained to only the limited authorities granted to it.  In five of those essays, also known as the Federalist Papers, James Madison follows a reference to this country being a republic by writing, "a republic, by which I mean. . . "  Why did James Madison, the father of the Constitution, feel he needed to explain what a republic is?

The statists of that time were monkeying with the language, just as the left is doing, now.  The attack was designed to redefine what a republic is, just as today the gay agenda is trying to redefine what marriage is.  The statists were saying that a republic and a democracy are the same thing.  That there is no difference.  In reality, there is a huge difference, and democracies are actually unstable, and act as a transitional government, most often towards an oligarchy where the powerful few rule over the many.

That is what is happening now.  Nothing new.  And what is really interesting about it is that the gays are actually just tools.  They are being used by the left.  Leftism ultimately always becomes totalitarian systems, where the government is the ultimate object of allegiance, and anyone not fully productive for the sake of supporting that system, are put to death - as the gays were in the Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, and so forth.

Of course, the gay bar refusing to serve anyone that supports Arizona's bill isn't discriminatory at all.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Pressure mounts on Arizona governor to veto bill dubbed anti-gay - Yahoo News

Issue Analysis: Arizona bill does not give businesses license to discriminate against gays - Christian Post

WeHo Bar to Deny Entry to Lawmakers who back anti-gay legislation - CBS Los Angeles