Last Saturday Night, after attending a Murrieta-Temecula California Republican Assembly meeting, I spent some time talking to a Democrat that decided to attend the meeting. She was expecting GOP talking points from me as we battled back and forth, but was not sure how to respond a few times when my responses were purely Constitution-based.
Typical of leftist thought, or lack thereof, she went straight for the usual accusations. She decided I am racist, homophobic, and hate all Muslims. Her husband is a Muslim, a very conservative guy, and he even purchased my book, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution, and enjoyed it. I responded, "That just means he's not a very good Muslim."
On the LGBT and racism front, we eventually moved to the hate crime enhancement of penalties. She called it necessary, and I called it preferential treatment.
The Gay Agenda is so intent on justifying their behavior with help from the government to force any opposition into compliance, that they were willing to push a Christian baker into bankruptcy for it. She denied knowing about the bankruptcy, but said it served them right for being bigots. Their religious freedom meant nothing to her. I am guessing, since she is married to a Muslim, and she's a hard left democrat (I have trouble seeing this couple coexisting, to be honest), Christianity is not high on her list of groups that need to be defended.
"What if," I asked, "a gay baker refused to bake a heterosexual cake. Should they be sued, and forced into bankruptcy?"
"It wouldn't happen."
"Why, are gays more tolerant than Christians? Is that why the homosexual agenda forced their agenda into the schools, but is dead-set against children being able to pray in school? I know your type. You think that only conservatives can be intolerant, and only white rightwingers can be racist. Besides, how do you decide if something is a hate crime? Are we now deciding we know what people are thinking? And why should we let government decide what the parameters are? How long before they use it to target political enemies?"
"Well," she said, "it is not hard to figure out if it's a hate crime when there is a murder, and the victim's blood is smeared on the walls with the sentence, 'Die N-Word.'"
"Yet, there are crimes by blacks against whites, with the specific intention to target whites, and the offenders admit to police they were targeting white people, and those crimes don't get the hate crime enhancement."
"That doesn't happen. That is ridiculous. You can't possibly give me any example of that."
"I have a perfect example. The knock-out games."
"What? What's that?"
She was honest. She had never heard about the knock-out games. As I described how black youths target older whites with the intention of trying to knock them out with one hit, she refused to accept what I was telling her. She acted as if I was making it up. Yet, among conservatives, the reality of knock-out games is common knowledge.
When I added that the few times whites have done it, they were charged with a hate crime, while the blacks were not.
"Preferential treatment," I said. "My main complaint is that first, the federal government has no business getting involved in these issues. They have no constitutional authority. Second, no law should create an atmosphere of preferentialism, be it something like affirmative action, laws attempting to normalize homosexual behavior, or hate crime laws."
I walked away primarily stunned she had never heard of knock-out games.
The liberal left progressives do not seek information. They hear what they want to hear, they tune in to only outlets that tell them what they want to hear, and they reject that there may be a viable opposing view. The opposition is simply racist, bigoted, and must be silenced. . . that is the leftist credo.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Homosexual "Wedding" Cake Case Pushes Christian Baker To Bankruptcy - Political Pistachio
Federal Authorities charge white knockout suspect with hate crime - Washington Times
No comments:
Post a Comment