San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Georgia Governor Discriminates Against Christians

 'Discrimination' is an interesting word.  Prior to the start of this generation and the creation of laws denying the First Amendment, as well as the suppression of various forms of speech, the word was morally neutral.  Everybody recognized that everybody discriminated all the time.  When I choose apple pie over cherry pie I am discriminating.  When you choose Ford over Toyota you are discriminating.  When you vacation in Minnesota rather than Wyoming you are discriminating.  All of us make thousands of discriminatory decisions every single day.  I do not think it is too much of a stretch to say that most of the things we do every day involve the act of discrimination in one fashion or another.  That is what makes everything so strange when we come to the way the word is used today.
Today the word 'discrimination' is only used in a negative context.  When someone is accused of using discrimination while forming an opinion or rendering a decision that person is allegedly guilty of a civil tort or a criminal violation of the law.  Let me give you some examples.  If a couple hires a Hindu photographer for their wedding and then serves beef at the wedding, is the Hindu photographer guilty of a tort when he refuses to eat the beef?  What if he discriminates against the meat eaters to the point that he decides he would rather not attend the wedding at all?  If a group of vegans are invited to attend a rattlesnake roundup and they refuse to attend, are they behaving with immoral discrimination against those who like to kill and eat rattlesnakes by refusing to support their lifestyle choices?  If you are a Muslim and I come into your Kwik-E-Mart  and demand, based upon the sales practices of every other Kwik-E-Mart in the neighborhood,  that you sell me pipe tobacco, are you illegally discriminating against me for refusing to even carry pipe tobacco in your store?  If a church of Quakers has decided to sponsor a "movie night" for the general public as a means of introducing themselves to the community but they refuse to show any movies that glorify the various wars conducted by the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, do I, as a veteran, have the right to say that they are discriminating against me by refusing to affirm my military service as a good thing?   All of the scenarios listed above are examples of discrimination and yet I believe even the most flaming liberals among us would agree that no real criminal discrimination is taking place in any of the examples.   That is what makes what happened in Georgia yesterday so fascinating.
In this story on cnbc.com yesterday, the career politician sitting in the governor's chair in Georgia announced that he hates Christians and Christianity and will do everything within his power to persecute them.  The Governor of Georgia proudly and arrogantly proclaimed that the only form of discrimination that shall ever take place in his state and under his rule is discrimination against Christians.  Discrimination against other groups, especially sexual perverts, is strictly forbidden.  Here are the primary elements of the story:
"Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal on Monday vetoed legislation shielding opponents of same-sex marriage, after a groundswell of opposition from companies threatening to boycott the state if it became law.  The Republican announced his decision during a news conference in his office at the Georgia Capitol, saying, 'I have examined the protections that this bill proposes to provide to the faith based community and I can find no examples of any of those circumstances occurring in our state.'  Deal added, 'I do not think that we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia.'  Republican majorities passed the bill to broadly protect people whose actions were rooted in their religion. It also would have protected clergy who won't perform gay marriages and people who won't attend a wedding for religious reasons.  Churches and affiliated religious groups could have used their faith as an argument for refusing to serve or hire someone.  The bill's opponents said it excused discrimination and could trample local ordinances protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.  Coca-cola and other big-name Georgia companies joined the NFL, prominent Hollywood figures and film studios urging Deal to reject the proposal. Some threatened to boycott the state if Deal didn't veto. Deal, in his second and final term, heatedly said that those threats and questions about 'my convictions and my character' from some in the religious community were misguided.  'I do not respond very well to insults or to threats,' he said. 'The people of Georgia deserve a leader who will make sound judgments based on solid reasons that are not inflamed by emotion.'"
The bill had been passed by Republican majorities in both branches of the Georgia state government.  Gov. Deal is a Republican as well.  The bill was crafted for the obvious purpose of trying to protect Christians from being discriminated against.  As the law of the land stands today, thanks to last year's decision by the Supreme Court of Jokers, a militant heterophobic couple can go into a church and demand that the pastor of that church perform a marriage service for them.  If the pastor refuses to do so on the grounds that he believes homosexual behavior to be a sin worthy of death, he is accused of illegal discrimination and subject to fines and imprisonment.  Furthermore, as the law stands today, a Christian school can be forced to hire a heterophobe to teach the Christian students the doctrinal content of the Bible.  If it can be shown that a Christian school board refused to hire a heterophobe to teach biblical doctrine to the students in their school on the grounds that they disagree that God is just dandy with the idea of homosexual behavior they are guilty of illegal discrimination and can face fines and imprisonment.  Not only that, if a Christian businessman makes the rational and biblical decision to refuse to serve a heterophobe, that heterophobe can have the Christian businessman arrested, fined and imprisoned simply because the Christian's conscience would not allow him to serve a person he deemed to be a sexual pervert deserving of God's wrath.  In other words, the law of the land as it stands today declares that it is illegal to discriminate against anyone except Christians.  When it comes to Christians, you are free to do anything you want to them.  They have no civil rights.
Gov. Deal had the audacity to declare that, "I have examined the protections that this bill proposes to provide to the faith based community and I can find no examples of any of those circumstances occurring in our state."  Really!?  Is this ignoramus so stupidly blind that he does not realize that militant heterophobes are already making plans to force Christian churches to marry, hire and affirm them?  How could any person be so dumb as to believe that a class of immoral perverts recently granted special government protection and privilege will not then go out into society and exercise those privileges?  The good governor clearly understands nothing about incentives.
Deal went on to make one of the most blatantly contradictory statements ever made by a publicity seeking career politician.  He said, "I do not think that we have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia."  So let me get this straight.  A Christian pastor believes it is a violation of the Law of God to marry a heterophobic couple but the Georgia government now says that if he refuses to do so he is a criminal subject to fines and imprisonment.  What is that if it is not discrimination?  Deal is protecting the faith-based religion of homosexuality by discriminating against Christianity and nobody is apparently able to see what is taking place.
In one of the most bizarre statements made in recent times, the article went on to say that the law, "would have protected clergy who won't perform gay marriages and people who won't attend a wedding for religious reasons."  Did you catch that?  The law, now vetoed, would have protected people who would make the decision to not attend a wedding because they believe the two people getting married should not be getting married.  Since when do we need to make laws to protect people from things they do not do?  Isn't law supposed to be about protecting people from things people actually do?  This is how far the militant heterophobic agenda has advanced in this immoral land.  By recognizing that the now vetoed law would protect people who decided to not attend a homosexual wedding it also recognizes that the law as it now stands criminalizes the behavior of people who decide to not attend a homosexual wedding service.  In other words, the law of this disgusting country today would allow a homosexual couple to fine and imprison anyone they invited to attend their wedding who decided not to attend if they could show the reason they did not attend was a firm conviction that God does not approve of homosexual behavior.
The article also informed me that, "Churches and affiliated religious groups could have used their faith as an argument for refusing to serve or hire someone."  According to the law of the land, a Church can now be forced to hire a homosexual pastor even if the doctrinal tenets of the church strictly forbid homosexual behavior.  Anyone who declares that the Bible forbids homosexual behavior is no longer permitted to speak or have a public opinion on the matter.  Now,  just for purposes of illustration, let's put the shoe on the other foot.  What do you think would happen if I applied for a job at the local LGBT political action group?  If I stated my opposition to homosexuality up front and they refused to hire me because of that, are they guilty of illegal discrimination?  What if I hid my convictions from them until after I was hired?  Would they be guilty of illegal discrimination if they fired me because every day I came to work I told them to repent of their sins?  I believe we all know how my imaginary scenario would work itself out.  I would either never be hired or fired after being hired.  In both cases I would have no civil standing if I decided to bring either a civil or a criminal charge against the homosexuals.  Indeed, if I even tried to do so I would be accused of discrimination. 
Deal concluded his comments by saying that he did not appreciate being bullied by Christians who wanted him to sign the bill.  Are you kidding me?  Who is bullying whom?  All the Christians wanted was some semblance of protection from the militant homosexual lobby.  The bullying that Deal experienced came from Coca-cola, Disney, Delta Airlines, the NBA, the NFL and a whole host of other companies, all of which threatened to enact some sort of economic boycott against Georgia if he did not veto the bill.  Predictably, he responded to the bullying and vetoed the bill.  Deal showed that he is quick to cave into public pressure, but only when that public pressure is coming from a group other than the Christian minority.  Once again, the Christians lose.  Expect more of it. 

2 comments:

  1. Georgia has certainly made a lot of progress since Lester Maddox was governor. I am glad I don't live there anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Brown:
      I don't know who Lester Maddox is but I am sure he was a great man who received a plaque for his service to the public. If he sired Greg Maddux, who would have had to change the spelling of his name, he was an even greater man.

      Delete