Twelve Chilling Incidents of LGBT Tyranny

NoBullyThumb2by Linda Harvey
Perhaps you are someone tempted to embrace “gay rights” as a worthy cause. If so, it’s likely you recently returned to America after a lengthy sojourn on a desert island.

Everyone I’m talking to asks, “How did we get here?” and, “What can we do?” America is not a hateful country, and conservatives are not potential bullies. That shoe actually fits the other side in this debate.

And the good news is, there’s now proof. The abuses of homosexual empowerment are being documented with evidence piling up week by week. Everyday Americans are the victims, but we can learn from these incidents so others won’t be targeted as well.

The truth is “sexual orientation/gender identity non-discrimination” translates to a carte blanche to compel respect for deviance. If you decline, you will pay – your constitutional rights are a joke to militant homosexuals. Here are a dozen recent incidents that tell the story:

Gay bullying incident No. 1: A bakery in Oregon called Sweet Cakes by Melissa recently shut its doors. Why? Some time back, two lesbians wanted to order a cake for their same-sex ceremony, but owners Aaron and Melissa Klein turned them down, explaining that same-sex “marriage” isn’t consistent with their faith as Christians. The women left, and next thing they knew Sweet Cakes was sued for discrimination.

Then came intense, negative media coverage, vicious phone calls and emails, protesters, threats against their children, a boycott, then a boycott of all their suppliers, followed by an investigation by the Oregon Labor Commission, which recommended “rehabilitation.” Aaron Klein said he was forced to close his bakery because of homosexual mob tactics.

No, this isn’t Berlin 1938. It’s the birth of tyranny in America 2013.

You might think people in government agencies even on the Left Coast have better things to do. Or you might think, “Surely we Americans still have freedom of religion, freedom of speech!” The activists and their allies are blasting past that. “Catch me if you can” is the approach, deploying “non-discrimination” laws to punish their political enemies. And that includes, apparently, bakeries.

Gay bullying incident No. 2: A florist in the state of Washington is being sued after turning down a long-time customer, a homosexual man, who wanted flowers for his same-sex “wedding.” The owner politely explained her refusal arose from her Christian faith. But she didn’t get the email about the unacceptability of resisting any homosexual request these days. The gay man sued her, and then the state attorney general piled on with another suit. Good news, though: she is counter-suing for religious discrimination.

Gay bullying incident No. 3: Then there’s the Christian photographer in New Mexico who was fined $7,000, a ruling recently upheld by the creatively fascist New Mexico Supreme Court. Elane Photography declined taking photos of a same-sex ceremony, citing Christian religious beliefs. The couple sued because there are apparently no other photographers in that state. Or maybe out of pure lesbian spite.

Gay bullying incident No. 4: In private companies, homosexual advocates are inventing new methods for discriminating using “non-discrimination” policies. Former NFL player Craig James was fired after one broadcast as a commentator for Fox Sports allegedly because of remarks he made while running for the U.S. Senate in Texas. (Ted Cruz won that race.) All candidates on a panel were quizzed about same-sex marriage, and Craig James spoke up for the biblical view of sexual morality. Fox dismissed him, but James is suing Fox Sports for religious discrimination.

Gay bullying incident No. 5: A bakery in the Denver area is being sued by a homosexual couple for not baking a cake for a same-sex ceremony. Possible jail time is involved.

Gay/trans bullying incident No. 6: A bar owner in Portland must pay $400,000 to 11 transvestites because of emotional distress following a phone call. He asked that they not return to his bar; customers were complaining and leaving.

Gay/trans bullying incident No. 7: Natalie Johnson of San Antonio was fired from Macy’s in 2011 after she refused to allow a teen male to enter the women’s dressing room. She cited religious faith and concern about the privacy of biological women. Both of these protected classes – sex and religion – are included in virtually every “non-discrimination” policy or law (including Macys’).

Gay bullying incident No. 8: Dr. Frank Turek, Christian author, speaker and radio host, is also a management consultant. He was fired from his consulting contract with Cisco Systems when a homosexual participant in his class took offense after reading one of Turek’s books supporting man/woman marriage. The participant complained to Cisco human resources, and Turek was gone.

Gay bullying incident No. 9: Jim and Beth Walder are Christians who own a bed and breakfast in Paxton, Ill. When they declined renting their facility to a homosexual couple for a civil union, they were sued.

Gay bullying incident No. 10: A Vermont bed and breakfast was sued by a same-sex couple based on the state’s “human rights” ordinance for not hosting their event. The Wildflower Inn eventually agreed to pay $30,000 in settlement fees.

Are you seeing the pattern here? Vindictiveness, intimidation by establishing oppressive legal precedent. In short, this is a campaign of terrorism. The goal is for Christians to bow before homosexual rights, one way or another.

Gay bullying incident No. 11: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey declined a lesbian couple’s request to use the venue for their civil union. They sued, won, and a higher New Jersey court upheld the judgment.

Gay bullying incident No. 12: A bed and breakfast in Hawaii turned down a lesbian couple’s reservation, and they sued. The lesbians won based on Hawaii’s housing “non-discrimination” law.

There are numerous other victims as well: Julea Ward, Crystal Dixon, Angela McGaskill, Jennifer Keeton, and Kenneth Howell, all bullied by universities using misapplied discrimination policies; Viki Knox, Jerry Buell, David Parker, Daniel Glowacki, Dakota Ary, Carla Cruzan, victims of school-based intolerance of high moral values; firefighters in San Diego and police officers Columbia, S.C., directed by superiors to march in “gay” pride parades.

And let’s not forget the over 2 million children in the Boy Scouts, at risk beginning Jan. 1 of corruption by proud homosexuals, all because of “non-discrimination.”

Is America still the land of the free? It won’t be, if we allow the lamp of Lady Liberty to be snuffed out by the darkness of deviance.
MissionAmericaThumbLinda Harvey is president of Mission America and hosts a talk show on Salem affiliate WRFD in Columbus, OH. • (2621 views)

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Twelve Chilling Incidents of LGBT Tyranny

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    There are a lot of useful idiots out there who have taken gays under their wing as a cause célèbre. And it is the immediately pragmatic social thing to just assign good, tolerant, live-and-let-live intentions to them instead of questioning their motives.

    For some, that is true. But for many, I question their motives. I think few of these people understand the contempt many gays have for the rest of society, a society they have learned to hate. Now that these spoiled-brat narcissists know they have the bully of Big (swishy) Brother Government behind them, you will see plenty of this “in your face” stuff from the militant and hate-filled LGBT (liberal gestapo bully tactics) crowd.

    As I’ve said before, I harbor no ill will toward homosexuals. But I do despise their liberalism and especially the various noxious gay and lesbian groups who are just another brand of children run amok.

    • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

      ‘useful idiots taking gays under their wing’

      Or just malevolent liberal SOBs1

      Remember Norman Mailer who got convicted killer Jack Henry Abbott released from prison and Abbott promptly murdered someone else.

      Mailer was unrepentant. It was worth the risk to promote his literary talent…

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        LOL. Or, as you say, MLSOB’s.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          My own term is “virulent liberal”, a concept I worked up around 2000 after reading (and responding extensively to) one of our more liberal recipients. The concept is that most liberals are extremely dextrophobic to the point of paranoia regarding what will happen if the Right takes over. Since this is purely emotional (of course; liberals may be capable of thinking and knowledgeable about facts, but none of that matters because ALL their politics is purely emotional), it can’t be refuted by such details as the fact that Newt Gingrich couldn’t put people in concentration camps even if he wanted to, or that Bush 43 didn’t actually destroy the world. So if the Right (speaking very loosely; to a liberal, the Bushes are far rightist) takes over, or maybe looks likely to, their latent fear turns into active panic, and at that point they MUST do WHAEVER IT TAKES to put down their dreaded (and thus hated) enemy. I’ve observed this from many liberals over the years in the FOSFAX letter column (most of whom have long since decamped rather than face up to specific challenges). This would explain why people such as Bill Moyers who allegedly used to behave decently turned vicious after 2000.

  2. Pokey Possum says:

    Society has turned off that road from Mayberry where the sign in the cafe window reads, “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service!”. It was a place where people were expected to maintain certain standards of behavior, AND where an establishment could “reserve the right to refuse service to anybody”.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    Homosexual militants (I shun the word “gays” as much as I can) are also guilty of numerous attacks on people who simply oppose their political goals. After California passed its referendum “banning” homosexual marriage, they attacked several supporters of the referendum, costing at least one of them his job. Nor can one forget the war against Dan Cathy and his company, which included at least 3 liberal fascist mayors threatening to prevent Chik-Fil-A from establishing new restaurants in their city.
    We had an interesting example in Louisville around 15 years ago of the disgusting intolerance of homosexual militants. Local “gay” bars boycotted a liquor distributor named Bill Shedd because his wife Donna was a Republican activist and a Christian conservative, and they ASSUMED this meant she was anti-homosexual. (Bill Shedd had shown no such indications at all, naturally.) In the end this led to Shedd losing his distributorship, after which they piously claimed that they hadn’t wished such an outcome. That disgusting incident (which, be it noted, was opposed both by local liberals and national homosexual activists) undoubtedly contributed to my hostility to homosexual causes. (I never met the Shedds, but then most liberals never met the Scottsboro Boys or Emmett Till, either.)

  4. faba calculo says:

    The longer the list of injustices done in the name of gay rights grows, the more it becomes clear that the problem isn’t one of gay marriage but of the discrimination laws.

    Even in the rare cases where gay marriage itself is the triggering effect, it’s an indirect one where a defendant’s non-married status had been a viable escape clause in anti-discrimination laws which is now removed if the gay couple in question is legally married. Here I’m thinking the cases of religious colleges that must now allow married gay couples to use married housing or the end of the Catholic Charity’s ability to oversee adoptions in Massachusetts because they refuse to perform adoptions for gay couples (cases I was surprised to see not on the author’s otherwise comprehensive list).

    If one is inclined to the idea that anyone could be allowed to discriminate on just about any grounds when taking such actions as hiring for their small business, accepting work for a small business, or renting out their own house, I am in full agreement. Simple application of the right of association. Nevertheless, those who embrace anti-discrimination laws in such cases for things such as religion, are, in the cases listed in the article, simply being hoisted up on their own petard.

    Special Note On Incident #7: I don’t think that this one belongs on the list. As your own link indicates, the woman who was fired was let go because she refused to lets a cross-dressing male use the women’s changing area, despite the facts that letting them do so was store policy, the employee knew it was store policy, and the customers knew it. If your religion doesn’t permit you to perform a given job, there is no religious discrimination entailed in firing you for refusing to live up to it.

  5. Kung Fu Zu says:

    Thank you for this article. This puts the lie to the claim of those who say they are just looking for equality.

    It is not enough to piously say things would be alright if we could just change the laws regarding discrimination. We all know this will not happen. So given today’s political and legal atmosphere, those who advocate for such things as homosexual marriage, same use of restrooms for transvestites and other such nonsense, are actually calling for tyranny over those who disagree with them.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, we have to remember that most people are ignorant of all this. So if such a person agrees with the anti-discrimination position, this certainly doesn’t mean that they support the tyrannical behavior of the hiomosexual militants, even though the effect may be the same. This is what the late Aloise Buckley Heath famously explained to her children when they asked her in 1964 if people would go to Hell for supporting LBJ. ABH explained that she would because she knew better, but ordinary people who didn’t know better were another matter. A similar notion comes up near the end of the novel Inferno by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle (which is based on Dante, of course), in which a pair of senators stuck together in the 9th circle (betrayers) turn out to have voted for their party (one was a Republican, the other a Democrat) instead of what he considered the national interest regarding defense against nuclear missiles — where a wrong decision could have catastrophic consequences.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        People are responsible for the choices they make. Especially as their choices reverberate throughout society.

        While I understand people differ greatly in intelligence, energy, education and keeping themselves generally informed, I don’t think people can be simply excused for not paying attention.

        I hope Linda Harvey’s article will go some way to educating the illiterate. But I must say, I am getting a little tired of dealing with the disingenuous, lethargic, shallow slackers who make up a large part of our population. We are in a fight.

    • faba calculo says:

      Except, once again, none of the things mentioned in the article are due to gay marriage. They’re due to homosexuality having been added to the anti-discrimination laws. Good god, man, read the list!

      Incident Number One took place in Oregon. But Oregon doesn’t have gay marriage.

      Incident Number Two took place in the state of Washington. Washington, at least, HAS gay marriage. But this incident would have played out the same way were it civil unions or even completely non-legally binding promise ceremonies that were involved instead.

      Incident Number Three took place in New Mexico. But New Mexico doesn’t have gay marriage.

      Incident Number Four didn’t even result from gay marriage at all but from someone having said they were against it.

      Incident Number Five took place in Colorado. But Colorado doesn’t have gay marriage.

      Incident Number Six took place in Oregon. See #1, above. And, regardless, this one REALLY had nothing to do with marriage, gay or otherwise, at all.

      Incident Number Seven took place in Texas. But Texas doesn’t have gay marriage. And, as I mentioned in a previous post, firing someone for refusing to go along with a corporate policy of letter cross-dressing men change in the women’s changing area is hardly discrimination. Stupid, yes. Discrimination, no.

      Incident Number Eight took place in California, but California didn’t have gay marriage when the incident took place.

      Incident Number Nine took place in Illinois, but Illinois doesn’t have gay marriage.

      Incident Number Ten took place in Vermont, which DOES have gay marriage. This time, gay marriage does seem to be more at the core of things, as the business in question had been upheld in their earlier decisions to not allow receptions from civil unions. One for ten.

      Incident Number Eleven took place in New Jersey. But, at the time of the incident, New Jersey didn’t have gay marriage.

      Incident Number Eleven took place in Hawaii. But, hell, do I really have to say it?

      I suppose one could speculate that, with the coming of gay marriage (as opposed to mere civil unions or promise ceremonies), there will be a rush to the alter, meaning that, while these abusive results of the discrimination laws were already taking place, with gay marriage, they’ll take place more often, thereby increasing the harms. However, at this point, speculation is all that that is.

      Thus, my point here isn’t that you can end these abuses by EITHER preventing gay marriage OR ending the discrimination laws. Were that the case, one might argue that the former is the most likely to be successful. But that isn’t what I’m arguing. I’m saying that the ONLY way to end these abuses is to rewrite the anti-discrimination laws, and your fatalistic assumption that this is impossible is just that. Fatalism. In barely 40 years, gays have gone from being harshly persecuted in this country to their current position of strength. In barely a decade, gays have changed the nation’s mind on something not long before thought to be written in stone. Why should we, whose numbers are so much greater, see a far smaller gain to be out of our reach?

      The balance of power between proponents and opponents of gay marriage is almost perfectly split right now. However, the momentum has clearly shifted towards gay marriage. As time progresses, the strength of the anti- position is likely to erode further. That’s not for sure, but that’s the way I’d bet, especially with a SCOTUS decision now lodged against it. If the anti- position wishes to negotiate from a position of strength, now would be the time to do it.

      What could such a deal look like? I’d suggest an amendment granting gay civil marriage in all states in return for protection from the same amendment for the rights of religious houses of worship AND their associated schools, colleges, hospitals, owned businesses, etc. from anti-discrimination legal actions. It should also protect AT LEAST small businesses and small housing renters from such laws as well.

      I don’t know that gays would bite at that offer, even were conservatives to offer it. But one should not overlook what has been the gay movements chief advantage: their status as victim. THEY were the ones who were being kicked out of the military. THEY were the ones who were not being allowed to marry. And so forth. With this strategy, the role of victim stripped from them, save in case where they would try to purchase housing or obtain jobs from small suppliers. And if we can’t defend that when it doesn’t involve, in many people’s minds, unfairly denying them equal protection, then fatalism is far more justified over defending it when it does.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One thing to point out here is that just because a state doesn’t formally recognize homosexual marriage doesn’t mean that they never happen there. Lack of formal recognition isn’t the same thing as a ban.

        • faba calculo says:

          When I speak of “gay marriage” I mean “civil gay marriage”. When I speak of non-binding marriages, I refer to them as “promise ceremonies”.

          But your point here is actually at the heart of mine: promise ceremonies (or, if you prefer, non-legally-binding marriages) are going to occur no matter what, and, given that the discrimination laws are almost always based on buying and selling, not on being legally married or not legally married (with the two exceptions I’ve already mentioned), refusing to work a promise ceremony is, generally, going to land you in just as much trouble as refusing to work a gay civil marriage. Therefore, gay civil marriage is NOT what is at the heart of these abuses, nor can you fight them by resisting it.


        Faba, the article didn’t blame gay “marriage” for these terrible invasions of private rights, and I know you’re a big supporter, but the fact is that the push for gay “marriage” is every bit as much an incident of bullying by radical gays as those related in the article. The reason is that marriage is not a private act (although SSM advocates have been very clever in presenting it that way) but a very public one, in which every member of our society is compelled to recognize the status of the married couple. The militant advocacy of gay “marriage” is not about securing anyone’s rights, but about forcing all the rest of us to admit, as a matter of law, that a homosexual relationship is entitled to the same status as a normal heterosexual one, even though society benefits greatly from the latter and not at all from the former.

        Unfortunately, Conservatives have not been well-led (and obviously Republicans never are), with the result that we’ve been playing defense for ten years and are now losing. Pointing out how aggressive and bullying the demands of the SSM crowd are would be a step forward in effectively fighting them.

        • faba calculo says:

          “the article didn’t blame gay “marriage” for these terrible invasions of private rights”

          Nor did it make the distinction, so I did. My initial remark was part of an ongoing point. It wasn’t until KFZ’s point disputing my argument that it became a sub-thread in its own right.

          “Pointing out how aggressive and bullying the demands of the SSM crowd are would be a step forward in effectively fighting them.”

          I seriously doubt that making the argument about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry about who is bullying who is going to aid your side. Probably quite the opposite. Making the argument about freedom of association within the context of gay marriage, on the other hand, might do exactly as you suggest.

          “the push for gay “marriage” is every bit as much an incident of bullying by radical gays as those related in the article. The reason is that marriage is not a private act (although SSM advocates have been very clever in presenting it that way) but a very public one, in which every member of our society is compelled to recognize the status of the married couple.”

          In general, gay marriage doesn’t force anyone to recognize anything. If you want to maintain a position that their marriages aren’t “real” marriages, go ahead. Where you get into trouble is in denying them housing, employment, or ceremony assistance, be that ceremony a marriage, a civil union, or even a mere promise ceremony. The two exceptions, which I’ve already mentioned twice, being adoption services in Massachusetts (and, soon, likely elsewhere) and married housing, where, until recently, the fact that gays could marry protected one from those anti-discrimination laws.

          “The militant advocacy of gay “marriage” is not about securing anyone’s rights, but about forcing all the rest of us to admit, as a matter of law, that a homosexual relationship is entitled to the same status as a normal heterosexual one”

          Then shame on the militants. For the rest of us, it’s entirely about equal protection of the law.

          “even though society benefits greatly from the latter and not at all from the former”

          To the degree that a gay couple raises a child to happy and healthy adulthood, I’d say they’ve benefited society as much as any otherwise identical straight couple. However, even were this true, I’ve never seen equal protection of the law as something one had to earn.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I read an item today on either HotAir or Townhall (the two sites are so closely connected I can’t always remember which one I read something on) about a New York Times article on homosexual parents and their children. It mentioned a male homosexual who found that his child(ren) regretted the absence of a mother. Since the Times is dedicated to the cause of consequence-free sexual liberation, the appearance of such an article could be considered “admission against interest”. I think there’s every reason to believe that, in general (and thus subject to the First Law of Generalizations), heterosexual marriages are better for children than homosexual marriages — and thus clearly superior from the societal point of view. I also know there’s a large community that has no intention of seeing anything of the sort, much less reporting it.

            • faba calculo says:

              I’ve no problem with the idea that some children will, at some point(s) or other in their lives wish that they had had both a mother and father. The burden of being different would be sufficient for that. But that’s hardly adequate for policy formation as it leaves out completely any estimate of what the impact of this is on the child. In other words, there’s a logic case to be made for theorizing that having both the biological mother and the biological father, living together in a loving relationship, is “superior”, but that doesn’t get us to “clearly superior”. Nor, for that matter, does a single anecdote, come for the New York Times though it does, do much to support such theorizing.

              Even if it did, I’m not sure that there’s much policy relevance there either. Policy basically involves looking at what happens if you do something vs. if you don’t and comparing the outcomes. So if banning gay civil marriage made it more likely that children would be more likely to live in houses with both biological parents AND it was demonstrable that such an arrangement was “clearly superior”, THEN you’d have grounds for a policy against gay marriage. But there’s little to no evidence that children whose legal biological parent is barred from gay civil marriage are any more likely to wind up in households where they are raised by both biological parents. The best you could hope for is that, lacking the ability to marry, the gay couple would opt out of having children altogether. But that’s akin to destroying the village in order to save it. While I’m no fan of convenience samples, even the weak studies we already have are likely good enough to rule out the possibility that being raised by gays is, in general, so horrible that one would be better off had they never been born.

              Here I am speaking of gays who use surrogacy / artificial insemination. In the case of, say, adoption, as I’ve already indicated, a stronger policy case could likely be made for preferring straight parents (save in cases where such adoptions are not likely anytime soon, as with the severely disabled or the child from overseas), as adoption is zero-sum: gays getting a given child mean that straights don’t. I’d therefore be much less against banning adoption until sufficient actual data from the children born of surrogacy is available.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Good point about adoption. Of course, that’s what happened to Catholic Charities in Massachusetts.

  6. Timothy Lane says:

    Somewhat related (it deals with liberal hate-mongering in general), I just read a piece by Erick Erickson (it was linked to on HotAir) in which he discussed the viciousness he encounters from liberals who’ve heard of him and thus hate him — including very specific and violent death threats. He comments that he doesn’t fear such people; rather he pities anyone so wrapped up in their politics that they can’t stand those who openly disagree with them. His fear is that his children may someday decide to give in to the vicious liberal hate-mongers and simply “go along to get along”. Of course, such reactions are precisely the reason for such intimidation.

    I’ve witnessed this attitude on a number of occasions. During the 2006 elections, the Washington Times reported on a letter (I think to a different paper) by a liberal woman who proudly recounted her meeting with Senator George Allen’s wife. It started with her son telling Mrs. Allen, “You suck” (the liberal bitch said this made her proud of her son). When Mrs. Allen suggested that she shouldn’t teach her children to hate, the bitch (who probably has a “Hate is not a family value” bumper sticker) mocked her. (She also referred to Mrs. Allen as “Mrs. Macaca”, a reminder that the Washington Post’s undeclared campaign contribution to the Webb campaign was certainly very effective.)

    Another, if minor example, that I personally witnessed came at an SF convention in which a liberal musician named Tom Smith performed one of his songs that targeted a hated conservative. He had originally used Bob Dole, and then Tom Delay — both people who had real political power and thus could do real harm (from the viewpoint of the liberal). But he needed a new choice, and the crowd suggested Rush Limbaugh, who has no political power at all. But he disagrees with them (and this was before the Fascist Messiah was elected), and that’s enough for a large percentage of liberals to hate him.

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Another example, if any more are needed, of the queer nazis using government force to push their agenda down the throat of normal people.

    Even a religious Jewish Orthodox Girls grammar school is not exempt.

    This is how it works. The government tells you left is right, black is white and good is bad. They rope in all institutions and require total adherence to the political line. If you do not follow their perverted lies, they close you down. This may be England, but things are not so different here and if the deviants have their way, it will get worse.

    The question arises if they are requiring the same from Muslim schools.

  8. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    A case of Muslims sticking to their beliefs. In Malaysia and Indonesia some are calling for a boycott of Starbucks because of its support for queer values.

    Me, I boycott Starbucks due to its horrible coffee.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This is why Pim Fortuyn wanted to restrict Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. He could see what it mean for their social tolerance in the long run.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Sodomy coffee
      Mohammed hate mountain-grown
      That’s the bitches’ grind

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *