Arizona Rejects Bullying Prevention Law

SameSexThumbby Linda Harvey   3/4/14
Well, once again, deception rules the day and the bullies pushing homosexuality in our culture win again—at least for now. Arizona governor Jan Brewer vetoed Senate Bill 1062, a bill on religious freedom, or as I like to think of it, a bullying prevention law for grown-ups.

Why did she cave? Because Senator John McCain, other liberal Republicans, the shallow media, and amazingly, the NFL, joined the always complaining and usually inaccurate homosexual lobby in screaming about this bill, claiming it would lead to wide-scale refusal of services to homosexuals. A similar bill has also been unfortunately withdrawn in my home state of Ohio, at least for now.

The reality is, this fiasco was all about anti-Christian bigotry leading toward denial of religious freedom. And it’s mostly sodomy that is taking America to this dark place. Did we not understand the message of Genesis 19? The rabid, sexually corrupt mob is serious, they hate the authority of God and they will twist the facts, or just flat-out lie, to silence those who speak the truth.

Let’s understand a few basic facts. We already have religious freedom in our Constitution, so this isn’t a shocking concept. But that doesn’t mean this bill wasn’t necessary. First of all, it was a bill to strengthen a religious freedom measure already existing in Arizona. And we have a similar federal religious freedom bill passed in 1997 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton after nearly unanimous votes in both houses of Congress Were they all being “anti-gay” in approving such a measure?

No, it’s just that the whole country wasn’t yet subjected to the tyranny of the pink lobby, and politicians weren’t yet ducking for cover right and left. They are now.

Such bills have been made necessary recently to restore a “strict scrutiny” standard when applying First Amendment rights. Photographers, bakers, florists and others have been sued when they would not provide their services to homosexual couples for a so-called wedding. Homosexual activists want to force Christians to honor what we consider sin. Similar bills have already passed in 17 other states, so again, this shouldn’t be at all controversial.

No, what happened is intentional misinformation, even by self-declared Christians jumping into the discussion claiming this was a “Jim Crow” law and that we Christians should never refuse to serve anyone.

Well, I disagree. It’s not a “Jim Crow” law regarding homosexuality because homosexuals are not born that way. It’s not like race. That evidence does not exist and there are many ex-homosexuals attesting to the mutability of same sex attraction and behavior. When are we going to get back to objective truth? Race is inborn and it’s neutral; homosexuality is not, and it’s harmful. Check the CDC HIV Surveillance page if you doubt this.

Some discernment is needed. Should a Christian plumber think nothing of cleaning drains clogged with baby body parts at the local abortion mill? Or should he take a stand and say, no way? What do we really think Jesus would do?

These questions generally revolve around how the left is trying to use “public accommodations” policies as a club.Their claim is that, as long as a business deals with the “public,” it’s the values of the customers that must dictate what the business owner does. This is selectively applied, as usual, only in defense of cherished causes like the promotion of abortion, homosexuality, any-faith-but-Christianity, etc.

But liberals are wrong again, unless America is going to strip business owners of First Amendment rights, and apparently, we are on the way to doing just that. It’s exactly what the Human Rights Campaign and other homosexual pressure groups want to do.

Yet look at the practicalities. A business owner wants customers, or he or she won’t be in business for long, so there is a big incentive to not turn people away, to serve as many people as possible. Businesses aren’t like social service agencies. They actually do want customers.

As for Kirsten Powers and others who believe Christians should serve everyone and that Jesus would probably bake a cake for a same sex couple, really? Would Jesus actually be smiling as He hands over the multi-tiered, frosted concoction with two figures on top in tuxedos? Can any true believer picture this?

Not if they have read Scripture and take it, and what our Lord calls sin, seriously. Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Leviticus 18 and many other chapters come to mind.

Can we please apply some discernment here? A proud homosexual or gender- confused person may be someone a Christian bakery owner may want to serve, or not—his choice. If it’s just a cake, we are only talking about food, no matter what else is going on with that person. At that point, just as Jesus ate with open, known sinners, the baker would be doing nothing that would violate a mature Christian’s faith. It’s just about eating.

But some Christians rightly draw the line at servicing something that goes beyond food consumption, or a bouquet for the table, and that is honoring a homosexual “wedding.” At that point, the Christian would be putting a stamp of approval on sin. The same goes for supplying abortion-causing medications through employee insurance plans. That’s the ending of a human life.

Religious freedom laws are unlikely to result in people being turned away at restaurants or taxi drivers refusing rides. If it’s sin, we should refuse to honor it, but if it’s just eating, or riding, or holding a bouquet, it’s not honoring sin.

But when do we hear that perspective? People are too busy jumping on the pro-homosexual bandwagon or going along with anti-Christian smear campaigns.

Even the NFL, which makes me ask, what’s going on with them? Can we please get a little manhood going again?
MissionAmericaThumbLinda Harvey is president of Mission America and hosts a talk show on Salem affiliate WRFD in Columbus, OH. • (1578 views)

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

8 Responses to Arizona Rejects Bullying Prevention Law

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Linda makes a number of great points.

    And here’s a story that’s making it’s way around the web: Homosexual Troops Perform in Drag at Air Force Base.

    Can there be any more prominent sign of the lack of seriousness of the West? As conservatives have warned, there’s a lot more that goes with “gay rights” than just “tolerance.” It means the destruction of our civilization while the most perverse and twisted dance on the graves of the honorable.

    Putin must be laughing at us. I don’t take us seriously either.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Basically, the Lavender Thought Police (including George Tacky; I’ll never think the same of Sulu again, and note that I already knew he was a “married” homosexual and an old McGovernite) misrepresented the bill, the synoptic media reflexively parroted their claims, and no one tried to refute them in time to prevent the cowards from pressuring Brewer. Meanwhile, Arizona doesn’t ban discrimination against homosexuals (though Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tucson do), and yet there’s no rush to refuse services to fag-boys and lezzies. (Actually, such terminology should apply only to the militants, like Tacky. No doubt there are many homosexuals who behave reasonably. But then how do we get all those lawsuits, such as the lezzies who sued Elane Photography?

    And while all this is going on, the fag-boy who was Susana Martinez’s hairdresser (how stereotypical) will no longer accept her service because she dares to disagree with his support of homosexual “marriage”. It’s becoming clear that Saudi Arabia has the right solution to the issue of homosexuality.

  3. Leigh says:

    I have to disagree with you regarding the proposed law. As a conservative and supporting Christian rights, I still beleive if you pass a bill that allows busiess to refuse service to homosexuals, then how do you argue against refusing service to Jews or women, or Christians? All in the name of “religious practice and beliefs?” Even Jesus said “love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and for for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” If a Muslim business in the US decided not to serve women, because their religion says they must be covered in the prescense of men, there would be outrage. We must all treat each other with respect and this path the Republicans are using are only hurting them in the public’s eye. In this economy, can any business afford to turn away customers? If you open your doors in the US as a business, you can not discriminate against anyone. It is pretty plain and simple. If you are requiring citizens through taxes to support an act that goes against their religious beliefs, then I believe you have an argument. How can the government force taxpayers to fund abortion or contraception if they are vehemently and religiously against murder? This is an argument worth fighting against. We need to focus on the really grave issues facing our Nation today…the economy, job creation, de-regulation, unfair taxation, and the systematic destruction of our Nation’s children. There are so many issues threatening our very existence that should be prioritized. We do not need to stoop to a level that highlights our faults. I think you are a good writer, but your use of discriminatory slurs throughout your article causes me to question your credibility. As a journalist or writer you should stick to the facts and take the high road in discussing issues like this, or you will not reach a diversified audience, only those who feel like you. I consider that preaching to the choir!

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I have to disagree with you regarding the proposed law. As a conservative and supporting Christian rights, I still beleive if you pass a bill that allows busiess to refuse service to homosexuals

      From what I’ve read, the law did not mention homosexuals. It was simply a law that gave business some ammunition against grievance groups who would try to bully them.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I gather that what the Arizona law did was to allow the state’s existing religious protections to apply to businesses as well as individuals. It did not make that protection absolute; you can use religion as a defense if sued, and a court can decide if the defense is valid in that particular case. Note that it didn’t mention homosexuality, and in fact discrimination is (quite correctly, since this should be legal absent a compelling need to the contrary, such as existing re blacks 50 years ago) legal everywhere in Arizona except in Flagstaff, Phoenix, and Tucson.

      As for the other religions, it would be perfectly reasonable for a Jewish or Muslim butcher to refuse to handle pork, for example (though note that some Muslim nations, such as Morocco, are exporters of wine despite their religious prohibition on consuming alcoholic beverages). There has been a problem in Minneapolis because Somali taxi drivers refuse to accept customers with dogs — and nearly all the taxi drivers there seem to be Somalis, which is where this becomes a serious problem.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I’m fine with a Somali driver refusing to accept customers with dogs. It’s his damn cab!

        It’s the same thing with my office. I love dogs, but I don’t want customers to bring their dogs in to let the roam around while we work on something. This is a rare occurrence, and sometimes I just have to bite the bullet and accept it, but it’s my damn office.

        Now, if some coalition of Somalis got together and wanted to ban dogs from society, that would be an oppressive and fascist thing that we should oppose from this fascist religion. But otherwise it’s his damn cab. And if this becomes a problem, this is an opportunity for some dog-friendly cab to do banner business in competition with the Somalis.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          More or less I agree with you. It’s unfortunate for people who arrive at an airport and find out no cab will carry them. The real problem no doubt is cab medallions (or some such restriction), which limit the number of legal taxicabs and thus prevent the competition you suggest. But after all, whose fault is that?

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Yes, I was thinking in the back of my mind about the monopolistic practice of “cab medallions” when I wrote what I wrote — a practice that hardly describes a free and fair market. I’m not sure how many cities do that.

            Licensing a taxi driver as a busines is one thing. But this whole “medallion” thing seems like a gross statist policy….much like rent control in some of the cities.

Leave a Reply

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