|I'd be willing to bet that whoever made this sign is a moron.|
That's the title of the latest Arkansas Times
So, let's get this straight: a bill which would more or less make clear what the Constitution already protects--the free exercise of religion-- and which isn't about the glorious '60s or sex--is ANTI-LGBTQQIAAP? A law which would protect people from going against whatever they conscientiously believe is good or right based on their religion and WITH THEIR OWN PROPERTY [!!!] is evil? I would love to hear the argument for that.
Apparently, the left is coming out of the woodwork over this bill, characterizing it as anti-LGBT...and discriminatory. For instance, here is a typical post from Facebook:
Anyone who supports this bill or has had a hand in its creation and potential passage should be ashamed. I am disgusted by what I have seen recently regarding Arkansas on both a state and national level, but this takes the cake. [No pun intended.] I thought we were moving past state sponsored discrimination, but I guess I was wrong. This is another reason I cannot wait to leave this backward excuse for a state ASAP. [Your backward state has the highest taxes of any of the seven states in which I've lived. I can see why yer itchin' to leave. I'll see you in Saskatchewan.]I hate to break it to the guy, but almost every single time the state makes a law, it discriminates. For example, the social security age is discriminatory by choosing 65 years of age against every other age. Gas taxes discriminate between people who drive trucks and people who drive lawnmowers across country versus people who just ride bikes or walk. The author of the post apparently does not understand what discrimination is or how laws typically work.
Note: for the left, "discrimination" seems just to mean "unjust discrimination" or perhaps more likely "unfair discrimination," even though this disambiguation rarely occurs (i.e., between discrimination, and either unjust/unfair discrimination, or between unjust and unfair discrimination). Still, watch out for it and don't be bamboozled. Most cases of discrimination are not unjust; we make discriminations ALL the time (you've made several while reading this post).
Regarding the Anti-LGBT spin on this particular bill--the left, with religious indignation, apparently holds that "whoever is not for us is against us." Jesus's meaning aside, it seems that there is a failure, here, to distinguish between an agent being free simply to refrain from doing business with someone for religious reasons and an agent doing something overtly harmful and against another party.
At any rate, none of this behavior from the left is surprising. The left is by nature totalitarian. In the name of liberty it moves away from individual liberty and aims to control individuals by the coercive means of the state so that no realm of life is left untouched by politics.
If I bake cakes (heaven forbid) and don't feel like I want to bake them for a gay wedding, that is unacceptable to the left. You must obey Big Brother.
The only property rights you have are the ones that the left allows you to have. Your ingredients to your cake are not really your own. Your labor is not really your own. Whoever wants that cake (within the politically correct sphere) has a right to it, and has a right to your working for them. They have part ownership over your goods, your labor, and thereby you. You are free in the sense that you are free to serve them; if you don't, you will be fined. If you don't pay your fine you will go to jail. That is how government coercion works, Kemosabes.
I've written about this before. But let's look back at the AR Times piece once more just for fun:
Sen. Joyce Elliott read from a letter from a gay constituent, who wrote, in part, that the bill was extremely unconstitutional, and "mutes those who like myself are a religious or denominational minority."I guess like blueness and pain--and unlike uniqueness--unconstitutionality comes in degrees. Not only that, but if the bill is passed into law, Sen. Elliott's constituent will become mute. Now that's some bill! And apparently I "should be ashamed."
Instead, I find myself proud to support it--against the cultural elite and even though I am on the wrong side of history.