Three future targets of the same-sex fascists


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Link here. First Shapiro outlines how these gay advocates have been lying to us repeatedly over the decades:

Gay activists and their leftist allies told us decades ago that same-sex marriage wasn’t on the agenda. All homosexuals wanted was the benefits of marriage, but not the title. That, of course, was a lie.

Next, gay activists and their leftist allies told us that same-sex marriage would not threaten anyone; it was simply a matter of equal rights. “How will it affect anyone else if two men choose to get married?” they said. That, of course, was a lie. The same-sex marriage agenda includes with it the desire to force individual religious Americans to accept same-sex marriage. Hence the current attempt to leverage same-sex marriage into legislation forcing religious business owners to participate in activities, like same-sex weddings, that they consider sinful.

So, what’s next on the agenda?

He then outlines their next three targets: the churches, private religious universities, and private religious schools. Read it all. Based on history it is logical that these are the next targets. This quote from the article however especially stood out to me, based on the recent legal effort to punish Christian businesses who refuse to endorse and participate in gay marriages:

Once non-profit status is revoked for churches on the basis of supposed discrimination against homosexuals, those churches become private institutions engaged in commerce. Which means that they are regulated as common businesses under anti-discrimination law. Which means they can be shut down or fined for failure to perform same-sex weddings. The left says this will never happen. Which means we are a few years away from it happening. [emphasis mine]

Anyone who thinks this fascist oppression — to force Christian and Jewish religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages — is not on the agenda is living in a dream world. This movement has already succeeded in redefining discrimination and bigotry as anyone who even hints that they consider gay behavior wrong. They have moved to McCarthyite tactics to destroy such people. Next comes the institutions that disagree with them.

Once again, my disagreement here is not with the gay lifestyle. It isn’t for me, but I have no problem if someone else wishes to live that way. Just don’t force me or anyone else to endorse your choices. Just as you deserve the right to liberty of conscience, so does everyone else.

Share

5 comments

  • Cotour

    Understanding your enemy’s strategy goes a long way in being able to stop them out. The question is, what is the legal weapon that will be used to empower your strategy so that its successful?

    Just like the slowly growing threat of the duality of Islam in America that hides behind The First Amendment and their freedom of “religion” as their sword the left will also use The First amendment as their sword.

    The fact must be faced that the Left is populated with people who excel at manipulation and the emotionalizing of issues. Human being tend to choose emotion over logic. Saul Alinski, I will call him a satinist, wrote the book and the Left studied it well.

    From Saul Alinskis Playboy article:

    “ALINSKY: … if there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell.
    PLAYBOY: Why?
    ALINSKY: Hell would be heaven for me. All my life I’ve been with the have-nots. Over here, if you’re a have-not, you’re short of dough. If you’re a have-not in hell, you’re short of virtue. Once I get into hell, I’ll start organizing the have-nots over there.
    PLAYBOY: Why them?
    ALINSKY: They’re my kind of people.”

  • jburn

    To a significant degree they have even changed our language. They are not “gay”, they are homosexual.

  • pzatchok

    The Churches have a simple way to defend this type of attack.

    They are not turning down people because of their chosen sexuality. They are turning them down because they are not members of the church.

    After that in order to remove their nonprofit tax status they will have to attack the basis for it being a non profit in the first place. Which will also be attacking their own nonprofits status and basis.

    If a non profit organization cannot discriminate on who it serves then we can ask any non profit for assistance with anything we need.
    The MS foundation will have to give assistance to the Hiv/Aids patient just like it gives assistance to the MS patient.
    The homeless organizations will have to give assistance to anyone who asks for it. Homeless or not.

    Part of what defines a non profit is the very fact that it can discriminate on whom it serves.
    If they take that away from churches they take it away from all others also.
    Unless they redefine their attack to only include churches and in so doing they reveal who they are. And in so doing must differentiate among those churches. There are now many churches that openly accept homosexuals and are more than willing to do their services.

    This will become a freedom of association test and they will lose at that point.

  • Abe Windsor

    Then the Church forgoes any funds received for the use of the Venue, and they must start today to denie the members of the community the use of their facility. Also the Churches must then lie about why they will not allow use of their property. Telling the truth under Progressives becomes a crime!
    They could quote a price say ten times the average rate, while saying the times the ‘couple’; wants is already marked over by a Church Member! One lie leads to many others….

    Question when will the Progressives attempt to force a Moslem venue to host a gay wedding?

  • pzatchok

    Our church only rents to members in good standing.

    I don’t see how a homosexual couple can get married in the Roman Catholic church and thus need the hall for the reception.
    A homosexual person can be a member in good standing and thus rent the hall for a graduation or confirmation but they can not be participating in homosexual activities and be a member of the church.

    No lies need be done.
    Those services are not open to the general public.

Leave a Reply

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