Kansas moves to protect religious liberty, the forces of tolerance react predictably

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …

Apparently in the original text there's a heretofore undiscovered asterisk or two.

Because homosexuality is our de facto national religion now.

And if its proponents have their way, the free exercise of religions which object to homosexuality will indeed be prohibited. (Except for Islam; the homofascists don't dare take on The Religion Of Peace™.)

There are two news items today which exhibit my thesis.

In Virginia, a federal judge has invalidated a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex "marriage."

The sinful is now sacred? How's that for peeing on us Christians' cornflakes?

Try your schtick in a mosque and get back to me. That is, if your head is still attached to your body.

Meanwhile in Kansas, their state legislature moved to protect religious liberty.

A House bill directed at same-sex couples in Kansas who are denied services tied to weddings and civil unions passed Wednesday with Republicans arguing the measure reinforced religious freedom and Democrats labeling it a discriminatory assault on lesbians and gays.

Why is it that homosexual demands for special attention are never characterized as a discriminatory assault on religious liberty?

The GOP-led House voted 72-49 to approve House Bill 2453 with little commentary following lengthy debate Tuesday. The bill sent to the Senate was designed to shield people, groups and businesses that cite religious reasons for refusing to serve homosexuals engaging in activities viewed as religiously offensive.

Note that it doesn't say you can't do it. It just says we don't have to help you.

The bill allows government employees of the state, courts, schools and law enforcement agencies to treat as invalid the civil unions or marriages of two men or two women.

Go ahead, pretend to be "married." We're still not going to applaud.

Legislators supportive of the legislation were motivated by an assumption the federal courts eventually would declare unconstitutional a 2005 amendment to the Kansas Constitution banning gay marriage.

Wouldn't it be great if all these judges who are mesmerized by emanations of penumbras would actually read the Tenth Amendment?

The homosexuals demand respect from us. But they refuse to respect our beliefs in return. Their disdain for religion pours forth — we are "anti-gay" purveyors of "vicious discrimination" out to turn back the clock on civil rights.

Such hysteria is underwhelming. The oft-cited example of homofascism at its worst is the Colorado baker who politely refuse to participate in the charade of a same-sex "marriage." Adhering to his conscience was quickly redefined as "hate." As if a random sole proprietor has the power to prevent two homosexuals from fully enjoying their chosen lifestyle.

This notion that a business has to cater to every customer's whim is preposterous. Several years ago my daughter wanted a Club Penguin birthday cake. We went to arguably the best bakery in town. "Sorry," he said, "I can't make that."

You'll be shocked to learn we didn't sue him.

And I'll bet you can't guess that we found a different bakery willing to create the cake she wanted.

Kansas isn't saying you can't have your cake. Kansas is saying that you might need to find a bakery that wants to make it for you. Then, everybody's happy. The religious baker's conscience is clear. The guy who made your cake has a few extra bucks in his pocket. And contrary to hyperbole, you have your cake.

So chill out. You live your lives. We'll live ours. If perchance our paths cross, let's smile, nod, and move on. That's my definition of "tolerance." Hopefully it's yours too.

Posted at 15:24 by Chris Wysocki   [/religion]   Comments | Perm Link |
Technorati Tags: religion liberty freedom First-Amendment homosexual LGBT Kansas   |   Tweet