Religious Freedom, Hypothetical Hate, and “Legitimate” Bigotry

The situation in Indiana over so-called religious freedom is completely ridiculous. Let’s just overlook the fact that the Indiana religious freedom act is just a more local version of the national RFRA signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. That in itself should indicate that the current hatred is contrived at best.

But let’s also look at the targets of hatred. The Christian owners of an Indiana pizzeria nearly shuttered their business after they were threatened by homosexual activists. And just what were homosexual activists angry about? A hypothetical situation. Nothing more and nothing less.

The pizzeria owners said that, hypothetically speaking, they would not cater a homosexual wedding. First off, who cares? No one, literally no one at all, was actually inconvenienced or harmed by their hypothetical denial of service. And who has pizza for their wedding anyway? I thought homosexuals were supposed to have highbrow taste.

The fact is that if news reporters had not asked the pizzeria owners this particular question, “Would you cater a gay wedding?” no one would have been the wiser. Or the more foolish. As it is, this particular pizzeria has become some kind of a scion for the whole religious freedom vs. homosexual marriage debate. Which is so stupid! Seriously, people. This debate is absolutely, impossibly stunted. Let’s not even call it a debate. This is a terroristic tit for tat. “You’re boycotting that pro-family pizzeria? Well, I’ll raise your death threats with a successful fundraiser. Chick-fil-Hate, you say? Well, how about Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day?!” And the cycle goes back and forth, while the conversation becomes less and less productive.

And let’s just be clear. Homosexuals are picking fights on this issue. They’re not trying to “just get along.” And they are not extending the same level of forbearance they are demanding. Recently, a man called up thirteen different pro-homosexual bakeries to ask them to bake a “pro-traditional marriage cake” for an event. He wanted the cake to read, “Gay Marriage is Wrong”.

Guess what? Not a single pro-homosexual bakery agreed to do the cake. And, honestly, I don’t think anyone in support of religious freedom thinks that a pro-homosexual bakery should have to. No one on the pro-traditional marriage side of things wants to force heterosexuality onto homosexuals. We just want the same courtesy and we’re not getting it. The point is that all businesses should have a right to deny service on the basis of deeply held convictions.

We’re witnessing another reincarnation of “legitimate” bigotry. That is, “socially acceptable discrimination.” It reared its ugly head against black people, especially in the years leading up to the civil rights movement and beyond. It was the main motivation for the Holocaust. And now it is the main reason why homosexual activists are allowed to harass Christians, but Christians aren’t even allowed to say what they believe, even concerning hypothetical scenarios. Somehow or another, Christians have been painted as the monsters in the religious freedom debate. And before you ask, “How can that be?” just think about the monstrous portraits that were painted of Jews and black people to justify the double standards necessary for their persecution.

Am I saying that Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals and homosexual activists in this country? Yes. And let me say that the reverse is really not going on to the extent that homosexuals would love to believe. This whole fiasco depends on the myth that homosexuals are a minority in need of protection. In fact, they are a minority that refuses to be protected. Because they don’t want protection. They want victory.