The Right to Persecute

Sometime in 2007, the American Family Association decided to pretend it's "in favor of families" rather than "against gays" by promoting a petition designed to show that supporting homosexuality would have negative effects on businesses. They sent the petition to allies, trying to get people to respond that they would be "less likely" to support a business if they know it supports the homosexual agenda. ('Cause, you know, they have a plan of how they're planning to take over the world with the Jews and Wiccans.) And, of course, the allies were chosen because AFA already knew they would respond with the answer they wanted, because they have some delusion that this is a good way to prove something I guess.

But apparently the word got out, and many people who support equal rights actually clicked that they would be "more likely" to do business with companies that supported homosexuals. If I knew that a company supported gay couples and gay marriages and a bunch of stuff that I think is important for gay people in our society, then when faced with a choice between the gay-friendly company and a company that either didn't do anything or was against gay people's rights, I would definitely give my business to the gay-friendly one.

After the word got out, the American Family Association yanked the petition because it was not reflecting the results they wanted and was therefore useless for their propaganda machine. However, when signing the petition, responders had to provide an e-mail address, and I was one of many added to their crappy e-mail list. They apparently had no way of tracking that I'd voted for the option that destroyed their petition, so they assumed I was interested in family in the same narrow-minded way they are.

So I got this post about how the Evuhl Democrats were trying to pass a law that would include people of alternative sexualities as groups against whom "hate crimes" are illegal. In other words, kicking someone's ass because he's a fag would be considered a worse crime than just kicking his ass, because it's motivated by hate.

Their dumbass ramble claimed that including homosexuals in the groups that are protected by law violates THEIR rights to their "traditional" beliefs about homosexuality. They claimed that this is just a step away from a "thought crime" and that we should all band together and protest this law being a reality. Because, as we all know, if we take away the religious right's RIGHT to pick on homos because of their homo-ness, we're going against the Constitution by denying them THEIR God-given right to do so. God says gay people are an abomination, and if we make laws that put the lid on anti-gay violence, we're stamping on their freedom of religion!

Uh. . . .

Have you ever heard anything so STUPID?

They go on to cry that protecting homosexuals from hate crimes REALLY means we're trying to "silence" opposing viewpoints--"TELLING US WE CAN'T PERSECUTE IS PERSECUTION AGAINST US!!!"--and that the true aim of a law like this is to persuade American society that homosexuality is (gasp) normal and okay. Horrifying idea, no? How dare the government protect people from the ignorance of the masses!

Quote from the mail I got:

Let's face it: homosexual and transgender activists know full well that the church is one of last bastions in Western culture that has yet to cave in to the demands of a radical agenda that seeks to redefine fundamental concepts such as marriage, family and gender.

[Translation: These people are trying to make it okay to pursue happiness no matter what your sexual identity is, and that makes US uncomfortable and is against OUR religion even though it has nothing to do with us, so we think it's an outrage that we could be jailed for acting VIOLENTLY on our back-assward beliefs!]

Here's the bottom line: If this Thought Crimes law passes, your right to share politically incorrect parts of your Christian faith could, in fact, become a federal crime. Clearly, a grave threat to our civil liberties and the liberties of our children and grandchildren is now upon us.

[Translation: Isn't it terrible that I can no longer behave like it's the first century and stone people to death if they do something against my religion? I mean, after all, the Constitution gives me the right to practice my religion freely, and that includes denying them queers the chance to be treated like human beings because my god says so.]

The law is about protecting people from VIOLENCE. If you want to "share politically incorrect parts of your Christian faith," feel free, and do it respectfully. Jesus taught his followers NOT TO JUDGE, and it's NOT UP TO YOU to stick your nose in other people's business. I don't see why they think that protecting homosexuals from violent crimes somehow steps on their toes at all--I mean, are they trying to say that without this law they WOULD have committed violent crimes, and feel they have the right to do so, but now they're whining that this RIGHT might be taken away from them? I guess they're more concerned about people's perception than anything, and I think it's legitimate to assume that if the government is protecting a group then it's likely the population sees that group as worth protecting. But how can people actually support the idea that homosexuals should be second-class citizens just because they personally don't think it's right to have sex with the same gender?

Boy does this piss me off.

Let's get this straight: It is NOT a right guaranteed to you by the freedom of religion that you get to do whatever you want. The United States government RESPECTS NO INSTITUTION OF RELIGION, which means you CANNOT use the Bible to justify doing things that are against the law. I understand that you believe your religion's tenets are "above" the law of the land, but if you act on that and hurt another person on those grounds, you will not get anywhere appealing to the judges here on Earth. Ask your god if He'll protect you from having to bear the punishment you'll receive from physically attacking another human being over gender or sexuality you don't understand or approve of, and let's just see if He comes through for you.

Any comments left here are PUBLIC. If you are not comfortable with that, mail me directly.

Email address:

Comments from others:

Wolfgnag: "Your right to share politically incorrect parts of your Christian faith" deserves to go unchallenged.Waaaaait. So could I share politically incorrect parts of my Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu, Jain, Native Inuit, Sikh, Jedi, Wiccan or Pastaferian faith? As a matter of fact, I'll just plug my cause: the antipiracy agenda knows full well that FSM churches are one of the last bastions of Traditional Values regarding piracy. But these antiquated Thought Crimes laws may take away my right to share politically incorrect parts of my Pastafarian faith. My rights, and the rights of my Automated Clones and Double Clones must be upheld! R'Amen!