Friday, April 10, 2015

On Accepting Homosexuals

For those of you who don't live under a rock, you most likely know that Indiana has recently passed a Restoration of Religious Freedom Act (RFRA hereafter) - just like a bunch of other states and even the Federal Government (under a Democrat president, Bill Clinton). And for whatever reason, this has made a lot of liberals very angry, and has somehow caused them to say that this act is discriminatory towards homosexuals, and encourages discrimination towards homosexuals. Apple threatened to leave Indiana (which would probably be the best thing to happen to Indiana).


I'm sure that many of you have also heard of Memories Pizza which was thrown under the bus by a dishonest journalist. When asked if they would serve gay people the owners said yes, however, when asked if they would cater a gay wedding the owners said no. The journalist then took the story back to her newspaper that ran a headline suggesting that the owners of Memories Pizza refuse service to gay people.

My first question, who gets pizza catered to their wedding? No, seriously, I want to know who gets pizza catered to their wedding? And the people who would get pizza for their wedding would probably get Little Ceasar's pizza instead (for the 5 for $5 deal). So the question asked by the journalist is just crazy.

My second question is when did business proprietors stop having the ability to refuse service to anyone? I know I have seen places of business say that the reserve the right to not serve someone, so when did that change?

Let us look at this from a slightly different perspective.

Let us say that I am a member of the KKK, and I am getting married to my lady lover. We are both very anti-black people because of Aryan ideologies (not to be confused with Arianism, both should still get you slapped by Santa Claus). We ask around for where the best cake baker is, and it happens to be a black guy, whatever. So I go into this bakery and I ask the guy if he would make a cake for my wedding. He says yes, because truth be told he is a fine fellow. Then I explain that I want a black guy being hung from a tree because that is how my lady likes her cakes. Of course, the black baker would have every right to tell me to leave his store and ban me from the premises.

But that is different, I guess, since in this scenario I am the bigot, not the baker.

So let us try again. I am an avid pork eater. I go to a baker and tell him that I want all kinds of pork pies, sausages, and other pork products for this huge event that I am going to throw. He politely declines on account of his being Jewish, or Muslim. But I have a right to eat meat, after all, my religion (or lack thereof) sees nothing wrong with eating Babe Gordy.

What?! Still different because I'm still a bigot for trying to make people go against their religious convictions?

OK, let us try another one. I go to Muslim bakers and ask for them to make a cake with two guys holding hands, or kissing, or standing at an altar thing about to kiss. The Muslims then tell me no, because it goes against their deeply held personal religious beliefs. 

There is actually a video a guy did where he went to different Muslim owned bakeries and asked for cakes with an obvious homosexual theme. He was told by the owners that they couldn't make those cakes for him. But there is no outcry from the liberals and the homosexuals.

Why not? No, seriously, why not? If it is somehow your right to force other people to go against their deeply held, personal, religious convictions by throwing a temper tantrum across all forms of social media why is there no outrage over these Muslim bakers?

Apple decided to pull out of Indiana, because this RFRA is supposedly discriminatory towards the gay community. But, Apple still has stores in countries where it is legal to kill gays. Way to double standard there, Apple.

But the RFRA isn't there to allow discrimination, it is there to stop the Federal Government and the State Government from possibly impeding on someone's deeply held, personal, religious convictions. It is a jumping board used to determine if someone is unfairly having their religious rights taken away, not a law that allows free discrimination. 

All of this talk has, of course, sparked more debates among many crowds. The crowd I'm going to focus on is the one that says it is the Christian thing to accept people no matter what, because of this wonderful thing called love. 

This is a biblical ideal after all, 1 Tolerance 15:10 states,

And whereever ye shall go, love the populace and accept their ideas and beliefs, in the name of the God who is only but love and could never throw any one, no matter how wicked, into the metaphorical lake of fire. Because a loving and just God would never do something so horrible as to actually punish people for disobeying Him. But most especially, love and accept the sodomites. (Queen Jane Version)
 That is a joke.

Yes, there really are those saying that the Christian thing to do is to love and accept everybody. Because, acceptance means love.

Let me show you a picture that is likely to make me lose a long time friend because she posted this to Facebook,




No, we don't have to support equality with a smile on our faces. We don't have to support equality at all. Just because I love a person doesn't mean that I have to support all of their life decisions.

If my daughter keeps doing the wrong thing I'm not just going to sit back and let her, I'm going to admonish her and show her the right way. I can still love her even though she is doing the wrong thing, in fact loving her means correcting her when she is wrong.

As for the rest, I agree. Homosexuality is a sin, divorce is a sin, lying, killing, cheating, jealousy, all sins. The Church is a hospital for spiritually sick people (sinners), if you don't need to go to a hospital for healing then why go? If you are sick then by all means go (please understand sick = sinner in this analogy, I'm not trying to say anyone is diseased because of orientation or other things).

Giving in to our passions is not the answer (at least not for Christians), we are supposed to curb our passions so that we may obtain holiness.

Even taking into account that there may be a homosexual gene (I've read studies for and against) St. Paul tells us that there are those that are called to be eunuchs, and celibates. It is part of curbing the passions there.
Of course, I have my own passions that I need to work on curbing. And I try not to judge anyone because of their sin, especially because of my own sin.

It is, though, the Christian thing to correct your brother/sister when they are in error.


Anybody who preaches tolerance and acceptance is not preaching the true Gospel. I'm not saying that we should hate and stone sinners, but I am saying that we were never called to tolerate or accept those who are doing wrong. Jesus certainly wasn't tolerant of the Scribes and Pharisees. St. Paul mentions correcting error all the time. Even Revelation admonishes those who do wrong.

We love those who sin, and because of that love we correct that error.









Post a Comment