The First Amendment: Freedom to Be a Bigot

Posted: July 25, 2013 in homosexuality, legal / law
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Let me first state that I agree with my subject line. The First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause makes people free to be a bigot. They can say what they want (so long as it’s not libel nor slander nor does it specifically call others to violence) and shouldn’t be persecuted legally. It also gives me the freedom to call them out on it.

That changes when the bigots provide a service and/or public accommodation. Then, there are other laws that matter. They can still say and think what they want, but they can’t discriminate in that service except for other legal reasons such as safety (e.g., “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” signs). At least, that’s my understanding of the law. And it’s not in conflict with the First Amendment.

Unless you’re Scott Lively. Right Wing Watch has an extensive set of articles on this particular bigot from Defend the Family. Such as, him claiming to have proof Obama is gay, that a gay man’s death from meningitis is divine judgement, and that after the Boy Scouts voted to allow homosexuals as scouts (until they’re 18), that gay activists would launch a “Blitzkrieg Against the Church.”

It’s Scott Lively that the latest WND article by Bob Unruh is about, entitled “Campaign Puts ‘Gay Rights’ Behind Constitution” (emphasis theirs). It’s reporting on Mr. Lively’s “The First Amendment Supremacy Clause” movement.

It states, “In no circumstance shall sexual orientation regulations superseded the First Amendment rights of individuals, churches and religious organizations to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. For the purpose of this statute religious organizations are those whose policies or culture are substantially influenced by religious values, including but not limited to Christian bookstores, adoption agencies, hospitals, businesses, social organizations and student clubs on college campuses.”

He explains that would allow municipalities or other branches of government to adopt those nondiscrimination laws demanded by homosexuals – without infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens.

In other words, attempting to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, but having this on the books to then use to challenge when individuals or businesses are charged with discrimination by refusing service to someone(s) just because they are homosexual.

I shouldn’t need to point this out, but you could easily simply replace “homosexual” with “black.” Or “Latino.” Is there any possible way that such a movement would work if you did that? Of course not. And for the exact same reasons that it is ridiculous and won’t work by having “homosexual” in there. He’s just a bigot and wants to protect his fantasy that he has the right to not be offended. And I should note (in case it was too subtle) that I’m exercising my First Amendment rights by calling these people bigots … because they are.

Comments are pouring in and in the time it took me to write that intro, 13 new ones were posted. And I type around 80 WAM these days. At the moment, the top-rated comment with 22 up-votes and (surprisingly) 2 down-votes is by “NUTN2SAY” (who should’ve stood by that pseudonym), who seems to have a lot to say:

Human life requires heterosexual men and women to unite for the purpose of bringing new life into this world. People of the same sex…for them it’s all about recreational sex and to hell with mankind! Homosexuals just want to play all day while heterosexuals do all the work!

We The People need to hire tax paid government employees who understand and comprehend these facts of life. Those employees that don’t understand these facts of life need to be fired ASAP! Turning America’s Posterity into homosexuals is an act of treason! The subject of sex is not in We The People’s Constitution and therefore needs not to be discussed. What adults do in private should stay private!

We The People…We Need To Talk! Turning children into homosexuals is a mentally ill crime that needs to be talked about!

I don’t think I need to comment on that. I think it’s enough to point out that this is the top-rated comment on this article on WND and leave it at that … there comes a point where you just shake your head.

Most of the comments are along this vein – simply anti-gay bigotry. Some are religious, lamenting that Christians are a minority being persecuted (*cough*bullSh¡‡*cough*).

The most negatived comment is by AutumnDenver with 1 up-votes and 15 down, who states, “And when framing the constitution women didn’t have the right to own property or vote. I kinda like the 21st centuries version better, thank you.” I’d add that we also had slavery enshrined within it. In response, we get:

  • Yeah, where the rights of mentally ill perverts are upheld, against those of moral beliefs, and law abiding behaviors.
  • Ignorance in motion. Typical liberal.
  • Me thinks men were happier back then too……go figure.

I don’t even understand what those first two are trying to get across. The third one is just misogyny to an extreme.

There’s also a comment by Butch1 who has 2 up-votes and 11 down-votes:

You’ve got to be kidding me. You deny people the right to marriage and then you make up this stuff? Why would any self-respecting gay person want a cake shop that hates them to make their cake? Grow up and stop pushing false lies to stir the pot on your gullible audience

Yeah, pretty much. Lots of highly up-voted responses, though, including:

  • If they were self respecting they wouldn’t be gay.
  • btw calling it marriage doesn’t make it so
  • Why would they indeed? Because it gives them something to talk or brag about at their social gatherings. Because it makes the papers. Because it sends a message to Christians to either shut up and service them or get sued. For the money. Because they hate Christians in general. Because they are trying to compensate for being picked on in school. Take your pick.
  • Go back to your closet.
  • Why would any self-respecting person be gay?
  1. Flip says:

    The first point is basically saying “why are those sick *** running our country, when us normal, moral folk are being forced to do what they say?” i hate it when they conflate mental illness with social change. My question to them: why would any self-respecting person by so clueless as to not understand that this is about *civil* marriage, not church ones?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s