Finally! Some Sanity About “Gay!”

A couple of posts back, (here) I wrassled with a member of the Race Grievance Industry about the level of white racism in America today. He took the stance that it is a huge problem in America, and I disagreed, arguing that it simply is not a big problem in America today. (Read the essay for background; my debate with a guy who calls himself “William the Conqueror” occurs in the comments section) WTC’s argumentation was disjointed at its best, and he was constantly trying to bring the Gay Grievance Industry into the discussion as well. Here, for example is something “William the Conqueror” said:

Besides my entire point was made for me by the legislation that was passed in Arizona this week [Editor’s Note: SB 1062]that brought this country straight back to Nazi Germany circa 1930′s. Bigotry and racism is not only alive in well, it is an epidemic within the Republican party. I can see the shops in Arizona now, Rainbow signs in the windows displaying their racist opposition to gay people. Just like the Star of David in the shops of Germany….Despicable my friend, despicable.

Unfortunately, this vein-popping, overheated rhetoric is not uncommon in America. There were more than a few references out there to the Nazi era, in an attempt to link Arizona’s SB 1062 with Hitler’s anti-semitic laws. I shouldn’t have to mention that it would seem difficult to classify hostility toward homosexuality as “racism,” but this guy’s fevered imagination appears able to equate many extremely dissimilar things.

These were the usual mindless, lazy attempts to equate America’s right-wing with 1920’s, ’30’s and ’40’s Fascism in Germany and Italy. We’ve debunked that pretty thoroughly in these pages. Search for: “Hitler right-wing” in our blog to find our posts on that topic. However, this kind of nonsense does continue to crop up from time-to-time.

Leave it to the indispensable National Review to pull together the writings that demolish the jackassery.

In this essay, Jonah Goldberg says this (Boy, I wish I’d said it!):

Future historians will likely be flummoxed by the moment we’re living in. In what amounts to less than a blink of an eye in the history of Western civilization, homosexuality has gone from a diagnosed mental disorder to something to be celebrated — or else.

Indeed, the rush to mandatory celebration is so intense, refusal is now considered tantamount to a crime. And, in some rare instances, an actual crime if the right constable or bureaucrat concludes that you have uttered “hate speech.”

Ummmm… Yep. That rings true!

Or, if you were to believe my interlocutor from several posts back, refusal to celebrate gays’ sexual preference is tantamount to resurrecting Hitler and his legions!

Here’s more Goldberg:

The ridiculous invocations of Jim Crow are utterly ahistorical, by the way. Jim Crow was state-enforced, and businesses that wanted to serve blacks could be prosecuted. Let the market work and the same social forces that have made homosexuality mainstream will make refusing service to gays a horrible business decision — particularly in the wedding industry!

When August “Gussie” Busch, the CEO of Budweiser, bought the St. Louis Cardinals in 1953, he was vexed by the Brooklyn Dodgers’ success, which was due in large part to Jackie Robinson. He asked Cardinals executives how many blacks they were cultivating, and when they said “None,” he was appalled. “How can it be the great American game if blacks can’t play? Hell, we sell beer to everyone!” he exclaimed. The next year the Cardinals had a black first baseman, Tom Alston.

I heartily recommend that you read Goldberg’s piece in its entirety. It’s worth it. Then, there are some insightful comments — in dissent and agreement — below it. (Note: There’s also an amazing comment that constitutes possibly the finest piece of awful writing I’ve ever read. I commented on it here.)

Ok, then.

In a vein similar to Goldberg’s, Rich Lowry wrote this essay.

Here’s a snippet:

It was jarring to read the coverage of the new “anti-gay bill” passed by the Arizona legislature and then look up the text of the instantly notorious SB 1062.

The bill was roughly 998 pages shorter than much of legislation that passes in Washington. Clocking in at barely two pages, it was easy to scan for disparaging references to homosexuality, for veiled references to homosexuality, for any references to homosexuality at all.

They weren’t there. A headline from The Week declared, “There is nothing Christian about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.” It would be more accurate to say that there was nothing anti-gay about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.

Well… I was told by all the media that Arizona’s legislature had just approved the toughest, most overtly, anti-gay legislation the country had ever seen! That the Brownshirts and SS troops were practically in the streets! Could that have been just the slightest of exaggerations?

Lowry continued:

The legislation consisted of minor clarifications of the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has been on the books for 15 years and is modeled on the federal act that passed with big bipartisan majorities in the 1990s and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Wait…that homophobic scumbag Bill Clinton was in on this?!? What the heck?!? No wonder the light loafers crowd (can you still say that?) were upset!

More Lowry:

If you’ll excuse a brief break from the hysteria to dwell on the text of the doomed bill, it stipulated that the word “person” in the law applies to businesses and that the protections of the law apply whether or not the government is directly a party to a proceeding (e.g., a lawsuit brought on anti-discrimination grounds).

Eleven legal experts on religious-freedom statutes — who represent a variety of views on gay marriage — wrote a letter to Governor Brewer prior to her veto explaining how, in addition to the federal government, 18 states have such statutes.

Whuuuhhh? Barack Obama‘s Federal Government has the same law on the books? I thought Obama was a leftist dirtbag, I mean, “Hero!” in good standing! I thought that all that stood in the way of his granting us the beautiful paradise — with the seas rolling back and the earth pouring forth sweet manna on Her children — that he promised us, were those wascally Republicans! You mean his government has the same freakin’ law in effect? What the heck?!?!?

Well! Oops.

Still more Lowry:

The letter argues that, properly interpreted, the federal law that inspired the Arizona statute covers cases that don’t directly involve the government and covers businesses. So Arizona’s changes were in keeping with a law once championed by none other than Senator Ted Kennedy. [Editor’s Note: Notorious racist, sexist (even killed a woman!) homophobe that he was.]

A religious-freedom statute doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to do whatever he wants in the name of religion. It simply allows him to make his case in court that a law or a lawsuit substantially burdens his religion and that there is no compelling governmental interest to justify the burden.

For critics of the Arizona bill, the substance was almost an afterthought. They recoiled at the very idea that someone might have moral objections to homosexuality or gay marriage.

Wait, wait, wait… surely you’re not implying that the Race Grievance Industry or the Gay Grievance Industry would make things up in order to move their agenda forward?!? Perish the thought!

Finally there’s this piece from Alec Torres. Torres suggests that the legislation might just have been mis-read, or worse, mis-represented, by those who are perennially on the lookout for ways — honest or dishonest — to advance their agenda. Here’s a representative snippet:

Contrary to its detractors’ disinformation campaign, the bill was quite simple and limited in scope. (It was only two pages; Congress would do well to emulate its brevity if nothing else.) What SB 1062 did was to amend Arizona’s Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA), a law that has been on the books in Arizona for 15 years and was modeled after the federal law of the same name signed by Bill Clinton in 1993.

There’s that homophobic scumbag, Bill Clinton again! So, if I understand correctly, the law would have done nothing more than extend individual rights enshrined in the Constitution to businesses (which, themselves, are made of individuals). Ooooooo…can’t have people who run businesses enjoying rights that actual people enjoy, now can we?!? ‘Cause business people aren’t real people, are they? I mean, why do they have rights?!? What’s that all about?!?

— xPraetorius

One thought on “Finally! Some Sanity About “Gay!”

Please 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 )

Connecting to %s