web analytics

Enter the Gay Inquisition, and the next phase in the death of the Republic

Not many atheists were killed and tortured in the Spanish Inquisition.  Loads of heretics were, however.

I had the pleasure of returning this weekend from a conference where we talked about human rights to discovering that Baltimore is on the way to getting the Ferguson treatment and the news that yet another establishment is getting taken to task on the issue of homosexuality.  But this last has a twist.  Instead of it being a case where an opponent of gay marriage refused to participate in a gay marriage ceremony, it was an advocate for gay marriage being berated for providing services to an opponent of gay marriage.  I really didn’t want to write any further on the utter and complete hypocrisy of the gay agenda, but this was just too rich to overlook.

Before I get to the part that I thought was most interesting and telling about this incident, let me first address the most glaring aspect of the hypocrisy.  So, these two gay men hosted a gathering for Ted Cruz, and for this, the gay community is livid.  Here is their Boycott Facebook page.  Now, it is perfectly obvious that if it is discrimination to not serve a gay person because he is gay, it would be discrimination to not serve an (allegedly) anti-gay person because he is (allegedly) anti-gay.  I’m talking from the viewpoint of the Constitution and the law. But in the minds of the gay advocates, their discrimination is warranted and therefore justified.  From the Facebook page:  “Treating people as less than human does not equal a ‘difference of opinion.’ Therein lies your logical misstep.

The writer is referring more to the gay couple that owned the hotel than to Ted Cruz, by the way.

If cogent argumentation mattered, we could from this comment dispense with this idea that all discrimination is bad, and not only that, but some discrimination is good:  eg., if someone is treating another person as less than human.  Their grounds for ‘discrimination’:  good.  My grounds for ‘discrimination’:  bad.  Fine; but that is not how the propaganda is framed.  The propaganda is framed as “All discrimination is bad!”  But, of course, logic really has nothing to do with this.  The double-talk has been noted by many others already.  But is anyone going to mention the obvious:  Ted Cruz openly associating with gay people and availing himself of his services is prima facie evidence that he is not against gay people, in as much as they are gay.

A KKK grand dragon would not step inside a black person’s establishment (except to burn it down).  There is a genuine distinction to be found here, but it is doubtful that any gay activist would comprehend it, so I shan’t dwell on it.  Instead, let me say this–and this is directed specifically to those who are against gay marriage–

We are not dealing with rational people.  They literally will burn down the country to get what they want, and they will sincerely believe that this is entirely justified.  We are quickly coming to the point where it will be necessary to act purely in the interests of self-defense.  In short, war is on the horizon.  To prevent the worst manifestations of war–that is, to keep it a cold war rather than a hot war–it is time to start considering bolder measures.  If the gays are literally torturing their own (by the liberal’s definition of torture), we’ve reached a new low, a plateau, if you will, but inversely.  Now that this plateau has been reached, society is primed so that a gay-owned establishment will be loathe to serve someone who is known to be against gay marriage.  When this happens, it will be necessary to be ready.  We need to fight fire with fire:  sue the establishment for refusing to provide the service.  Sue their friends, sue their mother, sue their attorneys, sue their consultants.  Make gay advocates pay a high price for their hypocrisy.  Right now, they are living in the land of make believe where they have society’s good will, but society has not yet been confronted with the implications of what it means to live in a society governed by the Gay Inquisitors.

The purpose of such an effort would not be to exact revenge, but to move beyond the ‘logical’ to the ’empirical’, and this in the hopes that they’ll wake up to the dangers of acting the way they act.    They are hypocrites, but they don’t know it.  Their actions are tyrannical, but they are oblivious.   They believe they are acting in the spirit of democracy, but in fact it is anti-human and borderline fascist.  They are just the latest manifestation of Liberal philosophies and policies, which is at every point just one degree closer to slavery.  I don’t use the word ‘slavery’ as a metaphor.  I mean actual, literal, outright slavery.

This whole story reminds me of a warning I penned, here:

Obviously, actual prosecution and incarceration have become incrementally closer.  Probably, people other than Christians will ultimately be made to suffer, and probably,  gays themselves will someday find themselves on the wrong side of an issue, and be made to suffer similarly, on account of precedent that they helped establish.

It is not because liberals aren’t sincere.  It is precisely because they are sincere that they will not stop.  They are bound only by their own intentions, which they deem always to be saintly–like the Inquisitors.  The only thing that keeps them in check are the checks and balances provided by powerful instruments like the Constitution, some fading memories of past atrocities, and their own consciences, steadily undermined by a thoroughly relativistic age.  Of all of these, it is the decimation of the Constitution that poses the most serious and immediate threat.

The Constitution represents a new way in human history of living together.  It transcended ‘might makes right’ and established not just a system of checks and balances, but an attitude whereby people would seek to make changes through legal measures such as legislation by their elected representatives rather than–and this is important–sneaking into their opponents village and slaying them while they sleep.  People have been willing to put up with a lot of things that they consider to be CRAP, which in past times people literally would have murdered each other over, on the understanding that society is better off if we settle our problems through civil institutions.  That way, you don’t have to worry about being murdered in your sleep.

But it is precisely this arrangement that is under fire.  Moreover, gay advocates themselves cannot even see what they are doing.  It is not even so much that they are willing to burn down the Republic to get what they want, but that they will do so, without even knowing they are doing so.

People have to be able to live with the fact that there are people in society who have viewpoints that they find detestable; this is real tolerance.  This was the miracle that the Constitution wrought:  people with strong, and contradictory opinions not murdering each other in the sleep, even as they knew the other person had strong, contradictory opinions.  The liberal mindset believes (without being able to put it into words) that ‘tolerance’ is everyone having the same, orthodox viewpoint: theirs.  The mere existence of disagreement constitutes intolerance, in their viewpoint, thus in the name of tolerance, all must believe as they do.

That’s why the this gay couple must be made to pay–by the gay community.  It is why Christians suffered at the hands of Christian inquisitors in Spain many hundreds of years ago.  It is why the atheists of the French Revolution murdered Christians and other dissenters.  It is why ISIS is cutting off the heads of men, women, and children.  It is all of a piece, and what they all have in common are rock bottom realities about human nature–things that are true about humans, whether one likes it or not.  You see, most of the horrors perpetuated by men on men over the centuries were carried out by good, well meaning individuals who thought they were acting on noble principles.  You know, like, “Treating people as less than human does not equal a ‘difference of opinion.'”

It is precisely because of this clear, present and enduring danger that the first people to make for the New World were Christians fleeing Christians.  And it was not accidental, either, that these same sought to break the cycle by establishing a system in which real tolerance was allowed to flourish.  The gay community itself is now getting its first taste of their own medicine, their first glimpse into what will happen to them, by their own,  if they win their cause by burning down the Republic.

Personally, I believe that we will see many more such travesties carried out on gays by gays, of an increasingly serious sort, before they come to grips with what they have done.  It is not inevitable that, if this point is reached, that our Republic is salvageable.  It is just as likely that things will be so far gone by that point that there will only be gulags and barbed wire.

People really don’t think that this sort of thing can happen, just like people really didn’t think that anything evil could come from eugenics.   They live as though the purges of Pol Pot and the ovens of Auschwitz and the beheadings of ISIS all happened centuries ago, back when they used to do inquisitions.  They live as though progress is inevitable and irreversible.  They live as though Progress is an infallible doctrine, for which it is perfectly justifiable to unleash oppression to enforce.  But none of that is true.

It is not the bad men we need to be most afraid of, but the good men.  It was to keep the good men in check that the Constitution was created.  Indeed, it was good men that wrote the Constitution, knowing very well that it was the good men that we need to be most concerned about.  The reason why liberals have progressively undermined the Constitution and the Republic is because they have forgotten, or do not agree with, or aren’t even aware of the possibility that good men–like themselves–could commit literal, real, atrocities.

And they are quite wrong.

A point that sane and sensible gay people will now become alert to thanks to the fate of Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass.  But we are quickly approaching a time where such a realization will come too late to matter.  Mr. Reisner and Weiderpass should not back down.  They should stand up to their Inquisitors, while they still can.

I mentioned above that those against gay marriage need to start thinking in terms of ‘self-defense’ but I am not hopeful that that or anything will have any good effect.  Just as it was Christians who recoiled at horrors inflicted by other Christians who established parameters for facilitating genuine liberty in the U.S. Constitution, it may very well have to be liberal heretics who will have to pay the price, perhaps even in blood, who then call for a return to those same principles.

Perhaps we have now come to a point where we can say that the next Republic, if there is to be one, will be built by gay advocates.

We may hope this is not only because the statists will have gunned down everyone else.

Hey, a man can hope, right?

For further reading:

http://sntjohnny.com/front/the-death-of-the-republic-and-gay-marriage/2422.html

http://sntjohnny.com/front/progressives-will-be-the-death-of-the-republic-democracy-and-freedom/2167.html

 

Share

12 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Timaahy on April 30, 2015 at 8:49 pm

    Hi Tony,

    Firstly, I don’t quite understand this paragraph:

    I had the pleasure of returning this weekend from a conference where we talked about human rights to discovering that Baltimore is on the way to getting the Ferguson treatment and the news that yet another establishment is getting taken to task on the issue of homosexuality.

    Was the pleasure from returning from the conference, or talking about human rights, or discovering that Baltimore is on the way to getting the Ferguson treatment, or that yet another establishment getting taken to task on the issue of homosexuality?

    Secondly, your accusation of hypocrisy doesn’t quite stack up, for two reasons.

    1

    So, these two gay men hosted a gathering for Ted Cruz, and for this, the gay community is livid.

    You seem to be under the impression that the “gay community” is a single, homogenous group that gets together and decides how to respond to any issue. It isn’t. It’s a diverse group, made up of a diverse bunch of people, with a diverse range of opinions. In order for your accusation to stand, you need to at least demonstrate that it is the same gay people that hold the allegedly hypocritical views.

    It may well be the case, of course, but you haven’t demonstrated that at all. In fact, it looks as though you haven’t even considered it.

    2
    Even if you manage to overcome point 1, you are still left with this:

    Now, it is perfectly obvious that if it is discrimination to not serve a gay person because he is gay, it would be discrimination to serve an (allegedly) anti-gay person because he is (allegedly) anti-gay.

    Is it? Is it obvious?

    The fact that believe it is demonstrates the attitude that Danny and I have observed before, from both you and EB. It is an attitude borne of privilege, and a failure to recognise, and empathise with, long-standing, deep-rooted power imbalances.

    You may have seen the powerful image of the black boy handing out water bottles to police officers in Baltimore. Why was it powerful? Because in a city where police officers somehow contrive to sever a black man’s spine, while simply transporting him to the police station, this boy reached out to his oppressors with a gesture of goodwill.

    Now, I understand the gesture (as much as a middle-class white man is able to understand it). But I would also understand why some black people would be very upset by it. Note that I said “understand” – I neither condemn nor condone it.

    And the same goes for your Ted Cruz example.

    Unless you want to call the boy a hypocrite, too.

    • End Bringer on April 30, 2015 at 11:05 pm

    “The fact that believe it is demonstrates the attitude that Danny and I have observed before, from both you and EB. It is an attitude borne of privilege, and a failure to recognise, and empathise with, long-standing, deep-rooted power imbalances.”

    Only attitude being displayed here is willful blindness to the glaringly obvious. This is a part of a general attitude from you, DB, and the left in general, that myself and SJ have observed, and SJ has explicitly stated – you are not rational people.

    This is purely a matter of logic.

    – ‘All discrimination is bad’ is the mantra so championed by ‘group x’.

    – ‘Group x’ people lash out at fellow ‘group x’ business owners for serving a ‘group y’ politician.

    – The logical inference is that those who are lashing out would have preferred that ‘group x’ business owners have discriminated against ‘group y’ politician for his political/ideological stance and refused him business.

    – This is directly contradicting and hypocritical to the above ‘all discrimination is bad’ mantra purported by ‘group x’ as noted above.

    Personal attitude simply doesn’t come into this, Timmy. Neither does your black water boy example, unless you’re saying members of the black community have threatened the kid for his actions or something. THAT would be parallel to what we’re seeing in this instance.

    • Timaahy on April 30, 2015 at 11:35 pm

    You ducked out of our previous discussion, EB, once you realised you couldn’t meet my challenge. But once again, I must ask… why do you think gay people might react badly to another gay person doing business with someone with a track record of anti-gay policies? Pretend you’re a gay person for a moment, and see if you can explain why that would upset you.

    And since it is purely a matter of logic, you might also like to provide evidence that:

    1
    All gay people believe all discrimination is bad.

    2
    The same gay people that believe all discrimination is bad also believe that Ted Cruz should have been turned away.

    As for the “back water boy”, as you call him, what if he did face a backlash? Would you then call the black community hypocrites?

    • Timaahy on May 1, 2015 at 12:50 am

    Do you think it’s hypocritical for liberals to support women-only gyms?

    • Anthony on May 1, 2015 at 3:09 pm
      Author

    “Was the pleasure from returning from the conference, or talking about human rights,”

    This.

    It should have been, “to discover that” instead of “discovering.”

    “You seem to be under the impression that the “gay community” is a single, homogenous group that gets together and decides how to respond to any issue”

    I don’t have that impression. I have been trying to use ‘activist’ or ‘agitator’ for that reason, but I don’t always remember. However, in this case, I don’t think I need to “at least demonstrate” anything. I read many, many of the comments left on a variety of websites. I think I can tell when the representative sample on one site seems to be in tune with the representative sample on another site. Eg, the gay agitators that went after the Indiana pizza shop sure sounded like the same folks who went after this couple.

    Honestly, I’m not going to go out and interview a million gays after every story that breaks, just so that I can justify my statements to you. Sorry. Obviously, that means you can draw a different impression, and you are welcome to do so.

    “Is it? Is it obvious?”

    Yes. And the fact that you don’t see it says everything we need to know.

    Let me see if I can explain it to you, drawing from something you said to EB:

    “Pretend you’re a gay person for a moment, and see if you can explain why that would upset you.”

    This is all about ‘feelings’ to you, or ’empathy,’ or ‘understanding.’ The fact that gays ‘feel’ slighted by not being able to ‘marry’ is something that makes you ‘feel’ bad for them, and that is ENOUGH to warrant any injustice and any trampling of the civil rights of those you considered ‘privileged’…, yes, tossing out the considered judgements of literally millions of Americans, who took the time to go through tedious and laborious steps to get constitutional amendments, etc, is a trampling of civil rights.

    Why is it not an obvious double-standard to you? The action is precisely the same, so what is the difference? Just one: your feelings.

    You see, we on our side are waiting desperately for someone on your side to put forward something that passes as some kind of cogent argument. That is, some kind of principled, well-thought out line of reasoning, instead of your gut reaction to perceived injustices. That’s why we keep asking ya’ll why, on the same basis, you wouldn’t support polygamy, marrying inanimate objects, marrying animals, marrying your own children, and so on. The only answer to this is, “Ew. That’s gross. We feel like that would be too far, so we would never allow that.

    I don’t know if you happened to see the transcript from the hearing before SCOTUS from just a few days ago. The gay activist attorneys were asked why, on the same basis, four lawyers couldn’t get married. Here was a case where you couldn’t get away with invoking your own personal gut feelings, so did you know what rational answers they gave?

    They said that states would step in and forbid that because… wait for it… wait for it… the children. And other practical issues, such as inheritances and estates, etc. In other words, they gave precisely the SAME answers that folks on MY side have already given. That being the case, we have to ask, what is the REAL difference?

    Feelings.

    That’s the best case scenario. From my readings on the subject, there are at least two categories of gay marriage advocates. Those like yourself, who feel guilty for being white, male, and hetereosexual, and wish to impose your empathy on others, and those who think with their genitalia. Which is to say, they simply want to have any kind of sex that they want and they don’t care who they hurt in the process.

    I won’t here dwell on that other piece of irony, the utter stupidity that a person must suffer from if, with the goal of overturning a near super-majority of wills expressed in state amendments or laws, the person argues, in all seriousness, that certain ‘logical extensions’ (ie, polygamy) will ‘properly’ be opposed by… the states. The very thing being overthrown!

    Good grief.

    • End Bringer on May 1, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    “You ducked out of our previous discussion, EB, once you realised you couldn’t meet my challenge.”

    More like you couldn’t meet either mine or SJ’s challenge and just continued rehashing inane and irrelevant semantics. Seeing as my time is valuable, I see no point in pursuing such a discussion.

    “why do you think gay people might react badly to another gay person doing business with someone with a track record of anti-gay policies?”

    Because like most on the left, they are irrational letting their “feelings” lead them around by the nose as SJ so succinctly noted, no matter what depth of hypocrisy it ends up being.

    “1
    All gay people believe all discrimination is bad.

    2
    The same gay people that believe all discrimination is bad also believe that Ted Cruz should have been turned away.”

    I would provide evidence, if this was even marginally close to what I or SJ said. Do I state anywhere in my argument “all gays believe all discrimination is bad?” No. In fact, I made sure that was not what I said by explicitly labeling the situation as represented with ‘group x/y’ rather than “all gays” or even “gays” at all.

    But like DB, you have a tendency to read what you want to read, regardless of what is written (mostly to maintain this weak splitting-hairs defense when a generalization is made).

    So not only is your statements not even marginally close, it’s not even in the same galaxy. Guess you’re just living some place far, far away from where I’m at. And until you come back down to reality, I can’t have a proper conversation with someone arguing with something that isn’t there. 😉

    • Anthony on May 1, 2015 at 4:50 pm
      Author

    This is all I’m going to say on the matter, God willing.

    http://sntjohnny.com/front/the-abject-lunacy-of-the-gay-marriage-agitators/2630.html

    I need to invest my time protecting myself and my family from a society governed without any regard to the real nature of the real world.

    • Timaahy on May 2, 2015 at 3:26 am

    It’s not because your time is precious. It’s because you know you’re cornered.

    Would you call liberals hypocrites because they supported women only gyms?

    • End Bringer on May 2, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    Seeing how liberals have taken gender identity to the same absurd lengths they’ve taken marriage, yeah they probably are. What does “woman” even mean anymore under the liberal/progressive world view? Anything anyone wants it to mean apparently.

    Frankly, an argument could be made that it’s to the point where liberals are probably a bit hypocritical for invoking the word “only” at all. “Only” is such a discriminatory word after all. 😉

    • Timaahy on May 3, 2015 at 7:19 pm

    You see, we on our side are waiting desperately for someone on your side to put forward something that passes as some kind of cogent argument. That is, some kind of principled, well-thought out line of reasoning, instead of your gut reaction to perceived injustices.

    That is astounding.

    Firstly, “your side” isn’t waiting desperately for cogent arguments. You’re waiting desperately for us to go away. The last thing you want is a cogent argument.

    Secondly, the cogent arguments have been presented, over and over again, and ignored, over and over again.

    You say marriage is about children. We say, but hang on, not everyone who gets married wants children. Then you say well it’s not about wanting children, it’s about having the ability to have children. And we say, but hang on, we let post-menopausal women get married. I’m not actually sure why we let post-menopausal women marry… perhaps you can enlighten me.

    The fact is that every single reason put forward for denying marriage rights for homosexual couples has been answered. Emphatically.

    Except one, of course. And that argument boils down to this:

    “Cos Jesus said so.”

    That’s why we keep asking ya’ll why, on the same basis, you wouldn’t support polygamy, marrying inanimate objects, marrying animals, marrying your own children, and so on.

    Tell me, SJ. What are your reasons for opposing those things? Is it purely because they aren’t heterosexual unions? Or is there something deeper going on?

    • Timaahy on May 3, 2015 at 7:22 pm

    Seeing how liberals have taken gender identity to the same absurd lengths they’ve taken marriage, yeah they probably are.

    Thank you for answering. Your lack of empathy is noted. Again.

    Have you ever studied statistics?

    • End Bringer on May 3, 2015 at 9:10 pm

    “You say marriage is about children. We say, but hang on, not everyone who gets married wants children. Then you say well it’s not about wanting children, it’s about having the ability to have children. And we say, but hang on, we let post-menopausal women get married. I’m not actually sure why we let post-menopausal women marry… perhaps you can enlighten me.”

    Probably because this isn’t a cogent argument. This is a lame attempt to find an excuse that fails to truly analyse it’s own argument – an appeal to circumstantial ‘problems’ of heterosexual couples is a tacit admission that the two relationships are not in fact “equal” as claimed.

    You and liberals have consistently ignored the fact this ‘not every married heterosexual couple has children’ is utterly irrelevant when examining the INHERENT comparisons of the two relationships.

    Because the fact is the ‘man and woman’ relationship is STILL the only relationship CAPABALE of producing children, regardless if not every individual man or woman on the planet desires or is physically capable of reproducing. A homosexual couple can desire kids and be as physically ideal as they like, and they’ll NEVER be able to reproduce in a thousand years. Not without getting some outside help from the opposite sex that implicitly concedes their limitation, at least.

    So, once again, the man-woman relationship IS inherently unique, and it is this inherent uniqueness that has stood as a non-arbitrary cornerstone for defining ‘marriage.’ Homosexuality simply is not the same, and if “marriage” can be redefined to accommodate it, then it can be redefined a thousand other imagined relationships under he same criteria with nothing to prevent their inclusion, but the same suppose ‘bigotry’ liberals like yourself decry.

    “Thank you for answering. Your lack of empathy is noted. Again.”

    Thank you for admitting it’s about your personal feelings, and not factual reality as it applies to everyone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

2 × five =