Unequal Protection of Religious Principles Part of Forced Cultural Reshaping of America
“State takes legal action to seize $135K from bakers who refused to make cake for lesbian couple,” The Daily Signal reported. “…Brad Avakian, commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, ordered the [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to pay $135,000 for the emotional, physical, and psychological damages they caused Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer for refusing to make a wedding cake.”
Because, as we all know, there’s nowhere else Rachel and Laurel could have gotten a cake, except from Christians they knew they could back into a corner and then sue. So now a business will be destroyed and assets that have taken two lifetimes of work to earn will be confiscated – under force of state arms. Talk about inflicting physical and emotional damages – but as we see time and again, with “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day.
As if that’s not enough, lies have been spread about the Kleins to further demonize them and diminish public sympathy. Sadists love kicking people when they’re down.
Compare that to another story just in across the transom, “Feds go to bat for Muslim truckers fired for refusing to do their jobs.” It seems the Somali immigrants wanted to drive delivery trucks, but didn’t want to have to deliver beer because it’s against their religion. And so the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission awarded them $240K. Not a bad payday for people who come from a place where per capita annual income is measured in hundreds of dollars. It sure didn’t take them long to figure out how to game the system here.
No fair, you say? Not delivering beer doesn’t discriminate against minorities or persecuted groups? OK then, take the same scenario as in Oregon—check out Steven Crowder trying to buy a gay wedding cake from a Muslim bakery:
[ot-video type=”youtube” url=”https://youtu.be/RgWIhYAtan4″]
And then consider how Muslim taxi drivers in Cleveland – members of a highly regulated and licensed business providing vital urban transportation services, refused to drive cabs with “Gay Games” advertising.
What could be the reason gay activists only seem to sue fundamentalist Christians, and seem to leave fundamentalist Islamists alone? And what do you think the reason is the government abets unequal treatment under the law, with draconian fines and enforcement against one group, while turning a blind eye to equivalent actions by another?
As William N. Grigg noted in “From ‘Civil Rights’ to Cultural Totalitarianism”:
The civil rights movement began as an effort to remove government impediments to individual liberty. By 1964 it had become a concerted effort to subject all private functions to government scrutiny and regimentation.
It’s ironic that Grigg mentions actor George Takei, famous as Mr. Sulu of Star Trek, backing a “compelling government interest” justification for coercing promotion of gay acceptance, “most likely ignorant of the fact that he’s promoting the same evil doctrine that led to his [internment in a WWII Japanese relocation camp].” I say ironic because, when looking at how the government punishes Christians and gives Muslims a pass for the same “offense,” a Star Trek quote comes to mind:
“Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking will be as quickly rewarded. You will find it an effective combination.”
The other irony is that when Islamist fundamentalists are in control, the question isn’t how many layers your cake will be if you’re gay, it’s how many floors you’ll be dropped.