A Conversation with a Gay Rights Activitist on Truth Serum

[mikegriffith1]

Here’s a conversation that could very well occur between a gay rights advocate (GRA) on truth serum and a supporter of religious liberty (SRL).

SRL: Okay, when you guys were pushing for gay marriage, you said a million times that “if you’re not gay, gay marriage won’t affect you.” Now, we have religious vendors being punished for declining to host or service gay wedding ceremonies and we have a Christian college being threatened with the loss of federal financial aid for its students unless it drops its long-standing code of conduct. What’s up with that?

GRA: Well, we never intended to keep our word about gay marriage not affecting you. We knew that we could use gay marriage to begin to force everyone, especially religious vendors, to host or service our weddings, or to punish them for refusing to do so. We also knew that we could use gay marriage to start attacking religious schools. No one should be allowed to discriminate behind the cover of religion. We’re just trying to end discrimination.

SRL: So if a religious baker, let’s say, declines to bake a gay couple a cake for their wedding but is willing to sell them any pre-baked goods that he sells off the shelf, how has the gay couple suffered “discrimination” since they are still perfectly free to just go use a different baker and since most bakers would be glad to make them a wedding cake? Where is the “discrimination”? And what “right” has the gay couple been denied, specifically?

GRA: The right to be served like everyone else.

SRL: But most “everyone else” does not ask him to bake a cake for a gay wedding. And if a 60-year-old man walked in and asked for a cake that he could give to his 12-year-old girlfriend to celebrate her 13th birthday and to celebrate her being able to move in with him when she turns 13, even many secular bakers would find this disgusting and would refuse to bake the cake. Yet, according to your definition, that would be “discrimination.”

GRA; [Gets an embarrassed look on his face] Well. . . . Uh. . . .

SRL: And I ask again, what “right” has the gay couple been denied by simply being asked to go use a different baker, because the religious baker would find it offensive to supply a cake for their wedding and given the fact that gay couple has plenty of readily available alternatives?

GRA: Most gay couples would find it offensive to be asked to go use a different baker. The bakery is a public accommodation and the gay couple has a right to be served like anyone else would be served.

SRL: But, again, most “anyone else” is not asking the baker to do something that he finds offensive. Just because a religious person goes into business should not mean he should be forced to violate his beliefs when gay couples can easily and quickly just go use a different vendor. Wouldn’t the polite, respectful thing for the gay couple to do be to just go use a different baker? Why would you want to force anyone to make your wedding cake anyway?

GRA: Well. . . . Uh. . . . Again, what if the gay couple is offended by being asked to go use a different baker?

SRL: So you’re saying that gays have a right not to be offended but that religious people do not?

GRA: [Gets a worried look on his face] Uh. . . . Well, if he’s going to be in business, then he should not be able to decline service to gay couples. If he doesn’t like it, then he should find another business, one that doesn’t involve hosting or servicing weddings.

SRL: In other words, “Christians need not apply” to be bakers?

GRA: Uh. . . . Well. . . .

SRL: Furthermore, the vast majority of the baker’s customers never ask them to bake cakes for a ceremony that he finds offensive. You keep avoiding that key difference. We’re not talking about refusing to serve someone a meal, rent them a room, provide them with medical care, or give them a job. Those are basic needs and routine actions. We’re talking about wants and conveniences for a ceremony vs. forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs.

Since when in America does anyone have the right to force anyone else to attend, much less service, a ceremony that they find offensive? Does a religious couple, therefore, have the right to force a gay printer to print a booklet for a seminar they’re holding on the health risks of homosexuality or on the biblical view of gay marriage?

GRA: [Straining to resist the truth serum, but answers in a few seconds] Uh. . . . But. . . . Well, shouldn’t the religious couple “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and just go get use another printer?! Uh. . . . Wait. . . .

SRL: Bingo, and they most likely would do that, and would never dream of suing the gay printer. Why can’t gay couples just show the same tolerance and respect for beliefs with which they disagree?

GRA: Well. . . . But. . . . Uh. . . . [Face starts to contort as he tries to resist the truth serum] Because we wanna teach those holier-than-thou religious people a lesson! That’s why! [Gets an embarrassed look on his face as he realizes what he just blurted out.]

SRA: So this isn’t really about any supposed “rights” at all, is it? If the baker refused to bake a gay wedding cake because he was some old-fashioned hippie who viewed any kind of marriage as an oppressive and exploitative relationship, 99% of gay couples would giggle and just go find a different baker. Isn’t that true?

GRA: [Grits his teeth as he struggles to avoid answering, but the truth serum again overcomes his resistance] Ughh. . . . Grrrr. . . . Y-y-y-yes! Ok, yes! Yeah, it’s true.

SRL: So this is really about the gay rights crowd discriminating against and persecuting religious vendors, isn’t it? It has nothing to do with any basic “rights,” does it?

GRA: [Grinds his teeth and grunts as he tries to avoid answering] Well. . . .

SRL: I think your reaction answers the question. Let’s go back to the example of the 60-year-old man wanting a cake for his 12-year-old girlfriend. The old pervert might well be “offended” by the baker’s refusal to bake him that cake, but the old guy could just go to another baker and not advertise why he wants the cake. As long as he didn’t ask for any message on the cake that revealed the purpose of the cake, he would be good to go. But should the old man be able to sue the baker for refusing to bake him a cake?

GRA: [Struggles to resist the truth serum, but then answers] Well. . . . Uh. . . . N-n-n-n, n-n-n-n, no. I guess not, no.

SRL: So then why should a gay couple be able to sue a religious baker who politely declines to bake their wedding cake, especially when they can quickly and easily just go find another baker?

GRA: Well. . . . Uh. . . . But why shouldn’t a gay couple be able to attend and live in the dorms at Gordon College? Clearly that’s discrimination! As long as the gay couple can pay their tuition and does not try to incite disturbances on campus, they should be allowed to attend the college and live in the dorms like any other students.

SRL: You realize that that is an entirely new and alien interpretation of the right of the free exercise of religion, right? You realize that this repudiates the long-recognized right of religious colleges to establish codes of conduct, right? Never before in American history has anyone questioned the right of a private religious school to establish their own codes of conduct, since no one is compelled to attend a private religious school, since they are operated by religious institutions, and since there are thousands of colleges with no such codes of conduct. By the way, why would a gay person or a gay couple want to attend a private evangelical Christian college in the first place?

GRA: [Tries holding his breath to avoid answering] Th-th-th-they’d wanna attend because they’d know that their mere presence on campus, and especially their living in the dorms, would annoy the other students—those religious freaks!—and the college’s leaders! That’s why! This is a new age, a new time. Gays have suffered persecution and exclusion long enough. It’s time these Christians be taught a lesson!

SRL: Humm, well, thanks for your candor. So once again this isn’t really about any “rights” at all, is it? It’s about the gay rights movement’s hostility toward religious people who believe in traditional values, isn’t it?

GRA: Yes, blast it all! Yes! Ok, yes! You got it!

SRA: And if Christians were trying to get admitted to an Orthodox Jewish school and were trying to force the school to change its dress standards to allow the wearing of regular clothes and crosses on campus and to change its dietary standards to serve non-kosher food in the school cafeteria, etc., and if they were doing this just to persecute and annoy Orthodox Jews, wouldn’t nearly everyone call that bigotry and discrimination?

GRA: [Grabs his face and grunts to try to avoid answering] Errrr. . . . Ughh. . . .

SRA: I’ll take that as a yes.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And let's be clear that some gays, even those who have been active in the gay rights movement, have denounced the intolerant, fascist tactics of some gay rights activists. Here is what Tammy Bruce, who is a lesbian and a long-time civil rights and gay rights activist, has to say about gay rights bullies, whom she also calls "fascist bullies." She hits the nail on the head:

Tammy Discusses Fascist Gay Bullies with Hannity Tammy Bruce

 

[BULLDOG]

Thank you for posting this. The twisted thought processes of bible thumping right wingers has always been hard to understand, but your little story demonstrates the fears and misconceptions that caused the odd and hateful behavior from them. I'm not sure the poor right wingers afflicted with such beliefs can ever be helped, but the more understanding we have of their affliction, the better the chances are for them to be returned to a sane, productive life.

 

[Seawytch]

Wow...I didn't know you could still get LSD so easily.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Thank you for posting this. The twisted thought processes of bible thumping right wingers has always been hard to understand, but your little story demonstrates the fears and misconceptions that caused the odd and hateful behavior from them. I'm not sure the poor right wingers afflicted with such beliefs can ever be helped, but the more understanding we have of their affliction, the better the chances are for them to be returned to a sane, productive life.

You guys just keep repeating your talking points and never deal with the logical, fact-based arguments that refute them. And just to be on the safe side, you throw in a some name-calling. When you wanna take on a single point in the OP, let me know.

 

[Moonglow]

Thank you for posting this. The twisted thought processes of bible thumping right wingers has always been hard to understand, but your little story demonstrates the fears and misconceptions that caused the odd and hateful behavior from them. I'm not sure the poor right wingers afflicted with such beliefs can ever be helped, but the more understanding we have of their affliction, the better the chances are for them to be returned to a sane, productive life.

You guys just keep repeating your talking points and never deal with the logical, fact-based arguments that refute them. And just to be on the safe side, you throw in a some name-calling. When you wanna take on a single point in the OP, let me know.

How is this fact, when it's a what if story?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Thank you for posting this. The twisted thought processes of bible thumping right wingers has always been hard to understand, but your little story demonstrates the fears and misconceptions that caused the odd and hateful behavior from them. I'm not sure the poor right wingers afflicted with such beliefs can ever be helped, but the more understanding we have of their affliction, the better the chances are for them to be returned to a sane, productive life.

You guys just keep repeating your talking points and never deal with the logical, fact-based arguments that refute them. And just to be on the safe side, you throw in a some name-calling. When you wanna take on a single point in the OP, let me know.

How is this fact, when it's a what if story?

Oh, gosh. Because it's based on real events and other facts. It mentions facts (such as the fact that until very, very recently no one had questioned the right of private religious schools to set their own codes of conduct). And, I wasn't just referring to my OP but to the mass of facts and logic that have been presented by me and others on this issue.

 

[Moonglow]

Thank you for posting this. The twisted thought processes of bible thumping right wingers has always been hard to understand, but your little story demonstrates the fears and misconceptions that caused the odd and hateful behavior from them. I'm not sure the poor right wingers afflicted with such beliefs can ever be helped, but the more understanding we have of their affliction, the better the chances are for them to be returned to a sane, productive life.

You guys just keep repeating your talking points and never deal with the logical, fact-based arguments that refute them. And just to be on the safe side, you throw in a some name-calling. When you wanna take on a single point in the OP, let me know.

How is this fact, when it's a what if story?

Oh, gosh. Because it's based on real events and other facts. It mentions facts (such as the fact that until very, very recently no one had questioned the right of private religious schools to set their own codes of conduct). And, I wasn't just referring to my OP but to the mass of facts and logic that have been presented by me and others on this issue.

Facts and logic seek the truth, yet you are using imaginary characters to try and put stigma into an issue...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Thank you for posting this. The twisted thought processes of bible thumping right wingers has always been hard to understand, but your little story demonstrates the fears and misconceptions that caused the odd and hateful behavior from them. I'm not sure the poor right wingers afflicted with such beliefs can ever be helped, but the more understanding we have of their affliction, the better the chances are for them to be returned to a sane, productive life.

You guys just keep repeating your talking points and never deal with the logical, fact-based arguments that refute them. And just to be on the safe side, you throw in a some name-calling. When you wanna take on a single point in the OP, let me know.

How is this fact, when it's a what if story?

Oh, gosh. Because it's based on real events and other facts. It mentions facts (such as the fact that until very, very recently no one had questioned the right of private religious schools to set their own codes of conduct). And, I wasn't just referring to my OP but to the mass of facts and logic that have been presented by me and others on this issue.

Facts and logic seek the truth, yet you are using imaginary characters to try and put stigma into an issue...

LOL!

Well, take a moment and site the specific elements of the OP that are not anchored in truth.

 

[BULLDOG]

Thank you for posting this. The twisted thought processes of bible thumping right wingers has always been hard to understand, but your little story demonstrates the fears and misconceptions that caused the odd and hateful behavior from them. I'm not sure the poor right wingers afflicted with such beliefs can ever be helped, but the more understanding we have of their affliction, the better the chances are for them to be returned to a sane, productive life.

You guys just keep repeating your talking points and never deal with the logical, fact-based arguments that refute them. And just to be on the safe side, you throw in a some name-calling. When you wanna take on a single point in the OP, let me know.

The only point of the OP is that your imagination is vivid.

 

[BULLDOG]

Thank you for posting this. The twisted thought processes of bible thumping right wingers has always been hard to understand, but your little story demonstrates the fears and misconceptions that caused the odd and hateful behavior from them. I'm not sure the poor right wingers afflicted with such beliefs can ever be helped, but the more understanding we have of their affliction, the better the chances are for them to be returned to a sane, productive life.

You guys just keep repeating your talking points and never deal with the logical, fact-based arguments that refute them. And just to be on the safe side, you throw in a some name-calling. When you wanna take on a single point in the OP, let me know.

How is this fact, when it's a what if story?

Oh, gosh. Because it's based on real events and other facts. It mentions facts (such as the fact that until very, very recently no one had questioned the right of private religious schools to set their own codes of conduct). And, I wasn't just referring to my OP but to the mass of facts and logic that have been presented by me and others on this issue.

Lots of effort, but it sucked. Try again.

 

[hipeter924]

Thank you for posting this. The twisted thought processes of bible thumping right wingers has always been hard to understand, but your little story demonstrates the fears and misconceptions that caused the odd and hateful behavior from them. I'm not sure the poor right wingers afflicted with such beliefs can ever be helped, but the more understanding we have of their affliction, the better the chances are for them to be returned to a sane, productive life.

Only took a few paragraphs for the first comparison with pedophiles.

 

[bodecea]

Here’s a conversation that could very well occur between a gay rights advocate (GRA) on truth serum and a supporter of religious liberty (SRL).

SRL: Okay, when you guys were pushing for gay marriage, you said a million times that “if you’re not gay, gay marriage won’t affect you.” Now, we have religious vendors being punished for declining to host or service gay wedding ceremonies and we have a Christian college being threatened with the loss of federal financial aid for its students unless it drops its long-standing code of conduct. What’s up with that?

GRA: Well, we never intended to keep our word about gay marriage not affecting you. We knew that we could use gay marriage to begin to force everyone, especially religious vendors, to host or service our weddings, or to punish them for refusing to do so. We also knew that we could use gay marriage to start attacking religious schools. No one should be allowed to discriminate behind the cover of religion. We’re just trying to end discrimination.

SRL: So if a religious baker, let’s say, declines to bake a gay couple a cake for their wedding but is willing to sell them any pre-baked goods that he sells off the shelf, how has the gay couple suffered “discrimination” since they are still perfectly free to just go use a different baker and since most bakers would be glad to make them a wedding cake? Where is the “discrimination”? And what “right” has the gay couple been denied, specifically?

GRA: The right to be served like everyone else.

SRL: But most “everyone else” does not ask him to bake a cake for a gay wedding. And if a 60-year-old man walked in and asked for a cake that he could give to his 12-year-old girlfriend to celebrate her 13th birthday and to celebrate her being able to move in with him when she turns 13, even many secular bakers would find this disgusting and would refuse to bake the cake. Yet, according to your definition, that would be “discrimination.”

GRA; [Gets an embarrassed look on his face] Well. . . . Uh. . . .

SRL: And I ask again, what “right” has the gay couple been denied by simply being asked to go use a different baker, because the religious baker would find it offensive to supply a cake for their wedding and given the fact that gay couple has plenty of readily available alternatives?

GRA: Most gay couples would find it offensive to be asked to go use a different baker. The bakery is a public accommodation and the gay couple has a right to be served like anyone else would be served.

SRL: But, again, most “anyone else” is not asking the baker to do something that he finds offensive. Just because a religious person goes into business should not mean he should be forced to violate his beliefs when gay couples can easily and quickly just go use a different vendor. Wouldn’t the polite, respectful thing for the gay couple to do be to just go use a different baker? Why would you want to force anyone to make your wedding cake anyway?

GRA: Well. . . . Uh. . . . Again, what if the gay couple is offended by being asked to go use a different baker?

SRL: So you’re saying that gays have a right not to be offended but that religious people do not?

GRA: [Gets a worried look on his face] Uh. . . . Well, if he’s going to be in business, then he should not be able to decline service to gay couples. If he doesn’t like it, then he should find another business, one that doesn’t involve hosting or servicing weddings.

SRL: In other words, “Christians need not apply” to be bakers?

GRA: Uh. . . . Well. . . .

SRL: Furthermore, the vast majority of the baker’s customers never ask them to bake cakes for a ceremony that he finds offensive. You keep avoiding that key difference. We’re not talking about refusing to serve someone a meal, rent them a room, provide them with medical care, or give them a job. Those are basic needs and routine actions. We’re talking about wants and conveniences for a ceremony vs. forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs.

Since when in America does anyone have the right to force anyone else to attend, much less service, a ceremony that they find offensive? Does a religious couple, therefore, have the right to force a gay printer to print a booklet for a seminar they’re holding on the health risks of homosexuality or on the biblical view of gay marriage?

GRA: [Straining to resist the truth serum, but answers in a few seconds] Uh. . . . But. . . . Well, shouldn’t the religious couple “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and just go get use another printer?! Uh. . . . Wait. . . .

SRL: Bingo, and they most likely would do that, and would never dream of suing the gay printer. Why can’t gay couples just show the same tolerance and respect for beliefs with which they disagree?

GRA: Well. . . . But. . . . Uh. . . . [Face starts to contort as he tries to resist the truth serum] Because we wanna teach those holier-than-thou religious people a lesson! That’s why! [Gets an embarrassed look on his face as he realizes what he just blurted out.]

SRA: So this isn’t really about any supposed “rights” at all, is it? If the baker refused to bake a gay wedding cake because he was some old-fashioned hippie who viewed any kind of marriage as an oppressive and exploitative relationship, 99% of gay couples would giggle and just go find a different baker. Isn’t that true?

GRA: [Grits his teeth as he struggles to avoid answering, but the truth serum again overcomes his resistance] Ughh. . . . Grrrr. . . . Y-y-y-yes! Ok, yes! Yeah, it’s true.

SRL: So this is really about the gay rights crowd discriminating against and persecuting religious vendors, isn’t it? It has nothing to do with any basic “rights,” does it?

GRA: [Grinds his teeth and grunts as he tries to avoid answering] Well. . . .

SRL: I think your reaction answers the question. Let’s go back to the example of the 60-year-old man wanting a cake for his 12-year-old girlfriend. The old pervert might well be “offended” by the baker’s refusal to bake him that cake, but the old guy could just go to another baker and not advertise why he wants the cake. As long as he didn’t ask for any message on the cake that revealed the purpose of the cake, he would be good to go. But should the old man be able to sue the baker for refusing to bake him a cake?

GRA: [Struggles to resist the truth serum, but then answers] Well. . . . Uh. . . . N-n-n-n, n-n-n-n, no. I guess not, no.

SRL: So then why should a gay couple be able to sue a religious baker who politely declines to bake their wedding cake, especially when they can quickly and easily just go find another baker?

GRA: Well. . . . Uh. . . . But why shouldn’t a gay couple be able to attend and live in the dorms at Gordon College? Clearly that’s discrimination! As long as the gay couple can pay their tuition and does not try to incite disturbances on campus, they should be allowed to attend the college and live in the dorms like any other students.

SRL: You realize that that is an entirely new and alien interpretation of the right of the free exercise of religion, right? You realize that this repudiates the long-recognized right of religious colleges to establish codes of conduct, right? Never before in American history has anyone questioned the right of a private religious school to establish their own codes of conduct, since no one is compelled to attend a private religious school, since they are operated by religious institutions, and since there are thousands of colleges with no such codes of conduct. By the way, why would a gay person or a gay couple want to attend a private evangelical Christian college in the first place?

GRA: [Tries holding his breath to avoid answering] Th-th-th-they’d wanna attend because they’d know that their mere presence on campus, and especially their living in the dorms, would annoy the other students—those religious freaks!—and the college’s leaders! That’s why! This is a new age, a new time. Gays have suffered persecution and exclusion long enough. It’s time these Christians be taught a lesson!

SRL: Humm, well, thanks for your candor. So once again this isn’t really about any “rights” at all, is it? It’s about the gay rights movement’s hostility toward religious people who believe in traditional values, isn’t it?

GRA: Yes, blast it all! Yes! Ok, yes! You got it!

SRA: And if Christians were trying to get admitted to an Orthodox Jewish school and were trying to force the school to change its dress standards to allow the wearing of regular clothes and crosses on campus and to change its dietary standards to serve non-kosher food in the school cafeteria, etc., and if they were doing this just to persecute and annoy Orthodox Jews, wouldn’t nearly everyone call that bigotry and discrimination?

GRA: [Grabs his face and grunts to try to avoid answering] Errrr. . . . Ughh. . . .

SRA: I’ll take that as a yes.

The bold and enlarged is all we need to know.

 

[bodecea]

Thank you for posting this. The twisted thought processes of bible thumping right wingers has always been hard to understand, but your little story demonstrates the fears and misconceptions that caused the odd and hateful behavior from them. I'm not sure the poor right wingers afflicted with such beliefs can ever be helped, but the more understanding we have of their affliction, the better the chances are for them to be returned to a sane, productive life.

You guys just keep repeating your talking points and never deal with the logical, fact-based arguments that refute them. And just to be on the safe side, you throw in a some name-calling. When you wanna take on a single point in the OP, let me know.

How is this fact, when it's a what if story?

Between this and Sassay's satire thread, we may be seeing the beginning of a whole other stage of grief and anger by the anti-gay crowd....Reduced to making shit up and then rail on it as if it were real....Kind of like their pretend Savior.

 

[Moonglow]

Thank you for posting this. The twisted thought processes of bible thumping right wingers has always been hard to understand, but your little story demonstrates the fears and misconceptions that caused the odd and hateful behavior from them. I'm not sure the poor right wingers afflicted with such beliefs can ever be helped, but the more understanding we have of their affliction, the better the chances are for them to be returned to a sane, productive life.

You guys just keep repeating your talking points and never deal with the logical, fact-based arguments that refute them. And just to be on the safe side, you throw in a some name-calling. When you wanna take on a single point in the OP, let me know.

How is this fact, when it's a what if story?

Between this and Sassay's satire thread, we may be seeing the beginning of a whole other stage of grief and anger by the anti-gay crowd....Reduced to making shit up and then rail on it as if it were real....Kind of like their pretend Savior.

It's their whey of showing how intolerant they want to be...A delusional state of fear.....

 

[mikegriffith1]

So the sum total of the liberal response to the refutation of their talking points in the OP is to, yet again, resort to the evasive polemic of "hate," "intolerance," "discrimination," "fear," etc., etc. Not a single substantive response to any of the arguments made in the OP. Not one.

You liberals, not conservatives, are the ones who are willing to jail or fine those who disagree with you.

Gordon College never boycotted sporting events with liberal colleges that allowed married gays to live on campus, but liberal colleges have boycotted Gordon College.

Conservatives do not run to courts to try to penalize or shut down secular schools that allow unmarried couples to live together in the dorms, that allow gay student groups, that allow students to view porn in the dorms. But, liberals run to courts to try to penalize or shut down Christian schools that seek to uphold conduct codes that they've had for decades.