One of my favorite TV shows on these days is Black Sails by far. This past weekend they threw in a zinger that really ruffled the sexually insecure among us by showing that Captain Flint had an affair with Miranda Barlows husband that cost him a place in the Royal Navy and his lover committed to an asylum for “grief”. This apparently, despite the plethora of lesbian action, ruffled the homophobes who watch the show. Seriously, I don’t see the problem. Gods forbid if some reality is thrown into the show. It’s not pushing the so-called gay agenda, you can stop watching show and not contribute to it anymore or you can enjoy the story being told, keyword being story. It’s a story like any other and deserves some attention.
Since first hearing about this Bill, I’ve teetering back and forth on whether or not I support such an idea. On the issue I have two hands on the issue that differ vastly. On the Left hand I am pro-gay marriage for the reason that I look beyond the whole sexual aspect that many on the Right focus too much on, but rather I see the emotional aspect of why gays should be allowed to marry. Why should two consenting adults who love each other be denied the right? However, on the Right hand, I am pro-religious liberties and believe that forcing a business that holds tautly to religious views to serve those they feel are sinful in nature isn’t freedom, but fascism. Does anyone really like to be forced to do something they are against? Would a Liberal serve an obvious neo-Nazi that walked into their store? I highly doubt it and I wouldn’t blame them at all. So, with that in mind why can’t those on the opposing side of this Bill see the moral dilemma inherent?
While I certainly understand the Left and its abhorrence of this Bill, I think if it were implemented we would have seen something unexpected. Aside from how capitalism works and that eventually this Bill would collapse on its own weight due to lack of customers going to these Right to Deny businesses I think something else would have occurred. It would have backlashed on Christians in general entirely. After having a conversation with a fellow pagan they inquired into whether this Bill would also allow pagan businesses to deny Christian customers. I felt that was an interesting question to think about. What if it was implemented? What if pagans who owned businesses decided to Deny Service to Christians? Would then the Christians see the problem with the Bill they supported? With the lack of business from people who feel Right of Denial isn’t what decent businesses coupled with businesses owned by pagans and other religious views denying service to Christians would the Bill collapse faster than expected? This is what made me end up supporting Bill, not because of any supposed opposition to gay marriage, but to witness the collapse of such a Bill and perhaps teach a lesson that only the Gods can teach through some karmic retribution. Gays should have seen the opportunity this represented deny service to gays, gay business owners can deny service to Christians after all, this is any business owners right.
From experience, thinking things through gives an entirely different perspective that isn’t being uttered by the Mainstream Media. If gays and their supporters had done the same they would have seen an invaluable opportunity to encourage gay business owners to take advantage of the Bill and deny service to Christians and apply a lesson that needed to be learned against those they figure are against them. Basically, use the Bill that was supposed be against gays against the Christians. I guess you can call that fighting fire with fire. I certainly don’t believe those that supported this Bill could have seen this angle coming at them due to their pride. However, maybe other states that are considering this Bill need to heed this post and realize you are calling to play a very game that could backfire on you at a moments notice. While I support religious liberties for even Christians I also support those who use the Bill to their advantage as well. Being a so-called fence sitter gives me a nice point of view of the political landscape.
First, it must be up to individual states and when I mean states I mean the PEOPLE voting on gay marriage legislation in that state. let’s face it, a true democracy is allowing the people to vote for things that they feel affect them. My fathers country of Uruguay does this and it works to their benefit. They are far more democratic and politically informed then we are despite how much we pride ourselves. When it comes to democracy and being informed we are pathetic. If we were truly informed we wouldn’t have Obama as President, we’d have the political scales balanced and not be so much in debt. So the gay marriage issue needs to be up to the people and not the government. Period.
And second, when writing up the legislation to be voted on by the public it needs to included a clause that protects and allows religious based businesses and institutions from being penalized for denying marriage of gays in their worship and/or denying gays services for their marriage ceremony. Eroding religious freedom for the freedoms of others is not freedom at all, but fascism. We wouldn’t think twice if some moronic Neo-Nazi advocated eroding rights of blacks for more rights for white people. We’d call it out for what it is: fascism. What’s happening to religious based businesses by gays is fascism plain and simple. There is NO skirting around this fact. Considering that there are plenty of Liberal Churches, non-denominationals like the Unitarian Universalists that will perform gay marriages and plenty of secular bakeries and catering businesses that will see gay marriage as more income there is ZERO reason to attack the religious out there for following what they believe no matter how wrong we feel it may be. This is America, not Fascist Italy. So, please stop being a fascist.
This is a simple solution. It may not make everyone happy, but it’s better than what is happening now. In the end someone is still going to complain, but with this solution if gay marriage is legalized by the people the religious are protected indefinitely by the law they disagree with. Hell, it might allow some religious to vote for the law despite being against gay marriage because it also benefits them as well. That’s IF the law includes my protection clause for the religious.