The following article is a satire
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, Arizona’s House of Representatives has recently passed a piece of legislation to allow businesses to refuse service to certain individuals, namely same sex couples or individuals perceived to be gay on the grounds that doing so would be a great ordeal for their religious beliefs. This includes, but is not limited to, restaurants, retail stores, hotels, gas stations, and even hospitals. Arizona is becoming a religious safe haven where no queer is welcome.
It’s time we were honest with ourselves. Homosexuality is wrong, just as gender and race equality is wrong. We all know women still work only at home, African–Americans are still property and there is no such thing as separation of church and state. The studies which show homosexuality to be prominent in other animals mean nothing, as humans are not animals or prone to the same primitive needs such as food, water, and shelter. And, as everyone knows, smaller government means telling women what to do with their bodies, stopping schools from telling kids to believe in the blasphemy known as evolution, and of course, telling us who we can choose to love.
The Bible makes it quite clear about homosexuality in all its God–given, English–written, glory: “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense” (Lev 20:13). Leviticus 11:8, 11:10, and Deuteronomy 22:11 all forbid eating pork, eating fish without scales, such as shellfish, and wearing mixed fabrics, respectively, but we can ignore those since they aren’t as grievous offenses as the abomination of gayness. After all, God’s rules changed after Jesus saved us from our sin, but Jesus did have a lot to say about gays not being worthy of his mercy for everyone.
As far as the U.S. goes, we are a theocratic Christian country where there is no freedom of religion. We must impose our will on all nonbelievers, saving them from their ignorance or incorrect interpretation of God’s word. We all know Fred Phelps has it right in the Westboro Baptist Church; God hates everyone, gays deserve Hell, and our sons are dying overseas because of the sins of our country. Freedom of speech only applies to the white heterosexual man, and we would never dream of a law banning judgment on the grounds of race, gender, or sexuality. Arizona is just trying to protect the straight population from the immoral practices of a flamboyant queer society, one that tells us to save ourselves from Hell by turning gay or marrying for actual love rather than our parents arranging one for us.
Just think about all the changes that will come if gays become equal. The sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55–hour marriage will have no meaning. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old couples shouldn’t marry or raise children because our orphanages aren’t overflowing, and the world needs more people to use up all that Arab oil. Children need a male and female support system, which is why in the U.S. there is no such thing as a single parent.
Arizona is set to host the next Super Bowl. If we allow gays to attend, they will lust after the athletes due to their uncontrollable libidos. They have no control, like our straight sons, who see those cheerleaders in those skimpy outfits. We all know gayness will rub off on us, just like tallness will rub off on us by standing next to NBA players.
To save this country, we should all become like Arizona. They knew how to keep the people in line during the 1950s, and don’t get me started on their righteous desire to secede from the Union in 2012. It’s only right to regard anyone different as un–Christian, immoral, and un–American. There is no such thing as good in anything that is different, so we have to keep this country as it has always been; a heaven on Earth where you can do whatever you want, so long as you’re white, straight, not an immigrant, a descendant of immigrants or Native American. God bless the USA, and let people deny service to anyone in the land of the free.
A serious question. Though you clearly have no respect for a Christian that would refuse to bake a cake, for example, for a gay wedding, what do you propose doing to them as punishment?
That person would be guilty of not performing their job duty. We do have a separation of church and state, so that person should realize they cannot allow religious or personal beliefs to infringe upon their work ethic. It’s the same principle if I denied service to a Muslim while I was working at Casey’s General Store because I hypothetically think all Muslims are terrorists. My boss would unquestionably have told me to serve said hypothetical Muslim individual, or I would be fired.
If it truly is such an issue for said Christian to serve a homosexual, they should either stomach their feelings of being uncomfortable or not take a job where they could be put into such a position. The reality that we have to at times do things which we do not want to do is a harsh one, but it is required of us in the world we live in.
On the topic of Christianity, there is a large amount of evidence suggesting the English Bible does not explicitly label homosexuals as sinners. It was adapted and translated from Greek and Hebrew over thousands of years after all, and there was no term such as homosexual during biblical times. Mistranslations such as Moses being horned have been pointed out, and I ask logically, how can sin come out of love?
You raise a valid point however. Do we protect homosexuals at the expense of religious groups and their beliefs? Are we favoring one group over another? It’s a messy business where we have few clear answers. However, I ask people to contemplate on how any sort of discrimination is justifiable. This country has a creed, “ALL men (and woman) are created equal.”
Mason,
Thank you for your response, but with all due respect, I don’t think you answered what I thought was a rather straightforward question. While I am sure that you disagree with them, as do I, there are people who have strongly held religious beliefs concerning gay marriage. Some will no doubt be self employed (ie not fireable) and will refuse to bake the cake for the gay wedding, regardless what the law is. I will ask again, how would you punish them?
Also, I think you misunderstand the notion of separation of church and state. For starters, that idea is not in the constitution. What is in the constitution is this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
I am sure there are various interpretations on the 1st amendment, but a committed Christian should be forgiven (no pun intended) if they interpret that to mean that they can go about their lives or businesses, exercising their religion as they see it, by refusing to affirm a gay marriage by participating therein by baking a wedding cake or whatever.
But if I understood the gist of your column, you have nothing but disdain for such people. Why not be a bit more tolerant? Celebrate diversity!
Denis,
I’m not replying once again to argue or save face, but rather to affirm my viewpoints and attempt to adequately answer your question. I’ll state that while I acknowledge there is no ordained law stating a separation of church and state, we have an interpreted separation due to the wording of the first amendment as you provided (that is my view anyway).
As for my disdain, I do not hold any disdain for any Christians, for I myself am one. Rather, the point of my satire was to exhibit my disdain for bigotry, hypocrisy and narrow minded views with how some people decide to live their lives. To borrow one of their terms, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” John 4:20 explains my rationale for being unable to hate.
“Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.”
I can see I failed to answer you when I said it was a messy business. I’ll be honest; I don’t have the answer. I don’t view homosexuality as a sin, but I also believe people should be able to exhibit opinions or practice their faith. That being said, I’m at a crossroads as to how to stop a self employed individual who would deny service to a gay person. The denied person could file a complaint for discrimination, find service elsewhere (if possible) or otherwise. However, that doesn’t solve the problem; how do we “punish” the one(s) denying service? It could be dealt with similarly as with a racial case, but I know there are myriad variables and differences to consider. Do you by any chance have a potential solution?
You bring up a very good question, one I’m afraid I cannot give a concrete response to. Thank you for the Socratic discussion, and I apologize for being unable to reach an ideal conclusion.
Thanks Mason. My answer would be to recognize that not every problem has a perfect solution. Messy though it is, freedom is our best option. If someone’s sincerely held religious beliefs conflict with another’s sincerely held secular beliefs, well, so be it. Try to tolerate and understand one another. If one or the other is determined to win via the force of government, I think that will ultimately lead to violence, unfortunately. It really is not that big of a deal if a businessperson won’t bake a cake for a gay wedding. Go to another baker. Buying a cake isn’t a right. Exercising religion freely is. I think we should keep it that way. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. It has been fun.
Perhaps the baker could put out a “No Gays Allowed” sign on his front door. I am sure there are some signs left over from the 60’s Civil Rights era that they could alter slightly.