Posted by Sam Di Gangi | Feb 27, 2017
Steven Crowder’s video showing the left double standards has AGAIN begun trending.
Some time has passed since Steven Crowder first exposed the double standard that exists in America that sees Christians jailed for not capitulating and putting government before God by making what they feel is an evil wedding endorsement, but Muslims get a free pass to do likewise. This story of Muslim bakeries refusing to bake gay wedding cakes has again begun trending on sites like Reddit and Twitter as if the video were new, and this is a great sign! It is very encouraging to know that the internet is not just becoming a fast food drive thru but still an actual library of knowledge and research.
The question as to why Muslims get a free pass while Christians get called “hateful” for the same actions has gotten the expected comments from both sides. Actually, there are not a lot of left comments in the threads because this story destroys their whole fake narrative, leaving it in utter shambles. The only few Democratic comments that do appear say the tired lie that is pretty much; “Christians have it coming for the Crusades and because they killed the American Natives. Oh yes, and slavery,” which is pretty the left’s excuse for every double standard against Christians.
Even when not hateful, Muslims are against gay marriage in the same way and for the same reasons that many Christians and Jews are, among others.
Conservatives and libertarians are rightfully mocking (in droves) the left for not saying a word against the Muslim shops, of which there were many, that would not marry gay people. Christian shops were threatened, slandered, and their owners faced legal issues for not wanting to make the cakes for homosexual weddings and after parties. There were even stories of individual bakers being fired from their jobs for refusing to do what is against their religion, yet Islam again gets a free pass.
The odd little secret here is, the Muslims are right in this instance, and so are the Christians. There are some tenants (since, on paper only, Allah and God are said to be the same) that hold true on both sides of the two faiths. Not all Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin, and for those shops, they may make any cake that they so wish. However, for those Christians who do frown upon it as anathema, they have the Constitutional rights of free association and the freedom of religion. The same is true of the Muslims. If the Muslim were to decide that they were only making cakes for Muslims, if they could exist on such a bad idea, it would be their American right to do so.
Christian bakers (pictured) were fined and called “mental rapists” for not making a gay wedding cake. Did this happen to the Muslim bake shops that did likewise?
When the walls of separation known as segregation fell, when blacks and whites could drink from the same fountain and attend the same schools, it was a great victory. Sadly, it was also a victory that was misread and totally misapplied. The laws were meant to say that all people of all races were to be free from discrimination on any government level, including state governments. It meant that if a black man wanted to open up a business and serve whites or vice versa, thankfully that could not happen. Instead, it was misread to allow the government to force people into associations that they otherwise would politely decline.
The off the cuff comment most often seen was to blame the bakers, but many of these Islamic bakers are the kinds of people who we WANT to migrate here. These bakers likely came long before America decided to allow things like federally recognized gay marriage and at no point did they ever sign on to cater to homosexual activity. As long as they don’t harm or even disrespect no one, then they are not deserving of hatred for their actions any more than Christians are. The average Islamic baker very likely was not in favor of the status of gay marriage on a federal level one bit more than the average Jew or Christian.
Some churches (pictured) allow gay marriage, which is Constitutional. Forcing ALL churches to do so is NOT Constitutional. Any questions?
All of this is not to imply that it is not the right of any church to marry a couple if they so choose to do so. For Christian churches (or any other religion) that WANTS to allow such marriages, then there should be no law against that, either. When this fact is brought up, the common question is, “What, then, is the government going to recognize if each state or each church is different?” There the libertarian, free will answer applies yet again in the answer, “GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE MARRIAGE BUSINESS!” If government was not in the business of marriage recognition, then true freedom of religion would exist and the government could recognize things like living wills and the like.
Already, we have stacks of laws allowing people to die and leave vast fortunes to cats, dogs, and even birds. There is nothing to stop a man or woman of sound mind from leaving everything that they own when they die to anyone (or anything) that they wish. There is no need for government to try and meddle in religious matters to make this a reality when needed for legal purposes on a federal level. None of this has anything to do with spewing rainbow colors on the White House as the rights of every religious person in America gets flushed. This should be seen as an affront to even churches that are “OK” with gay marriage because it was FORCED on them, regardless.
More and more groups are showing up that have the same idea, and that is to get government OUT of the marriage business.
Like most things, this trending topic will not get the full attention that it needs, something that would mean asking the question of why the double standard exists to someone really high up in the Democratic Party. Hopefully, this will happen at some debate or at some point in time during the coming Congressional elections at the most inopportune time. This must happen because there is no the other way to reclaim what it means to actually have rights protected and catered to in the way that the framers meant when they penned the First Amendment.
One does not have the freedom of religion if their food must knowingly be used in a religious ceremony to which they do not feel is anything but a sin upon their soul. If they are wrong, if people disagree, then they are free to post up on social media that “XYZ BAKERY” did not make a cake. If others agree and stop going there, then the shop closes and the people have spoken. If, however, the business wants to cater to only one man in one place and shut the doors to everyone else for reasons unknown, that is allowed too. To suggest anything less is to defile the First Amendment with gay rainbows, as well.