Saturday, January 20

Christians forced to sacrifice religious beliefs? Media yawns. But NON-religious principles? Oooh.

About five or six years ago so-called "progressives"--a.k.a. the "gay mafia"-- in states like Oregon, NY and Colorado pushed for the creation of a new state agency that would punish any business owner who declined to provide their services to a gay wedding on the grounds that doing so violated their religious beliefs.

Thus Americans watched as the state of Oregon, for example, used its near-infinite taxpayer funds to sue a Christian couple who baked cakes, because they declined to make a cake for a gay wedding. The state "diversity agency" unilaterally decreed a fine of something like $165,000. The couple appealed, but the court found that the Oregon law was valid.

The couple ended up closing their business and filing for bankruptcy.

The Lying Media's reaction was a big yawn: They weren't about to stick up for Christian ,religious principles. By huge contrast, the media always reported sympathetically if a government refuse to cater to Muslim principles. The normal media double-standard.

And how has the mainstream media reacted to NFL players who've decided to kneel for the national anthem--something they don't mean in a worshipful sense but consider a big F-U to Americans?

I haven't seen a single editorial criticizing the players. To the media, the state has the absolute right to sue you for standing firm on religious principles, but suddenly they support the idea that no one should be forced to surrender a right--provided the right isn't based on religious beliefs.

That double-standard is captured reasonably well in the cartoon below--but only if you're familiar with the case of the Christian bakers sued into bankruptcy.  Only a small percentage of Americans ever knew about that case.  Because it exposed the dictatorial overreach of the gay mafia.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home