In the 1930’s, Nazi Germany required Jewish-owned businesses to register with the German government in order to identify them for a takeover by the Nazis. This eventually led to a series of anti-Jewish regulations and decrees depriving Jews of their property rights. Of course, we know how that ended.
Based on her recent actions, I’m thinking that this story is a favorite of Oklahoma state Rep. Emily Virgin (D). In a move that sounds a bit like Nazi Germany, she wants to pass a law that requires Christian businesses to post a public notice of discrimination if they intend to refuse service to lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and transgendered people for religious reasons.
After state Rep. Chuck Strohm (R) introduced the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act (HB1371), which would allow businesses like wedding cake bakers and photographers to deny services due to personal religious beliefs—state Senator Joseph Silk (R) introduced a similar bill in the Oklahoma Senate—Virgin proposed an amendment that would make even Houston Mayor Annise Parker proud:
Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites.
The notice may refer to the person’s religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation, gender identity or race.
Talk about classic liberal, homosexual agenda, Saul Alinsky politics. Equating a religious objection to sexually deviant behavior to being a racist.
According to The Gayly, a pro-homosexual publication in Oklahoma, Virgin’s amendment “would save minority couples from facing the indignity of being refused service.” That’s funny. I don’t recall seeing the “freedom from indignity” clause in the Constitution.
And Ryan Kiesel, director of ACLU of Oklahoma, praised the amendment, saying that it “very pointedly exposes the absurdity of creating a new era of legalized segregation.” I guess legalized tyranny is more like this idiot’s cup of tea.
This conflict between sexually deviant behavior and Christians is not surprise. It’s been a part of the pro-homosexual agenda from the beginning. Same-sex marriage has NEVER been about equal rights; if it were, homosexuals would have to support the rights of Christian businesses and others who disagree with them. It has always been about special rights, culminating in the elimination the traditional family structure and the unconditional acceptance of all things deviant.
By the way, there are those who would also eliminate my right to post this article. It was just a few months ago that the New York Times advocated the elimination of non-PC free speech, particularly if it deals with criticism of homosexuality.
I wonder if Virgin is a subscriber.
