The hypocrisy of the gay mafia is beginning to damage their supposedly noble image. In this latest episode (Indiana and Arkansas passing religious freedom protection legislation) we find serious backlash among gay marriage supporters who also happen to do business in foreign countries which are not only blatantly hostile toward homosexuals, but down right brutal. Besides deliberately misconstruing religious freedom legislation as anti-gay, and besides simply ignoring obvious 1st Amendment violations of forcing anyone to act in violation of their religious beliefs, and besides ignoring the 20 states who have religious freedom legislation (not to mention the same thing on the federal level), gay activists are also promoting a schizophrenic view of civil rights.
In the above mentioned article it’s abundantly clear the pro-gay marriage narrative is not limited to merely the rights of gays; it is an attitude of rights holding that marriage is a civil right. So what does that mean if not that civil rights are universal rights? It’s important to realize this tenet of civil rights.
Numerous movements are still at work in the United States to push against sweat shops, companies employing people at absurdly low wages in a less than dignifying work environment, and other business practices regarded as exploitative of third world peoples. Even if there were no controversy over gay marriage, the sweat shop issue alone would show us civil rights is inherently a universal rights concept – rights which are integral to the human condition regardless of nation or culture.
But that’s not what some big corporations are showing us in their criticism of religious freedom protection laws. It’s one thing to take a stand for or against something, but it’s quite another to oppose some alleged violation of civil rights in your own country while remaining silent about more extreme abuses of the same “victim” groups in foreign countries. As is mentioned in the story above, Apple, The Gap, and Levi’s are voicing their objections to alleged anti-gay discrimination in the US while avoiding any mention of their obscene profits made in Middle Eastern countries which not only forbid gay marriage but even execute homosexuals simply because of their sexuality.
These corporations are hiding behind a veneer of nobility. Some others are even trying to defend this hypocrisy on behalf of these major corporations. Legal research editor for the Institute for Public Relations Cayce Myers was interviewed for the article linked above:
“These companies have to be careful in crafting their image,” Myers said. “First, they have to keep in mind, ‘What is the culture and attitude of the public in this other country?’ and secondly, ‘How do I tailor my organization’s message to comport with that?’ ”
However, Myers suggested that it could be very hard for a large company like Apple to release a statement against another country’s laws.
Ah, so mega corporations can legitimately take into account and accommodate the fact that other people may have different opinions about homosexuality – as long as those different opinions are held by people in a different country. Why not give people in your home country the same courtesy? And if people in other countries are entitled to their religious views without coercion to change them, why not Americans too? You see, regarding those foreign nations the excuse pretends to be about respecting the laws of a foreign nation, but domestically the vitriol levied against religious rights supporters is not limited to our laws; the angst is also directed toward individual people and groups of people, personally. The gay mafia isn’t even trying to hide their personal animosity.
When criticizing Americans on the gay marriage issue it seems there is no room for different opinions; such opinions can only be “anti-gay”. But for foreign countries suddenly there is room for a more nuanced and patient attitude and tolerance. Domestically, there can be no allowance for anyone to think marriage is between one man and one woman. But internationally there is room for varying definitions of what marriage means. And, it turns out, there is even respect for the religious beliefs of others, as long as they don’t live in the United States.
If civil rights are not universal rights then it’s no big deal to be so hypocritical about this. We can have our “American” ideal of civil rights and allow other cultures to foster their own ideals. But if civil rights are universal (as the sweat shop issues indicates), and marriage is a right for all people and people groups, then such selective outrage is big problem. It makes it look as if people who show tolerance toward foreign anti-gay societies don’t really care about civil rights, but are merely opportunists using gay marriage as leverage for another undisclosed agenda. And the LGBT community can expect to be treated the same as the black community: just another demographic to be used as political toys and ignored when not immediately useful.
abuse, anti-religion, bias, bigotry, civil rights, corruption, discrimination, diversity, foreign affairs, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, islam, justice, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, religion, scandal, victimization