Allen West Old School Patriot Masterpiece Cakeshop

The Left’s Quest for Ideological Dominance

In Culture, Faith, Front Page, US Constitution by Allen WestLeave a Comment

Well, if there is one thing you can count on from the left, they are never satisfied unless they have complete and total ideological dominance. That, my dear friends, is the best explanation of totalitarianism. With the progressive, socialist, left, and especially the radical LGBT lobby, there is no compromise, only complete subjugation, surrender, and acquiescence. And, so it has happened: the left is speaking out, and they feel slighted, shamed, by the common sense 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

As reported by National Review:

“The gay-rights movement has been on an impressive winning streak. Over the past two decades, full acceptance of those who identity as LGBTQ, as well as of marriage equality, spread from the precincts of popular culture to the courts and now, as polls have shown, to a general sense that these issues are settled. Gay marriage is the law of the land, and no one turns a hair when gay politicians reach high office or even are appointed to posts in a conservative Republican administration. 

Seen from that perspective, the decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission — finding that the commission illegally discriminated against a Christian baker who’d refused to make a cake for a gay wedding — is, at worst, a speed bump for gay Americans. It was made on relatively narrow grounds. And even if it does wind up carving out space for a religious-conservative minority to escape being forced to take part in celebrations of events their faith opposes, it in no way diminishes the reality of gay equality in 21st-century America. Yet the view of Masterpiece from the left is that it must be overturned. 

The answer from one source was logical as well as revealing. Barnard College professor Jennifer Finney Boylan wrote in the New York Times to call for a “Dignity Amendment” to the Constitution: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.” She also writes that gays “would be helped” by adding sexual-orientation protections to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits businesses from discriminating on the basis of race. Such changes would effectively eliminate the debate over how to balance the rights of gays with the right to religious liberty. Instead of celebrating recent advances as incremental but lasting changes in American society, Boylan, like the couple that sought to punish Phillips, sees any remaining resistance — even in the most limited form, from what must be acknowledged as a religious minority — as somehow invalidating the freedom and acceptance the gay community enjoys.

The mere idea that the courts are attempting to balance the rights of what is now the pro-gay-rights majority with those of a religious minority that opposes gay marriage is intolerable to her. It’s not enough to have won equal rights; those who disagree must be banished from decent society and the public square.”

The bottom line is that the progressive, socialist, left wants sexual behavior to be constitutionally protected, and mandated. What happened to “stay out of our bedrooms?”

The bottom line is that the progressive, socialist, left wants sexual behavior to be constitutionally protected, and mandated. Click To Tweet

Once again, their response to any opposition is to force compliance. The recommendation that there needs to be a “dignity amendment” is not just absurd, it is dangerous. Who defines dignity in a free, and open, society? Who are those determining that, when it comes to the “rights” of people who choose to engage in a same-sex relationship, it supersedes the established religious liberty enshrined in our Constitution? What else could the leftists then constitutionally mandate? One must agree with climate change, since to do otherwise is undignified?

The response of Barnard College Professor Jennifer Finney Boylan, published by the NY Times, is a clear example of what Thomas Jefferson addressed, in his letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Convention: the separation of Church and State. What Jefferson did not want to see happen in America was for the State to establish itself as a religious body, a Church, and therefore mandate beliefs. What the Supreme Court did with the Masterpiece decision was to uphold that premise, since the Colorado Civil Rights Commission assailed Jack Phillips for his religious beliefs, they mocked, denigrated, and disparaged him, and attempted to force him to accept their “religion,” e.g. their ideological agenda. The SCOTUS ruled that there is religious liberty, and that the State (government) cannot demean and subjugate that individual right to accommodate someone else.

Jack Phillips did not refuse to serve someone because they are gay, or lesbian. Mr. Phillips declined to provide his artistic expression for a specific ceremony that was against his Christian beliefs. But, that is just not good enough for Professor Boylan, and her ilk; they want total domination. As the National Review article states, the LBGT lobby has had a series of cultural, and societal, victories over the past twenty years. To be such a small portion of the American population —  roughly 4% at last estimate — they have dominated the policy agenda, aided, of course, by the entertainment, and media elites. Those gains are just not enough, they demand complete domination. They refuse to accept any opposition to what they want, at all. And, now, they are turning their sights towards making their agenda law . . . not just marriage equality, which I do find rather oxymoronic, since a same-sex couple cannot produce progeny, children. A same-sex marriage cannot promulgate a society with life, so is there really equality?

Oh boy, they are gonna be upset with ol’ Allen now.

Therefore, any, and all, of us who hold onto the faith belief of traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman must be destroyed. Ask yourselves: if there is a “Dignity Amendment” to the Constitution that basically elevates gay rights over religious liberty, then what happens with the Holy Bible that preaches against same-sex relations? Would the progressive, socialist, left and radical LGBT lobby then turn their sights on removal of the Holy Bible from the public space? After all, if religious liberty is to be made subservient to gay rights, then the Scriptures read by those embracing religious liberty must be made subservient. However, would that also mean the Koran would be targeted? The left goes apoplectic about a wedding cake, but remain silent when the real homophobia of Islam is on display; Iranian law executes gays and lesbians. Hmm, but I suppose the Obama administration sending Iran billions of dollars is just fine. I never heard the LGBT lobby take aim at Barack Obama for his failure to squash ISIS, who were busy tossing gays from rooftops.

Nah, those mean, pesky, Christians need to be made to bake wedding cakes.

Just know the progressive, socialist, left wants to mandate dignity for same-sex marriage. They want to violate the separation of Church and State, and establish their ideological agenda as a belief to which we must all bow down.

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments