This was first posted on November 15, 2019. I’ve moved it up to today because a new article at American Thinker appeared today that is relevant to what I’ve said below. I highly recommend the article, The Gay Mafia Comes To Idaho by Jeremy Egerer. My post here tracks the changes that have taken place since 1969. Jeremy Egerer’s article is grounded in today. It details the results of those changes.
Open homosexuality was once an invitation to violence, and that was awful. It was bad enough that homosexuals were often physically attacked but it was made even worse when the thugs weren’t punished. Every decent person condemned this state of affairs and soon thereafter a welcome change in mainstream attitudes followed. Violence against homosexuals was no longer tolerated. The villains came to be seen as the criminals they were, deserving of arrest, conviction and prison.
The thugs always represented a small minority of the population, but their brutal attacks on gays made them seem more numerous. As society became more willing to protect homosexuals from violence it also became more tolerant of homosexual behavior.
Prior to the enlightenment of attitude toward homosexuals their central meeting places were gay bars. Here they could mostly but not completely be themselves without fear of violent attack or other sorts of retribution for simply being gay.
New York was the center for the creation of gay bars. The bars themselves were physically disgusting and filthy, not because of the patronage, but because they were almost all owned by the mafia. Police raids were common at those few gay bars not owned by the mafia. The only time the police showed up to mafia-owned gay bars was for the weekly collection of envelopes of cash left by the mafia to pay off the police.
In 1969 The Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village was owned by the Genovese crime family. By that time the Mafia owners of the Stonewall were blackmailing wealthier customers, particularly those who worked in the Financial District. They were making more money from extortion than they were from liquor sales in the bar. Kickbacks to the police were not done with respect to extortion revenue, and the police decided to close the bar. Thus, at 1:20 a.m. on Saturday, June 28, 1969, police raided the Stonewall Inn. They required all patrons (98% were men) to line up and display their ID before leaving the bar.
This resulted in a now historic riot and is credited with the beginning of a new attitude toward homosexuals. They were seen as minding their own business in a gay bar uj5twhen they were unnecessarily harassed by the police. Whether this new attitude began that night or whether it had been lingering in the minds of a substantial number of people even before that night, it is clear that the Stonewall riot catalyzed a new way of thinking about homosexuals in American society. Deprecation was out and tolerance was in.
Because the brutal beatings visited on them by young thugs seemed so abhorrent to me, I fully supported and embraced the new attitude of tolerance toward gays. That his would lead to the next step of government coercion and a demand for participation in gay rituals never crossed my mind. It just didn’t seem possible that a master wedding cake maker would ever be required under penalty to law to participate in a ritual counter to his religion. Especially since he was perfectly willing to make a cake for them, he just wanted them to decorate it themselves. It said his religion prevented him from entering into participation is something he felt violated his religion. He respected them. Why didn’t they respect him?
Maybe it was because a cake is not what they really wanted. A lawsuit is what they were after.
Most of all it never occurred to me that the definition of marriage, being as ancient as human existence, could will-nilly be changed by a liberal lawyer in a black robe. It never occurred to me that the U.S. Constitution could be so wrongfully read as to support and demand such a bone-headed result. It never occurred to me that tolerance, even respect for homosexuals, would end up giving them the power to legally force other people to become unwilling participants in their “weddings.” It never occurred to me that giving homosexuals basic rights to which they are entitled, and to which nearly everyone agrees, would result in them becoming fascists.
Am I using too strong a word? Well, let’s look at what fascism really is and what it does. The best and most accurate and succinct definition of Fascism is the one Jonah Goldberg sets forth in his book, Liberal Fascism:
Totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action [Gleichschaltung], whether by force or through regulation and social pressure.
By that definition government forcing anyone not merely to tolerate homosexual rituals but to become an active participant, is fascist.
Lloyd Marcus has an essay over at American Thinker titled,Thankful for Signs of Challenging Cultural Insanity, in which he finds hopeful signs for the better:
Despite deceived and cowardly Christians and intimidated Americans allowing kids to be victimized by progressives’ insanity, there are signs of change for the better. As I follow cultural trends, young people are extremely aware of and fed up with Hollywood’s obsession with cramming SJW and LGBT down their throats. A young minister at our Thanksgiving dinner said that suddenly, ministers are coming out of the politically correct closet and preaching the Bible.
I believe that this new spirit of free speech and religious liberty is the result of Trump in the White House. Let’s keep him there in 2020.