I. DON'T. CARE. ABOUT. YOUR. BLOODY. WEDDING.
In recent weeks, several writers have written about what might come next in the Left's current war in furtherance of the LGBT community. Most, like Ross Douthat at the New York Times, Ben Shapiro at Breitbart, Paula Bolyard at PJMedia, focus on religious institutions.
It's coming to more than churches.
We've seen schools forbid passing out Valentine's Day cards and birthday party invitations because someone might be left out and get their feelings hurt.
We've seen Christian groups kicked off of campuses because someone might find them 'offensive'. Further, we've seen campus Christian groups be forced to accept members of - and even open elections to - other religious and non-religious affiliations...because 'diversity and inclusion'. We've yet to see LGBT groups forced to open their membership and leadership to Christian heterosexuals.
Now, imagine an office with diverse employees. Some are gay. Some are Christians. Some are just not that into one or the other...or much of anything that makes for talk around the water cooler. Let's say that one of the gay employees is getting married. S/he delivers invitations to all of her/his colleagues. The wedding comes around and all of the employees come but for the Christians. Does that then turn the office into a 'hostile work environment'?
The homosexuals will perceive the absences of their Christian colleagues to be driven by 'homophobia', which may or may not be the case. It could be that the Christians 'hate' homosexuals or it might just be that some or all do not believe in gay marriage or, perhaps, they had other things to do that day. He might insult their beliefs. Maybe, he has made it known that he hates people of faith. Perhaps, he might be just an asshole and their absence has nothing whatsoever to do with his sexual orientation or their beliefs. Who knows? Who cares? But, should they be 'made to care'?
Should the employer be forced into a situation where he must determine why they were absent? If he finds that there is some animus or religious objection, should he be forced to take action against the Christians or face a lawsuit by the homosexual citing a hostile work environment - because you just KNOW that, if they fail to attend, the gay person (many anyway) will just assume that it's because of 'homophobia'? He will look at his fellow colleagues differently and see homophobes under the desk and behind every dark corner.
What if someone like me, who used to support gay rights until the Fabulous Fascists went all Gaystapo-like on a pizza parlour in a town of 2,200 in Indiana and has no religious beliefs, decides not to attend? Will I be forced to attend sensitivity training/reeducation camps? I'm not a protected class. What if I just hate weddings? Don't laugh. Some of us do.
What if an African-American Christian or Muslim isn't so keen on attending a gay colleague's wedding and the latter goes nuts alleging a hostile work environment? Who wins the gold in the Diversity, Tolerance, and Oppressed Olympics?
Will an employer's openness when it comes to allowing fraternisation outside of the office result in the government penalising him if he doesn't not require some sort of participation? Forget 'Participation Trophies'. Anything not prohibited will be mandatory. Or, will the predictable expansion of rules concerning fraternisation to cover any outside relationships of any kind ALSO result in some sort of legal action in the future?
What if a Christian employee wears a small cross around her neck and a fellow colleague is a card-carrying member of Al Gayaeda? Should she be forced to remove it because the Special Snowflakes yells 'Hate!' in a crowded nation full of Christians?
What if someone like me is just not that into your relationship - straight or gay - should I be 'made to care' by the 'Westboro Tolerance Church'? What happens if I tell them to GFT? Should I be punished? Should I be fired if I refuse and just tell you to 'Get a room and leave me alone'?
The Left is making a big mistake if they think that driving down the approval rating of evangelicals, especially by any means necessary, is all that they need to do. Apart from the obvious Muslim issue, they erroneously believe that they can do anything and the public will support them.
I'm an atheist and have been supportive of the gay community for years. Due to the events of the last two weeks, which I see as a culmination of misinformation, lies, propaganda, and fascism, they have lost me. And, I know for a fact that I am far from alone in saying, 'I'm done.'
The Left has become everything that they have accused the Westboro Baptist Church of over the years. They are the new 'Westboro Tolerance Church' and should be shunned by fair-minded, civil people...just like the WBC.
In recent days, I have been reminded about something that I posted years ago. Without getting into the whole 'Fascism is right-wing! No, it's left-wing!' debate, I think this needs to be said once again after the last few weeks...
"Fascism will return to the United States not as right wing ideology, but almost as a quasi-leftist ideology.
The content of left-wing fascism is heavily based on an elitist vision of the world. At every level of society, it juxtaposes its minoritarianism against majoritarianism. It may take libertarian or authoritarian forms, but it always defends its leadership vision over any populist vision. Some examples are the hip versus the square, the gay versus the straight, the individualistic free soul versus the family-oriented slave, those who believe in the cult of direct action versus the fools who participate in the political process, those who practise nonviolence over those who assert willfulness and violence as measures of human strength and courage, those who have strong affiliations with cults and cultism over the traditional non-believer (a marked departure from the anti-theological vision of most forms of leftist and socialist behaviour), those who argue the case for deviance over mainline participation in the working class or in segments of class society, those who choose underground organisations in preference to established voluntary organisations and, ultimately, those who choose some type of deracinated behaviour over class behaviour and participation.
Historically, communists, like fascists, have had an uncomfortable attraction to both elitism and populism. The theory of vanguards acting in the name of the true interests of the masses presupposes a higher science of society (or in the case of fascism, a biology of society) beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. The superstructure of science, like culture generally, becomes a realm in which elites act in the name of the public. What happens to the notion of the people determining their own history in their own way? Here populism, or pseudo-populism, steps in to fuse formerly antagonistic trends. In some mysterious, inexplicable manner, these mass forces must be shaped or molded. Under communism, in sharp contrast to fascism, the stratification elements in the national culture are deemed unique or uniquely worth salvaging. But, in the anti-ideological climate of the "new world," people (class) and fold (race) blend, becoming the raw materials for fashioning the new society.
Left-wing fascism does not so much as overcome this dilemma of elitism and populism as it seeks to harness both under the rubric of a movement. Having its roots in the 1960s, left-wing fascism views the loose movement, the foco, the force, as expanding the élan and the communist vanguard. It permits a theory of politics without the encumbrance of parties. It allows, even encourages, a culture of elitism and crackpot technocracy while extolling the virtues of a presumed inarticulate mass suffering under inscrutable false consciousness. The mystification and debasement of language displaces the search for clarity of expression and analysis, enabling a minuscule elite to harness the everyday discontent of ordinary living to a grand mission. Left-wing fascism becomes a theory of fault, locating the question of personal failure everywhere and always in an imperial conspiracy of wealth, power or status.
Fascism requires a focal point of hatred behind which to unify. Thus, when fascists advocate anti-Semitism, they are simply using a tactic, one not opposed by communism. It becomes a modality of affixing the climate of a post-Nazi holocaust, a post-Stalinist Gulag, and the monopoly of petroleum wealth by forces historically antagonistic to Jewish ambitions. The new left-wing fascist segments, weak within the nation, can draw great strength from "world forces" deemed favourable to their cause. The unitary character of anti-Semitism draws fascist and communist elements together in a new social climate. Anti-Semitism is essential motor of left-wing fascism. The grand illusion of seeing communism and fascism as polarised opposites (the latter being evil with a few redeeming virtues, the former being good with a few historical blemishes) is the sort of liberal collapse that reduces analysis to nostalgia -- an abiding faith in the unique mission of a communist left that has long ago lost its universal claims to a higher society. This catalogue of polarities, this litany of beliefs, adds up to a lifestyle of left-wing fascism."
- Irving Louis Horowitz, radical left-wing sociologist, The Decomposition of Sociology, 1929 – 2012, was a radical, left-wing sociologist, Fulbright lecturer, author of more than 25 books and articles, and a Professor of Sociology at Rutgers University