![\"\"](\"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/scotus2.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The US military — generally considered the organization that defends<\/strong> the rights of Americans — is being used by activists in an attempt to restrict<\/strong> the rights of Americans.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Hidden within the Supreme Court oral arguments<\/a> during Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission<\/em><\/a> yesterday was the siren call, yet again, that homosexual rights outweigh all others — because of the US military <\/strong>[emphasis added]: <\/p>\n
Most military bases, [Justice Sotomayor] noted, are in isolated parts of the United States, many of which are predominantly Christian. That means, she said, that there might only be one or two bakers<\/strong> to provide cakes for same-sex weddings \u2013 and a couple could be out of luck if all the available bakers cite religious beliefs as a reason to refuse to make a cake<\/strong>.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe can\u2019t legislate civility and rudeness,\u201d she concluded, but we can legislate behavior<\/strong>.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
What gall.<\/p>\n
Justice Sotomayor was citing a brief filed by Outserve-SLDN, AVER, and AMPA<\/a> — all activist groups who advocate homosexuality within the US military. Their claim, in essence, is that service and product providers must be required to support or celebrate<\/strong> their sexual behavior — because, if they weren’t<\/em> required to, LGBT US troops might not be able to find a provider who would<\/em> support them.\u00a0 (Unanswered was the question why, if the LGBT lifestyle choice is so “normal,” popular,\u00a0and accepted today, the LGBT community even needs<\/em> this kind of governmental protection.)<\/p>\n
That argument is bunk on many levels.<\/p>\n
For one thing, it’s not the US government’s job to legislate, dictate, or otherwise police a local civilian community to make sure members of the military have access to bakers, butchers, and candlestick makers. Name a community in the US today in which the US government has mandated that the local municipality provide goods or services — on specific terms — just to “support the troops.” You can’t. It doesn’t happen. To imply that it does — and that homosexuals would therefore suffer if they lost access to such fiction — is disingenuous. It’s a made up “tragedy” that does nothing more than try to create an emotional reaction about “the troops”. It makes members of the US military little more than ideological pawns in a game whose aim is to advance the normalization and forced acceptability of a certain type of sexual behavior.<\/p>\n
The brief, and Sotomayor’s questioning, failed to consider an equally plausible scenario: What if the “one or two bakers” in the community were members of that same military community<\/strong>? What if they, too, were stationed in a remote location with limited opportunities — and now their opportunity was denied because they were required by the government, in contradiction with their religious beliefs, to support the homosexual lifestyle? Does that make their<\/em> emotional appeal outweigh the passionate plea of homosexuals?<\/p>\n
Finally, it is troubling to hear supposed advocates for the US military — and, disturbingly, a sitting Supreme Court justice — so willing to trade liberty for social “security.”<\/strong><\/p>\n
Think about it: Masterpiece Cakeshop is being told what to believe<\/strong> (even to the extent of being required by the State of Colorado to train their employees that their religious beliefs are wrong). The owners of the bakery have their core religious and free speech liberties at stake<\/strong>. By contrast, those supporting the homosexual agenda have no<\/em> such liberties at stake<\/strong>. There is no right — constitutional or otherwise — that requires one citizen to provide unqualified goods or services to another. (There is also no legal\u00a0“right” to not be embarrassed, another of the claims in the Masterpiece case.)<\/p>\n
Homosexual activists and those that support them would have the US government take away one citizen’s liberty<\/strong> not to secure another’s liberty, but simply to make another feel<\/em> better<\/strong>.<\/p>\n
In what world would that be considered consistent with American values?<\/p>\n
Regardless, the argument proposed by LGBT activists is fiction. The bakery’s customers had options — there were other bakeries more than willing to provide them a wedding cake, and even Masterpiece was willing to provide them other kinds of cakes. By contrast, the bakery has no options. It is required to alter its exercise of its liberties, or it must close.<\/p>\n
Those supporting the homosexual agenda discovered<\/a> several years<\/a> ago that the US military — with its noble reputation of virtue and honor — is an ideal tool to advance its ideological goals. Using “the troops” puts a pitiable face on the “persecution” of someone who is selflessly and sacrificially serving their country — and suffering just because of “who they are” — or, more accurately, because of their chosen sexual behavior. This latest effort was simply another attempt to use the military to advance a political agenda.<\/p>\n
Ironically, the US military — generally considered the organization that defends<\/strong> the rights of Americans — is being used by activists in an attempt to restrict<\/strong> the rights of Americans. For at least one Supreme Court justice, the ruse seems to have worked.<\/p>\n
Both sides of the case have heralded it as a watershed moment in the modern conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty — and there, they’re right. And the impact to America — and to its military — could be significant.<\/p>\n
After all, if the US government can require a civilian baker to create a cake over his religious objections, just think what the US government can do for a member of the US military — over his religious objections.<\/p>\n
With reference to the Religion Clause<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/div>\nADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
\n