I guess I hit a 'gay' nerve

Earlier this week I wrote a column that apparently hit a nerve with, what we call these days, "the gay community."

The piece was called "The same-sex marriage tyranny," and it addressed the remarkable way the special legal privileges of those coming under the LGBT banner are actually denying the rights of others based on their own values and, I argued, their own "sexual orientation."

The reaction from the homosexual-lesbian-bisexual-transsexual-transgender cartel has been extraordinary, united and fierce – with responses in most of the major publications catering to those obsessed with the notion that "my unchangeable, immutable sexual identity is my identity and my sexual identity is determined by what I say it is regardless of my body parts."

The Advocate, Wonkette, Towelroad, Gay Star News and other similar publications went absolutely bonkers with my audacious suggestion that florists, bakers, caterers, photographers and others being fined and prosecuted for politely excusing themselves from participating in so-called "same-sex marriages" were actually victims not only of religious bigotry and persecution but also of the very laws supposedly protecting people based on "sexual orientation."

My piece focused on Robert and Cynthia Gifford, family farmers who have been hit with a $13,000 fine by New York state's division of human rights for politely declining to host a same-sex marriage as a matter of religious conviction. This couple is a real-life example of citizens being deprived of the free exercise of their religious beliefs, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, by officials in at least four different states.

TRENDING: WATCH: 'You're a piece of sh**': AOC faces heckles, harsh questions at rowdy town hall

Others have made that point – but I took it further. Here's the key paragraph that stirred up the hornet's nest: "Let me pose a hypothetical intellectual challenge: The law that forms the basis for the action against the Giffords in New York is a provision that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet, isn't that precisely what is happening to the Giffords? Are they not being coerced to accept and approve someone else's sexual orientation? Are they not permitted to hold their own sexual orientation, one that acknowledges their God's definition that marriage is a union of one man and one woman? The Giffords are not campaigning to prevent other people from following their own conscience as to their sexual choices and activities. It's just the opposite. They are being coerced by the state to take part in the sexual choices and activities of others. Isn't that obvious?"

Wow!

Experience more of Joseph Farah's no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

Here's the way Gay Star News played it: "WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah has claimed that people who oppose same-sex marriage are their own sexual minority that deserve legal protection from 'discrimination' in an op-ed titled 'The same-sex marriage tyranny.'"

Of course, nowhere did I claim that those who oppose same-sex marriage are a "sexual minority." I would suggest to you they are the sexual majority. But I'm glad the Gay Star News twisted my words. The key to preserving our free society is that you can't have laws written that protect some people and not others. You can't carve out "rights" only to be experienced by some and used as a club of tyranny against others. The Giffords aren't even trying to prevent "gay marriage." They merely asked to be excused from participating in one as a matter of personal conscience and their own "sexual orientation" and religious values.

What stunned all of the "gay media" was that I hijacked their victim-class status as the only people with "sexual orientation." The fact is that to bestow special legal rights and privileges to minority groups based on their sexual orientation is de facto discrimination against the sexual orientation of the majority. It's literally the tyranny by the minority, which is at least as bad, if not worse, than tyranny by the majority.

Let's be intellectually honest: If we insist on having laws protecting people based on their "sexual orientation," they should be protecting all people based on their sexual orientation, not just the vocal minority.

Of course, if your plan is to impose your will, your values and your ideas about right and wrong on others, you can never allow for equal treatment under the law. And that's why these laws protecting "sexual orientation" are anathema to a free society.

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].