What Exactly Is The “Gay Agenda”?

interview-funny-will-ferrell-quotes-about-will-ferrells-birthday-this-1706x1084Dear Reader,

I’ve seen this phrase pop up again and again in the last few weeks. First it was for the country song “Girl Crush” by Little Big Town that was pulled from various radio stations because listeners believed that the song supported the “gay agenda” (despite the writers of the song stating that the song is about getting a guy back).

More recently, this phrase is being used to support the Religious Freedom laws that are being passed. Currently, there are over 20 states that have this law. The state of Indiana is currently taking the most heat for it because the law is written in such a way that business owners could refuse to serve the LGBTQ community. Opponents of this law say that Religious Freedom basically means that you can legally discriminate against an entire community.

Now, I am in full support of anyone who wishes to practice the rules of religion, so long as they are not harming others or themselves in the process. If someone’s religion says that they should not be participating in homosexual acts, then I can at the very least understand why they would want to take a pass on downloading Grindr to their phone. However, my main question is how welcoming members of the LGBTQ community into a place of business (whether that business is religious or not) actually poses any threats to the business. I have not read the Bible cover to cover, but I have at least skimmed through significant portions of it. I came across the parts that said not to lie, steal, cheat on your spouse, murder, and so on. I’ve yet to come across the passage that reads “Though shall not serve hash browns to gay people.” Maybe I skipped over that section?

Furthermore, though I don’t get out of the house much, I have yet to actually see evidence of the so-called “gay agenda.” Now, if I do come across a meeting where the LGBTQ community plots world domination, I’ll be sure to attend it because I love getting free cups of coffee. As far as I’m aware, though, the only huge agenda I see in the world right now is the Hate Agenda. This is where one member of society meets another member, finds something in the member that they don’t like (whether it be race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, hair color, occupation, etc.), and then decides to treat that member like they are less than human. The Hate Agenda has caused people to lose confidence, become depressed, get attacked physically and/or verbally, and even commit suicide. Call me crazy, but I think if we really wanted to abolish harmful threats to society, we could do this much more effectively by focusing our energy on spreading love and kindness to every human being, regardless of the life they live or what they believe in, rather than worrying if the polite gay couple eating at table three is planning to take over the world. But hey, I’m not a business owner, so what do I know?

Do you agree with this article? Do you know any places where I can get free coffee (seriously, I’m getting low)? Let me know by leaving a comment down below.




40 Responses to What Exactly Is The “Gay Agenda”?

  1. Your article is misleading. I support gay marriage and I support laws that protect people against discrimination. That includes discriminating against religious groups. Businesses owned by Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc. have a right to operate their business within their religious guidelines. Muslims would not serve pork in their restaurant as they consider it unclean. Should they be forced to by community members that love pork? A baker would not make a cake for a same sex marriage as this would be considered sinful to him/her. This does not mean that this business would not serve this individual. This means this business would not PARTICIPATE in the process of the marriage by selling a service that meets this end. This is very different from discrimination. This is religious freedom. Great opportunity for new businesses to emerge. This is not a new concept or backdoor to allow discrimination. Businesses owned by religious people have been operating their businesses under the guidelines of their religious beliefs since the beginning of time. As our culture and laws change we must now create laws to protect them in the same way we create laws to protect other protected classes. Why is this different? No one group should have rights based on the infringement of the rights of another. We do not get to pick and choose here. We protect the rights of ALL people whether we agree or not . And that is really the point of tolerance. You follow the rules whether you agree or not. Again, this law you write of does not allow blatant discrimination and I believe you know that. This law protects a business from offering business services for things like a same sex wedding, abortion, birth control, restricted foods etc. Why must we create division where it does not exist? Religious persons do not support homosexuality. I have not yet heard of a case where a religious person has sued a homosexual business owner for not adhering to the beliefs of the religious person. Why must we sue religious business owners for not adhering to the practices of homosexuals, i.e. same sex weddings? If someone stretches this new law to promote discrimination then let them pay the price! That will likely happen by a few bigoted individuals and they should then pay the price. The bible is not a new book, the lifestyles of religious people is not a new culture. Forcing them to change now is discrimination.

    • Hello. Thank you for visiting my blog. This blog post was written in a way to ask questions in order to gain a further understanding of the law. I think what I fear most, and I know I am not alone in this, is that Indiana’s law is written in such a vague way that discrimination could legally be allowed or tolerated. That is not to say that discrimination does not happen now—it does, every day. However, if a state has a law that contains a lot of gray areas, it seems likely that people can and will use those gray areas in order to support discriminatory acts, and get away with it much more easily.

      • Agreed. We continue to experience cultural lag with our laws and these laws will continually need modification to meet our cultural changes. This does not mean we do nothing. We need to begin to protect religious groups from our new laws so as to allow them to practice freely. Additionally, and will continue to improve our existing laws so as not to allow abuse of others. Do not be fearful be empowered. We are moving in the right direction. Refusing these religious groups freedom to practice only empowers them to do the same to others.

        • amurphyonlife, I completely agree with your first response. The Christian community has been getting a lot of heat because Christian bakers who refuse to make a gay marriage cake have come under fire, as well as Christians who ask for a anti-gay marriage cake from gay bakers. It’s a double standard. I think we should stick to one thing: either everybody serves everybody, or everybody respects everybody’s differing views, realizing not everyone will agree with you.

      • Here is why as a voluntarist it doesn’t bother me. Saying that Christians don’t have to serve gay people also means that Gay people can refuse to serve Christians, too. The more they (gay people) do it, the point will be made. It will be made without the force of law.

        Now, perhaps this seems petty. I concur that it is. However, laws are funny things. They expand like me in a Coldstone Creamery. If you force people to do a,b, or c because they’re giant meanies and bigots and mean people suck!– you’re still forcing people to labor against their will, and that is an extension of slavery. When we cannot say “no” to something by law or by force, what else are we? Our choice is to be penalized by the removal of a business license (that truly the state has no right to force us to purchase in the first place)? Again, that is forced labor if your ability to feed yourself or provide shelter for your family is compromised. Punishment is no way to change hearts and it reinforces a slave mindset. The slave on the plantation could have have run off, but if he was caught he would be punished.

        What right do I have to another person’s time and labor just because I want it? What right do they have to demand my business? It goes bothways.

        Yes, it is discrimination and mean to not serve someone because of whatever reason. It’s also un-Christian because Christians are actually instructed to do so. However, this is a community issue, as social ill, and requires that we change the hearts of people not lock them into servitude against their will.

        I should be able to say “no” to ANY client and so should you. I should be able to discriminate because I’m tired, because they were rude, because I don’t like their shoes, because I hate their taste in music.

        It’s my time, my labor, my life. I will protest the heck out of any business that won’t serve gays, but I will never ever vote or support a law that tells people they have to do so.

  2. I agree with the Hate Agenda. I am gay and I’ll tell you what my agenda is:
    1. marry the person I love
    2. buy a house with the person I love
    3. have kids
    4. grow old
    5. maybe rule the world (come on, who would not want to rule the world!?)

  3. If “gays” have an agenda, I think it’s just to be able to live their lives free of discrimination. I think that’s all anyone wants – a peaceful existence. The term “gay agenda” was termed by fear-mongers who want to convince others that gays want to take over the world and destroy the sanctity of Christian marriages. Fear leads to hate.

    I think it’s important to note that not all religious people disapprove of homosexuality. Conservatives might be the most vocal Christians, but they aren’t the only ones. I know many Christians who embrace everyone without hate or judgment. I also know gay Christians.

  4. I agree with you — we can accomplish so much more by spreading love and kindness. An entertaining (I laughed out loud) and compassionate post!

  5. I’m all about love. I don’t see how discriminating others for religious reasons is about love at all. I agree with you. It’s a hate agenda.

  6. This is not misleading at all. Making a product like a cake, or not selling a product like pork, has absolutely nothing to do with religious freedom. There are food hygiene laws, safe workplace laws, and many others that support public, staff, and business owner safety, but not selling a cake to someone you might ‘suspect’ of being gay? How would you even know in many cases, until you intruded on their privacy and asked?

    This is just more artificial hatred wrapped up in ignorance and codified by idiots to win votes from the dim. Not to put too fine a point on it. ;D

    Love is love. If you want to limit someone’s freedom of expression, start with your own.

    • I agree that it’s very difficult to determine someone’s sexual orientation based on looks alone. Unless someone has a shirt that says “I’m not straight!”, you can never know for sure.

  7. Before I get on a roll I want to make it clear what my slant on this is: I do not believe in discrimination against anyone because of race, religion, sexual orientation, the color of their eyes, or any other reason. Neither do I discriminate against Christian fanatics for, as the “good book” says, “whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them.”

    With that preamble I will attempt to cast some light on why religious nuts, (anyone who believes and invisible entity cares who they’re tupping is a certifiable nut), believe they must refuse service or entry to someone who has a different sexual orientation. The answer does indeed lie in the New Testament. It is found in Paul, Romans 1:26 to 1:27 that reads in part “Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” It goes on to say, in 1:32, “that those who do such things deserve death.”

    Now, there is some debate as to whether Paul is referring to gay folk, but that’s of no consequence. Religious fruitcakes (pun intended) use Paul as justification for their behavior.

    Paul also condemns anyone that approves of such behavior or allows it to continue. That means that if you allow a gay man or woman into your home or business you are showing tacit approval for their sinfulness when if you really loved god you would blow them to kingdom come with your First Amendment protected concealed handgun.

    It is interesting to note that in Romans 2:1, which follows right after the above passage, Paul goes on to say “[F]or at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” Personally, my reading of Paul is that he was closet gay.

    Parting comment. It is also interesting to note that a country that was founded to protect religious freedom is allowing religions to restrict freedoms.

  8. Word. Loved this blog post! I think you should start a Share the Love Society and offer free coffee to all! Even those who discriminate, they’ll only learn that their behaviour is fundamentally inhumane through the teaching and compassion of those who believe in equality for all love…and that free coffee can cure any number of ills both physical, mental and societal 🙂 x

  9. I recently read an article about Christians calling bakeries and asking for “we do not support gay marriage” cakes to prove discrimination goes both ways, but the gay couples whose business was denied weren’t seeking the opposite of that. They didn’t (so far as I know) want “we support gay marriage” written in frosting on their cakes; they weren’t making a political statement. They just wanted a straightforward cake to eat at a gay marriage ceremony. Love, sex, and sexuality should only be tainted by politics where unconsenting parties are involved. Otherwise, gay love, sex, and marriage has nothing to do with politics.

    Thank you for the interesting and amusing article!

  10. At the risk of being cheeky and citing my own work, this is a “fake news” story of the firebreathing Ian Paisley. Hope it will lift someone’s spirits out there 🙂

    “Now, I done a bit of reading around, (a bit wider than my usual material, for that part)…
    And it was revealed unto me, in fear and trembling, that straight people have committed countless atrocities and massacres throughout history.

    So, I came to the conclusion that if there’s anyone who has caused more destruction and chaos throughout history than gay people, it’s the straights….

    But yes… we have to face facts. It’s not gay people who have posed the biggest threat to life and limb throughout history.

    No, no, NO!.. It’s US!

    I have it on good authority that we should repent of our wickedness, and pray for strength to make the best amends we can.”


Leave a Reply