Skip to main content

"No Gays Allowed" sign gets displayed on an East Tennessee hardware store

Whenever I hear Christians claim that expanding gays' rights decreases theirs, I can't help but shake my head and roll my eyes. Apparently LGBT Americans garnering equal rights as heterosexual Christians is severely hampering Christianity and some members' seeming need to judge, discriminate, and condemn members of the LGBT community (you know, because that's what Jesus would do).

That deranged mentality was on full display at Amyx Hardware & Roofing Supplies in Grainger County, Tennessee this past week. Following the Supreme Court's marriage equality ruling, owner Jeff Amyx posted a sign outside his store which read, "No Gays Allowed." Following the inevitable backlash, Amyx replaced the sign with one which read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech & freedom of religion."

When asked about the signs, Amyx said, "They (homosexuals) gladly stand for what they believe in, why can't I? They believe their way is right, I believe it's wrong. But yet I'm going to take more persecution than them because I'm standing for what I believe in."

These apples and oranges false equivalence arguments by far-right Christians are the epitome of ridiculous (yes, redonkulous). Jeff Amyx and those like him can hold whatever opinions they'd like, no matter how asinine they might be. However, this isn't about the concepts of right and wrong; it's about equality. Jeff Amyx can believe with every fiber of his being that homosexuality is morally wrong, however, regardless of this view, homosexuals are human beings and deserve equal rights and protection under the law. Gay and lesbian couples being legally allowed to marry, just like straight couples, is not equivalent to refusing service to gay people. Once gay business owners start posting signs on the outside of their stores, which say, "No Christians Allowed," then Jeff Amyx can stand up and say the two situations are equal, but not until that point.

Continuing with this trend, Jeff Amyx's ignorance was on full display with his quote. Yes, homosexuals stand up for attaining equal rights under the law. What Amyx is trying to do is prevent equal rights from being attained by the LGBT community. It's not the same thing, not by a long shot, and that's exactly why he'll receive more "persecution" for standing up for what he believes in than LGBTs. It'd be like the following scenario:

African-Americans: Stand up for abolishing slavery, being given voting rights, having equal rights across the board (the Supreme Court grants these changes)

A Jeff Amyx-type of person: posts a "No Blacks Allowed" sign at the front of his store, says he believes he's morally right, and will receive more "persecution" than the African-American community

Speaking of stupid, that word perfectly describes Amyx's two signs. "No Gays Allowed"? How's he going to tell if a person or couple is gay? Will two men or women have to hold hands or kiss in order to prove they're homosexual, or will Jeff Amyx simply base it off stereotypes and refuse service to anyone he thinks looks "gay"? Will he hire professional gaydar experts (gaydarologists)? Yeah, good luck with that! Then the replacement sign may be even worse. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech & freedom of religion." Really? Again, how will they be able to spot these kinds of people, and don't they notice the irony of stripping away freedom from others due to the belief that they're having their freedoms taken from them? Do they truly believe that those in favor of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples infringe on their religious freedom simply because it makes it more difficult to be a bigoted as*hole in public? They still have the freedom to utter hateful, discriminatory remarks at the expense of the LGBT community, however, others have the freedom to criticize their comments as well.

Throughout history, bigots have used religion to mask their prejudices. During the Civil Rights era, many racists hid behind the Bible, claiming blacks didn't deserve equal rights and as African-Americans started garnering equal rights under the law, this was undermining these "Christians'" religious freedom. Jeff Amyx may have the freedom to state that homosexuality is wrong and that his religious freedom is under attack, but I also have the freedom to just call things like I see them and say Jeff Amyx is a bigot. No matter how much I may dislike Jeff Amyx, though, I'd still serve him as a customer at a store I owned, because I feel all people should be treated equally under the law; he should learn to do the same.

http://www.wbir.com/story/news/local/claiborne-hancock-grainger-union/2015/06/30/store-puts-up-no-gays-allowed-sign-after-same-sex-marriage-ruling/29497621/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...