After the church in Portland vandalised by a Neonazi group called “Angry Queers”, now the episode of the Massachusetts parish, object of violence threats and other acts of intimidation. Father Z has the details.
This attitude shows the aggressive, bullying mentality of a tiny minority of perverts (this is for the ASA: faggots, fags, sods), hoping they will impose their abominations on an entire nation through violence, after having seen they’ll never manage to do it at the ballot box.
I hope the American Catholics, and particularly those resident in Massachusetts, will react vocally to this act of intimidation and make clear to their elected representatives they will not toleratethis to go on.
The Nazis are among us. They are violent and dangerous, like Ernst Roehm.
And like Roehm, they are bloody perverts.
Luckily for its lucky inhabitants, the United States are a country where Christian belief is shown much more openly than here in old Europe. One of the results of this is that there are a number of companies who are explicitly and unashamedly Christian and publicly say so.
They are, therefore, ideal targets for Sodonazis looking for an attack on Christianity. They might, for example, pick a Christian producer of T-Shirts and ask it to make t-shirt for some sodomite or lesbian initiative. When the company refuses, they sue it.
What the poor sods are trying to say is that if one, say, is not allowed to sell bread to someone because he is, say, black, so a t-shirt seller should not be allowed to refuse them to have t-shirt because they are, say, perverts.
The problem with it is that confuses freedom with Nazism, a problem occurring very frequently with Sodonazis. I am sure they can have all the t-shirt they want, unless the t-shirt do not go themselves against the conviction of the t-shirt maker. The problem starts when the pervert wants to ask the service provider not only to provide him with a t-shirt, but to endorse his perversion.
Say, a baker is not allowed to refuse to sell bread to a man because he is a sodomite. Rightly so, and perfectly in line with Catholic teaching. But the same baker would have every right to refuse an order for, say, a huge bread penis, or a loaf with some other obscene content supportive of sodomy. In this case the question is not whether the baker wants to sell the sodomite bread, but whether the sodomite wants to force him to go against his religious or social convictions.
Matthew Archbold puts it even better:
if you follow the logic, then a black dude could be forced to print up t-shirts for the next Klan rally.
The debate over same-sex “marriage” should never be seen in isolation. In the same way that the right to visit a loved one in the hospital was not the ultimate goal, marriage is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is to eradicate from public life any hint or suggestion of the idea that homosexual relationships are not in every way equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
The rest of this brilliant blog post is here.
The Sodonazis are after you.