“Big Gay” strikes again: this time targeting a Christian UC Berkeley student Senator who dared speak up for her beliefs.
I know I’ve written this incessantly but I’m compelled to write it again: among the greatest hypocrites and deceivers in all of America are the members and allies of the LGBTQ community.
Why? They demand tolerance, acceptance and inclusion from everyone for their sexual deviancies but refuse to return the favor to anyone—especially Christians—who believe differently. Disagree with Big Gay and you become targets of their wrath, hatred and violence.
The irony of this situation is so pronounced that it necessitates pointing out: the very people (LGBTQ community) that demand and preach “tolerance,” “acceptance” and “inclusion” are the exact ones that deny it to anyone—especially Christians—who fail to believe precisely like they do.
Their hypocrisy and double standards are legendary, yet they lack the necessary self-awareness to realize this glaring flaw. Consider the following statements and quotes form the linked article above:
“In addition to BPR, Student Action — the party Chow ran with — disaffiliated with Chow after her anti-LGBTQ+ comments.”
Notice carefully what is written here: the BPR, a UC Berkeley student group who espouses “that the publication strives to serve as an ‘inclusive platform for the totality of our membership,'” evidently denies to Chow the very “platform” they supposedly provide to all their members. And why? Her Christian beliefs do not comport with their left-leaning, progressive, LGBTQ ones.
Further down in the article:
“’While BPR strongly affirms non-partisanship, any view that denies the validity of a community does not fall within the spectrum of political discourse that our guiding mission allows for,’” the editorial states.”
In the above statement, their lack of necessary self-awareness that should reveal their hypocritical and double-standards toward Chow is evidently lost upon them. “Strongly affirm non-partisanship” yet simultaneously denying it to Chow? How is this strongly affirming their so-called non-partisanship if Chow’s views are vehemently rejected? Their hypocrisy, bigotry and hateful intolerance against Christianity is nothing short of astounding.
Notice this picture and the caption below from the article:
The “Queer Alliance Resource Center” calls for the resignation of Ms. Chow. But is this not the same group that incessantly preaches “tolerance,” acceptance,” and “inclusion” from other towards themselves? Why don’t they “practice what they preach”?
In another article about Chow’s sincerely held religious beliefs and how they are clashing with those of the LGBTQ community, the intolerance directed at her Christian beliefs are even more pronounced and which reveals one major part of the true agenda of the gay community: the protection of abortion rights.
The following quote from the article listed in the paragraph above proves this:
“…While we respect Senator Chow’s leadership and community work, we cannot allow the actions of our elected officials to oppose what in our assessment is inviolable —reproductive health and wellness resources, legal protections for survivors of sexual violence, and community space for vulnerable members of our student body.” (Emphasis mine.)
Inviolable is defined as “never to be broken, infringed, or dishonored.” And, of course, thinking people understand that the term “reproductive health and wellness resources” refers to abortion and all things related to abortion.
To emphasize and repeat: the LGBTQ community is only interested in the message of tolerance on two main planes: that the world tolerate their sexual perversions and leftist, progressive ideas and that they will only be tolerant toward those who march lock-step in perfect alignment with their fascist boot tracks.
I’m fascinated by this glaring fault in the LGBTQ community and their supporters, being continually stupefied by their cognitive dissonance. Are they truly this blind to such an obvious defect in their belief system? Or do they actually know they are behaving in this irrational manner but refuse to acknowledge it?