OPINION:
California’s just banned state-funded travel to four states that don’t meet the Democratic attorney general’s standards for providing LGBT protections.
That’s offensive. It’s an attack on Christianity, that’s what it is.
Because, after all, it’s the traditional family folk — the Christians, the Bible-thumpers, the Jesus freaks — who advocate for man-woman marriages, who oppose boys using girls’ bathrooms, who resist the cultural breakdown of the once-normal nuclear family, right? So when Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra just announced state employees may no longer tap tax dollars to travel from California to Texas, Alabama, South Dakota and Kentucky — in addition to the previously listed states of North Carolina, Kansas, Mississippi and Tennessee — because of perceived anti-LGBT laws in place in those places, what he was really doing was banning travel to Christian-dominated states.
That’s religious discrimination.
That’s unconstitutional.
That’s unconscionable.
And given it’s the Hard Left to which Becerra belongs that’s trying to make the case that President Donald Trump’s temporary ban on travelers from six terror hot spots is religious discrimination, simply because these six terror hot spots are home to large populations of Muslims — surprise, surprise, right? — then the natural response to California’s ban would be: You should know better.
You should know you can’t discriminate based on religion.
For shame, California. For shame.
“[California taxpayers’ funds] will not be used to let people travel to states who chose to discriminate,” Becerra said, Fox News reported.
But discrimination seems to be defined pretty loosely in Becerra’s mind — in fact, so loosely that it means pretty much any law that curtails any activities of anyone who happens to self-define as LGBT. Texas, for instance, was added to Becerra’s list — hereafter, to be known as the Anti-Christian List — because Lone Star child welfare organizations allow families giving up their children for adoption to attach a “no LGBT” string as a condition of custody transfer. Specifically, families with “sincerely held religious beliefs” can make clear they don’t want the child they’re sending along for adoption to end up in the home of a two-dad family.
Other states have the same law.
Becerra, along with a very vocal segment of the LGBT community, find such discriminatory.
But it’s not. It’s simply an advancement of a traditional, biblical view of the family.
It’s also the Christian view. And to play right along with the games of the Democrats, the special interests and the left, let it be said, let it be known, let it be pronounced, that those who don’t agree that the Christian view of the family is best — why, they are simply discriminatory. And that, in the very logic the left likes to sling about, would make Becerra’s travel ban an outright First Amendment violation.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.