There are many today who equate discrimination with prejudice or racial bias.
Yet to be discriminating was once a hallmark of good taste, and of being able to distinguish distinctive differences between things, situations or people that are acceptable, pleasant or good from that which is unacceptable, rude or wrong.
Real vs. Faux Discrimination
Recent state laws that allow someone who owns a business, to refuse service to anyone who offends their religious beliefs, under the right to religious freedom, have come under attack recently.
These laws are in response to attempts by homosexuals to force their way of life on others, as if any opposition to their public display of contempt for the ancient and sacred institution of marriage must be tolerated and accepted by everyone.
Decrying these laws as equivalent to the old “Jim Crow” laws forbidding service to blacks, “coloreds” or “negroes” as they were once called, as discriminatory belies the meaning and purpose of that word.
For one thing, people of different race have no choice in the color of their skin or descent, while those who flaunt social and legal precedents to engage in unnatural sexual practices (natural is mainly for the purpose of procreation), have made a conscious choice, one that does not require those who are opposed to such practices for moral reasons to accept, condone or tolerate such evils.
And evils they truly are, which bring horrific judgments, such as natural disasters, war and death to hundreds, and eventually thousands of those in any country where such things become commonplace, acceptable and openly practiced.
Of course those guilty of such crimes steadfastly deny their criminality. To them, anyone who opposes their lewd and lascivious conduct is a criminal!
Anti-Social Behavior?
Let’s put this into some sort of perspective...
Almost everyone knows that public nudity is a crime, and that engaging in the act of copulation -- even though between a male and consenting female -- in a public place would subject the couple to immediate arrest, arraignment and trial for public indecency.
So, even though a man and woman might feel the urge in the middle of the lobby of a crowded public building, or while ice skating, or on a bus with other people present, they preferably refrain from such blatantly carnal conduct until alone in a private room.
To do otherwise would (or should) rightly offend decent people, so that any attempt to stop such activity would not be called “discrimination” or “prejudicial” in any sane society.
To think otherwise is a sign that one has put the cart before the horse, and is attempting to make the unworkable “normal” or “natural” behavior, when it is anything but.
The Right To Be Discriminating
Discrimination itself is an inherent right, when it is for good and noble reasons, such as considering a murderer, rapist or child abuser to be a predator and avoiding their company, even if they have “served their time” and been released from prison.
This is why internet sites giving the names and addresses of such convicted sexual deviants -- as a way of warning neighbors to their presence, and to help protect children and others from becoming their victims in future -- are considered lawful, and are not an invasion of privacy.
Forgiveness is one thing, but being willfully ignorant in the face of past deviant conduct is just plain stupid.
Likewise, permitting open and notorious sexual deviancy of any sort, especially the kind that flaunts its presence in the faces and defiance of those who are rightly offended and want nothing to do with such practices as they find disgusting and reprehensible, is itself prejudicial to their right to live peaceably in the pursuit of their religious faith.
Amoral vs. Moral
In the same way that being bare-chested, or without shoes is frowned upon and discouraged or forbidden in restaurants and other establishments, with those not conforming to the dress code denied entry, in like manner those whose religious beliefs are offended by deviant and unnatural sexual conduct have the right to discriminate against those who desire to openly flaunt their amorality in public.
Add the fact that tolerating and condoning such open and blatant perversion can and does eventually lead to disastrous consequences for all those who allow such things to be thought of and treated as social “norms” -- in the form of natural or man-made destruction, such as the fiery devastation that fell upon the ancient cities of Sodom, Gomorrah and three others, as well as the ancient city of Pompeii -- is good enough reason for such discrimination.
Those who do such things are themselves behaving in a discriminatory manner, against the religious and moral sensibilities of anyone who is offended by their conduct.
Redefining Morals?
A thief might discriminate against honest, hard-working victims of their greed, avarice and lust for illicit gain, but this does not make them “right” to accuse anyone who disagrees with and attempts to stop their illicit activities of being prejudiced.
That’s nothing less than the cast iron pot calling the china plate “black.”
Such Orwellian terminology may seem acceptable and normal to a duplicitous corporate-corrupted press, and seems to be so widespread as to appear “acceptable” to an increasing number of befuddled people, easily swayed by increasing “entertainment” displays of such perversions, but none of this can ever make such evils “good” or “sane.”
There is no "right" to redefine morals by superimposing amorality like some greasy salve over the public conscience.
Rather, the right of discrimination demands all such attempts be routed and halted permanently. To do otherwise invites disastrous judgments to fall against this entirely corrupt, wicked and adulterous generation!