GOP Oklahoma State Sen. Joseph Silk
Last week, Republican Oklahoma State Sen. Joseph Silk caused a stir when he
told the New York Times that LGBT Americans shouldn't have rights.
“They don’t have a right to be served in every single store,” said Mr. Silk, the Oklahoma state senator, referring to gay people. “People need to have the ability to refuse service if its violates their religious convictions.”
Silk added:
"I say that sensitively, because I have homosexual friends."
Nice touch, Silk. Understandably, gays across the country were overwhelmed by Silk's sensitivity—so much so that based on their response,
he shut down his campaign Facebook page.
Head below the fold for more on this sensitive gentleman.
But this week, he's back by popular demand with a response to the overwhelming response he received and it is equally as sensitive and well-informed.
The problem with the current LGBT movement is that they have zero tolerance or consideration of other peoples rights, and yes they are a threat to our freedoms and liberties in the United States and Oklahoma.
That's why, Silk explained, he has introduced a bill (SB 440) to "protect businesses and religious entities" from being "forced to violate their religious convictions" (i.e. a "license to discriminate" bill—here's
a think piece about ways the movement can combat them).
This has outraged the LGBT community and they are crying discrimination while making themselves the only "target", in reality it has nothing to do with them. The intent of the bill is to protect private property rights and religious liberty...
Yes I did say that homosexuals do not have the right to be served in every store, just as I do not believe that I, my family, or anyone else have the right to be served in every private business. The right to provide services should be the decision of the business owners. We need to keep our country free and stop this radical, intolerant, movement.
Well, Silk's definitely cleared up his intentions, and let's just say it: he's not the brightest bulb even if his head shines like one.
Just to review:
1) Federal law doesn't protect LGBT people in public accommodations.
2) Religious entities already have specific protections in federal law.
And here's a little primer for Silk on private business owners that serve the public: They don't necessarily have "private property rights" once they open a business—at that point, they're a public entity. When you open a business, your religious beliefs take a back seat to the fact that you are serving the public. Business owners can't, for instance, refuse service to people of color or people of a certain religion because of their own religious beliefs. Discriminating against your patrons as a business owner isn't legal in most cases—especially when it comes to minorities. Federal law just doesn't protect LGBT people yet.
But don't worry, Silk, when it does, you can tell your children you stood firm and strong for the right to discriminate, even if you were totally misinformed. That's a legacy to be proud of.
P.S. He posted this response letter to his campaign website underneath a family portrait with his wife and four kids. Who does that?