According to The New York Times, the New York Police Department apologized recently to the gay community for the 1969 raid of the Stonewall Inn in the Greenwich Village of New York City. In 1966 it became legal for LGBTQ people to be served liquor in New York City but “engaging in gay behavior in public (holding hands, kissing, or dancing with someone of the same sex) was still illegal.” New York voters wanted such activities to be forbidden and illegal as decent people have for millennia.

In recent years, normal people have been bullied, badgered, and blackmailed into accepting homosexuality as normal, even desirable. Even so, the “Stonewall riots” did not require an apology since the police were doing their job and were resisted by patrons of the inn. Sodomy was illegal and the inn was selling drinks without a liquor license—law breakers. Police also found bootleg liquor and arrested 13 people, some bar employees.

When the nine police officers tried to close the bar, a lesbian fought with them and it went into the streets where others got involved. As she was shoved into the paddy wagon, she challenged bar patrons and bystanders to get involved. They did and hundreds of people rioted and tried to set fire to the bar where police and a journalist had barricaded themselves waiting for reinforcements. Police were pelted with bottles, rocks, and a parking meter that had been torn from its foundation.

But we are led to believe by people without knowledge or commitment to truth that the bar patrons were peacefully defending their rights. For police officials to apologize for police actions at that time is sad, shocking, and shameful.

There were six days of violent clashes in the neighborhood between bar patrons and police officers; however, almost every media story makes the homosexual lawbreakers the good guys and police as the bad guys. More fake news—so, what else is new?

This resistance by homosexuals is widely credited with spurring the contemporary “gay” rights movement at home and abroad; however, it is dishonest to make homosexuals look like victims and the cops as venomous and villainous.

One veteran of the riots told ABC News, “We were fighting for our lives.” No, they were fighting for the right to commit sodomy.

And they won because sodomy is now legal in America and now they are fighting to force approval, even acceptance and maybe some applause by normal people.

One Democrat presidential candidate has suggested that “gays” should be paid reparations for past and present discrimination! So where does it stop?

Well, it shouldn’t stop until I get paid; after all, we Fundamentalists have been reproached, ridiculed, and rejected for at least 50 years because we believe the Bible is the only authoritative standard by which mankind should live. We believe it is the inspired, inerrant, and indispensable Word of a sovereign God. Movies have ridiculed us with depictions of Elmer Gantry types and most television productions show preachers as effeminate, unlikable, even despicable, deceitful, and never dynamic persons. Never handsome, articulate, intelligent, or impressive.

I’m unfairly called a Bible-thumper but I seldom thump my Bible and if I do, it isn’t really hard. And it is always the King James Version.

No wonder I have a complex.

If reparations (for long-past mistreatment) can be justified, then why shouldn’t Jews demand payment from Egyptians who kept them in slavery for hundreds of years? Some black extremists tell us that Egyptians were black so that makes a whole “black” civilization slaveholders! That means we have two “victim” groups who are involved. A “black” civilization kept the whole Hebrew nation in slavery for 400 years! So, all Blacks everywhere owe Jews everywhere.

Blacks (or any group) are striking matches in a roomful of gunpowder by insisting on reparations since all sane people know they are unacceptable, unworthy, and unworkable.

The allegation is made that present day America has benefited greatly from the slavery of 150 years ago; and consequently, it is only reasonable that we should pay the descendants of those who “built this nation.” Hold it. If that is true, then how can one say that only white Americans have benefited? Haven’t Blacks also benefited? After all, American Blacks, as a group, have more money than many of the nations of the world! Their income is more than twenty times what they would have if their ancestors had never been sold into slavery. Therefore, if present day Whites have benefited from slavery, so have present day Blacks.

The whining black reverends tell us that reparations were paid to the Jews for mistreatment during WW II and to the Japanese for their internment during the war, so why no payment for Blacks? But the payments to the Japanese and Jews went to the actual deserving people who suffered.

The demand from Blacks for reparations says to Blacks, Asians and others that Blacks simply can’t make it on their own. They want permanent “victimhood” status. Others must push them up the ladder. Many of the “others” are people who have more baggage than the aggrieved Blacks. After all, immigrants from totalitarian countries come here from totally different cultures, not speaking English, and they often surpass modern day American Blacks who don’t have the disadvantages that Asian and other newcomers have!

Anyone want to explain that to me?

I suggest that black leaders stop using the race card to enlarge their bank accounts, enlist more followers, and expand their egos. They should spend their time helping build the black family structure and help improve black/white relations. (Some of those black reverends might even do some preaching since they are supposed to be preachers.) They would do well to be honest and admit that many problems in the black community have not developed from slavery or mistreatment by “Whitey” but by the personal failures of black society.

If slavery was the main cause of black problems, then why would those problems have been less dramatic 60 years ago than they are today? Sixty years ago, there were fewer problems among blacks than today. There is a 75% black illegitimacy rate but in 1940, it was only 14%! In 1960, “only” 23% of kids were born to female-headed homes but today it is 62%! And there, I believe, is the major cause of black problems.

Over three years of data from 2011 to 2013 reveals 38.5% of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black. And Blacks make up only 13% of our population. Furthermore, the data shows “93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks.” Hey, if black lives really do matter, why is it that so many Blacks are killing Blacks?

There were almost 6,000 Blacks killed by other Blacks in 2015 and “only” 258 Blacks were killed by police that year. One death is too many but this focuses on the real problem.

Many of the crimes in America come from “33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs [that] are criminally active in the U.S. today.” The most recent figures provided by law enforcement are “46 percent Hispanic/Latino gang members, 35 percent African-American/black gang members, more than 11 percent white gang members, and 7 percent other race/ethnicity of gang members.”

So, if black problems are a legacy of slavery, why would the numbers have been better 60 years ago? Could it be a problem of choices, commitment, and character? Put the normal, biblical family back together and we will see a major change in white and black households.

I suggest black politicians and black reverends have much work to do before they try to lay guilt at the feet of Whites. In fact, let me be very clear: Here is one white Christian male who is guilt-free. I have never done any harm to any Black, and I treat all people as people.

I am embarrassed at the white involvement in the slave trade (as Blacks should be of black involvement) but I harbor no guilt. None, zero, zilch.

It’s way past time to stop the silliness because if reparations are paid to anyone, we will have the biggest tax protest movement ever in America.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 18 books, the most recent Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! eBook is available here with the printed edition (and other titles) at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D.; and visit his blog.)

Of course, such a law should be unnecessary since an American should have the right to serve anyone he or she pleases! Many restaurants display a sign, “No shoes, no shirt, no service.” That authority goes with ownership. However, in our permissive society, a firm can refuse service to one not wearing shoes and shirt but can’t refuse service to two men who display public affection for each other and in private, play in very unusual places!

Other firms used to declare, “We reserve the right to deny service to anyone.” That sign disappeared long ago along with basic common sense and freedom. True freedom demands that a person can refuse a customer even if the owner dislikes the way the customer combs his hair! Of course, that is stupid and he will soon go out of business, but that’s his right. Americans have a right to be stupid and to comb their hair anyway they choose! For now!

The Arizona House Republican Caucus released a statement after Governor Jan Brewer’s veto, saying it respected Brewer’s decision, “especially in light of the concerns brought up over the past week.” The “concerns” were the threats from the business community, professional football, etc., to boycott the state if she signed the bill. Those Republicans should be reminded that decisions should be motivated by character, not cash. But then, they are politicians.

Three republican senators who voted for the bill backed off because the new law would cause “much confusion.” Those weak, wobbly, and wavering wimps changed their position because the opposition (mainly the Homosexual Lobby) misrepresented the bill. The Homosexual Lobby got support from Mitt Romney and Arizona’s U.S. senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake–the Larry, Curly, and Moe of the Grand Old Progressives.

The bill, backed by Republicans in the state Legislature, was designed to give added protection from lawsuits to people who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to homosexuals, or other controversial circumstances. It was not an anti-gay bill but a pro-religion and pro-business bill. But dishonest opponents of the bill called it “an open attack on gays that invited discrimination.” Well, the veto invites discrimination but against religious businesspersons! But that is acceptable, even admirable to all leftists and non-thinkers. Maybe Christians should be a little louder and more demanding, even threatening in promoting pro-family issues like the meek and lowly Savior who whipped the money changers out of the Temple.

With the passage of this bill, a business would have been immune to a discrimination lawsuit if a decision to deny service was motivated by “sincerely held” religious beliefs. This bill was thought necessary because of highly publicized discrimination suits by homosexuals against Christian businesspeople in various states.

Since the wobbly governor’s veto, any homosexual “couple” can walk into a bakery and demand a cake that “honors” their “wedding.” Now, Christian bakers would have no problem selling a birthday cake to homosexuals since birthdays are normal; however, a cake to celebrate same sex marriage is not normal. But there is an additional problem here: Arizona does not permit same sex marriage! Let me go through this slowly: a couple can demand that a Christian bake them a cake that honors illegal activity! Is something wrong here?

The bill’s critics waxed eloquent in their dishonest campaign saying that Blacks also could be refused service; however, that is disingenuous. Blacks don’t choose to be black. Homosexuals choose to do dangerous, diseased, deviate, and deadly things. All religions and all societies for thousands of years proscribed perversion as an attack upon society and upon God until society was plagued in recent years by seizers of insanity. Homosexuality was a sin that was not to be discussed in civilized company.

Now, Christians are “haters” if they refuse to celebrate perversion! Man alive, times are sure a changing.

This very emotional battle between right and wrong at least takes the discussion off border security and the border will be overwhelmed tonight by illegal aliens.

Since professional football (is that an oxymoron) and others threatened to boycott Arizona, I guess I will also. In fact, I would pull my grandchildren out of the state if I could!

(Next column: Would Christ Bake a Cake for a Homosexual “Wedding”?)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.