Leftist media wildly bigoted against certain 'unpopular' minority groups

(NaturalNews) America's media elite are angry -- again -- and are looking to heap scorn and abuse on those who believe in the rule of law and that the Constitution really does apply to everyone.

In recent days, liberal media critics of Indiana's new "religious freedom" law have claimed that it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at discriminating against key groups that the Left has identified as somehow needing or requiring extra protection. In this case specifically, the mainstream media sees the law as targeting gays and lesbians.

An editorial page in The New York Times expressed the prototypical leftist "outrage," claiming that the law amounts to nothing more than state-sanctioned "bigotry." It's editors lectured:

[R]eligion should not be allowed to serve as a cover for discrimination in the public sphere. In the past, racial discrimination was also justified by religious beliefs, yet businesses may not refuse service to customers because of their race. Such behavior should be no more tolerable when it is based on sexual orientation.

This, from the same newspaper whose editors were major down-players of the Jewish Holocaust.

The leftist media lectures, but its hypocrisy is louder

The hypocrisy regarding the Indiana law -- modeled after a 1993 federal law signed by liberal President Bill Clinton and a version of which has been adopted by 19 other states -- is widespread and rampant. As noted by Natural News editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, in a recent column:

Bigotry is totally acceptable in America, according to the leftist media, as long as that bigotry targets the "correct" groups of minorities. Case in point: The same leftist media now engaged in mass hysteria over Indiana's religious freedom law -- falsely claiming the law would allow businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians -- openly condones doctors discriminating against minority groups of people who have a religious objection to being injected with toxic vaccines.

Other minorities, such as gun owners in large urban centers and small religious groups, are also routinely targeted by the Left's media machine and its sycophantic supporters in the corporate world -- without even a hint of understanding about how hypocritical they are being.

As noted by Gateway Pundit, for example, CEO Tim Cook of tech gargantuan Apple tweeted about the Indiana law, including a link to a critical Washington Post op-ed: "There's something very dangerous happening in states across the country."

He further tweeted:

"Around the world, we strive to treat customer the same -- regardless of where they come from, how they worship or who they love."

"Apple is open for everyone. We are deeply disappointed in Indiana's new law...."

Great. But what about Apple's business dealings with countries all over the world that actually do persecute (and execute) gays, lesbians and transgenders? According to Apple's own list of nations it does business with, four of 10 countries that kill gays are on it: Uganda, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Will Mr. Cook stop doing business with countries where gays are truly persecuted?

Will the left-wing media stop using the First Amendment to attack others who believe in the First Amendment (freedom of the press versus religious freedom)?

In both cases, sadly, the answer is probably no.

Can't legislate morality

As Adams notes, the hypocrisy is embedded in their psyche, and their modus operandi, on a number of politically incorrect issues:

According to the leftist media, so-called "anti-vaxxers" are fair game for every kind of bigotry, hate speech, public shaming and condemnation anyone can come up with. And the children harmed by vaccines who must suffer a lifetime of permanent damage? They are utterly ignored by the mainstream media.

No, you're being told it is only important to protect gays, lesbians and transgenders, but not to protect the religious freedoms of parents who object to vaccine medical interventions for their children. The "rights" of the minority group of children who are genetically susceptible (or nutritionally susceptible due to mineral deficiencies) to being damaged by toxic vaccine adjuvants are wholly abandoned.

This is why legislating morality is impossible; there are as many variables as there are human beings. An action that one person finds offensive, another finds completely reasonable. Where do you draw the line? How do you even decide where to draw it? Can it even be decided? And if so, can the line change?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.nytimes.com

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com