It’s almost like the hard left wants everyone to hate them. I’m not quite sure why progressives think it’s a great idea to constantly attack the Salvation Army, which is one of the nation’s oldest and wide-reaching charities. Perhaps in their warped way of thinking, they believe that this somehow makes them relatable. Or maybe this time, they just thought it would make for an effective political attack against Mayor Pete Buttigieg and destroy his chances of securing the Democratic presidential nomination.
A magazine that caters to members of the LGBT community, named “Out,” just launched an attack article on ol’ Mayor Pete. Why? Because a photo came to light showing him smiling in front of a Salvation Army signature kettle while participating in a charity drive in 2017. Oh, the horror!
“It’s nice to see politicians using their platforms to give back to their communities during the holiday season — except when they do it with organizations that historically exclude LGBTQ+ people,” they wrote. “The gesture would be super nice of Buttigieg if the Salvation Army didn’t have a well-documented history of discriminating against LGBTQ+ people in need.”
Then, the writer brings up remarks made by Salvation Army spokesperson George Hood in relation to same-sex marriage. “In 2012, Salvation Army spokesperson George Hood claimed that same-sex relationships go ‘against the will of God,’” she wrote.
Of course, as many progressive writers are wont to do, the author left out the other comments Hood made. Firstly, he was speaking on theology and Christian beliefs on the matter. But then, he said a “relationship between same-sex individuals is a personal choice that people have the right to make.”
It’s almost like people can disagree with someone’s actions without wanting to use the government to stop them. But a misconception such as this is understandable from a hard left progressive who typically favor using the state to force people to comply with their political ideology.
But there is yet another problem with the magazine’s criticism of the Salvation Army: it simply isn’t true. In a piece for USA Today, the organization’s commissioner, David Hudson, set the record straight last month, explaining that they do not discriminate on the basis of sexuality or any other protected trait when providing their services. He wrote the piece when singer Elie Goulding said she would not perform at the Super Bowl because the Salvation Army was sponsoring it. “Our doors are, and always have been, open to all,” he writes. “We don’t ask anyone their orientation, identity or beliefs, to help ensure that they feel welcome and safe.”
Hudson also stated that the organization employs a large number of LGBTQ+ workers:
“Across our 7,686 centers of operation, you’ll find Salvation Army employees who identify as members of the LGBTQ+ community. You’ll find social workers who understand, advocate for and implement tailored services.”
But he didn’t stop there. He also lightly chastised the critics falsely claiming that the Salvation Army discriminates against members of the LGBTQ+ community:
“Yet because our organization is rooted in faith, a chorus repeatedly rises that insists we are anti-LGBTQ. And that refrain is dangerous to the very community we are wrongly accused of rejecting. At minimum, perpetuating rhetoric that vilifies an organization with the reach, housing, programming and resources that we have in place to lift them up is counterintuitive and inefficient. But when that organization depends on the generosity of donors to provide much-needed assistance to so many across all walks of life, it’s devastating.”
Hudson is right. But he’s a bit too nice in his rebuke, so I’ll translate it into everyman parlance:
“You lying sacks of you-know-what are actually hurting those you pretend to care about by falsely claiming the Salvation Army hates LGBTQ+ folks. When you get people to believe this lie, they lose donors which means they aren’t able to help as many members of the LGBTQ+ community. You should be ashamed of yourselves for selling these people out to score cheap political points against them just because they are Christians, you feckless bigots.”
But however the message is delivered, it is true that the left’s deception is counterproductive to their stated cause. This false label of anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry has already cost them a major sponsor: Chick Fil A. Now, it was Chick Fil A that chose to believe the deception and pull their funding, but the fact still remains that the hard left’s lies only hurt those they say they want to help. In the end, this story is yet another example of the progressive movement’s hypocrisy — as if we needed another one.
Note: No, I’m not calling for a boycott of Chick Fil A. But I will say this: Popeye’s chicken sandwiches are far superior. Fight me on this if you dare.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below!
Follow me on Twitter: @JeffOnTheRight