A different and very interesting First Amendment argument against coerced participation in same sex weddings.
The ugly violence of gay rights, PC fury
Good discussion not only of legal coercion but social and economic coercion, though it surprises me that he is so surprised by the violence of the reaction.
Never reads comments, does he?
As for these folks, they may need the money for a fresh start.
A quick sale under adverse circumstances will not get them anywhere near the true value of their pizza business.
Memories Pizza GoFundMe Campaign Collects $842,387 For Indiana Couple Opposed To Gay Marriage
Reminder.
I personally think gay marriage a pathetic travesty and a power grab to force society to grant the same, full package of rights to same-sex couples as belong to hetero-marrieds.
I oppose it for both reasons, but this issue (like many others) is far from the top of my list.
Civil unions affording same-sex couples some of the same rights of hetero-marrieds are an excellent idea, though.
A question maybe nobody thought it necessary to ask.
Did those folks object to the legality of gay marriage or only to personally participating in gay weddings?
Not everybody expects or desires the civil or criminal law to reflect what they think is divine law and wish personally not to violate.
When the entire left, including the establishment left like the NYT, goes nuts like this and launches a massive and vicious propaganda smear campaign on Christianity (Muslims won't play ball with gay weddings, either) I am reminded how far we are from the balance of forces and outlooks of the early days of the Progressive Era.
Recall the Scopes Trial.
There was Bryan, the Great Commoner, the progressive hero of decades, defending the law and the Protestant Christian fundamentalism behind it.
Darrow's whole case against the Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools in the end came to this, that it was stupid and medieval.
The Incorporation Doctrine was yet to be developed and nobody thought the First Amendment forbade prayer or Bible reading in schools or the teaching of creationism, or even that it applied to the states or state supported public education.
[Aside:
Nor, by the way, did anyone yet think the First Amendment in the least degree forbade states the power and the right to exercise a moral or even religious censorship of speech, the press, and culture low, high, or middle-brow.
And the states and inferior jurisdictions did exactly that.
As, indeed, in a measure, did the federal government.
/Aside.]
Like Darrow, Mencken's whole argument against the Tennessee law was the stupidity of the thing.
An atheist fan of Nietzsche and bitter enemy of fundamentalism, he thought the Tennessee law perfectly constitutional and that the people of Tennessee had a perfect legal and employer's right to control what teachers taught in their schools.
When asked, he thought it outrageous that the people might have to foot the bill and yet not have such ultimate control.
Liberal lying about the constitution and liberal pressure on the culture of the nation have taken us a long way from all that, have they not?
We are now at a point where religion has been driven totally out of public education and we are close to seeing the teaching of Christian or other religious doctrines in private, religious schools, doctrines specifically relating to sex and marriage, outlawed and suppressed by federal action if objectionable to feminists, gay activists, or other PC arbiters of culture whose greatest concern is that their personal ambitions and perversions be not only indulged but respected.
No comments:
Post a Comment