Posted on 02/28/2014 5:45:55 AM PST by Kaslin
Future historians will likely be flummoxed by the moment we're living in. In what amounts to less than a blink of an eye in the history of Western civilization, homosexuality has gone from a diagnosed mental disorder to something to be celebrated -- or else.
Indeed, the rush to mandatory celebration is so intense, refusal is now considered tantamount to a crime. And, in some rare instances, an actual crime if the right constable or bureaucrat concludes that you have uttered "hate speech."
Or, if you refuse to bake a gay couple a cake for their wedding. That was the horror story that sparked much of this foofaraw.
Arizona's proposed SB 1062 would have amended the state's 15-year-old Religious Freedom Restoration Act in a few minor ways so as to cover businesses the way it already covers government. Arizona's religious freedom statute was modeled on a similar federal law signed by Bill Clinton with large bipartisan majorities in both houses. It would have allowed small businesses to decline work that violated their consciences, unless the government could show a compelling reason why such refusal was unreasonable or unjust.
Speaking of unreasonableness, according to ESPN's Tony Kornheiser, if Arizona allows bakers to refuse to bake cakes for gay couples, gays may have to wear "yellow stars" like the Jews of Nazi Germany. It would be Jim Crow for gays according to, well, too many people to list.
Now lest you get the wrong impression, I am no opponent of gay marriage. I would have preferred a compromise on civil unions, but that ship sailed. The country, never mind the institution of marriage, has far bigger problems than gays settling down, filing joint tax returns and arguing about whose turn it is to do the dishes. By my lights it's progress that gay activists and left-wingers are celebrating the institution of marriage as essential. Though I do wish they'd say that more often about heterosexual marriage, too.
But I find the idea that government can force people to violate their conscience without a compelling reason repugnant. I agree with my (openly gay and black) friend, columnist Deroy Murdock. He thinks private businesses should be allowed to serve whomever they want. Must a gay baker make a cake for the hateful idiots of the Westboro Baptist Church? Must he write "God hates fags!" in the icing?
The ridiculous invocations of Jim Crow are utterly ahistorical, by the way. Jim Crow was state-enforced, and businesses that wanted to serve blacks could be prosecuted. Let the market work and the same social forces that have made homosexuality mainstream will make refusing service to gays a horrible business decision -- particularly in the wedding industry!
When August "Gussie" Busch, the CEO of Budweiser, bought the St. Louis Cardinals in 1953, he was vexed by the Brooklyn Dodgers' success, which was due in large part thanks to Jackie Robinson. He asked Cardinals executives how many blacks they were cultivating, and when they said "None," he was appalled. "How can it be the great American game if blacks can't play? Hell, we sell beer to everyone!" he exclaimed. The next year the Cardinals had a black first baseman, Tom Alston.
In 2000, Jonathan Rauch, a (gay) brilliant intellectual and champion of gay marriage, wrote a wonderful essay on "hidden law," which he defined as "the norms, conventions, implicit bargains, and folk wisdoms that organize social expectations, regulate everyday behavior, and manage interpersonal conflicts." Basically, hidden law is the unwritten legal and ethic code of civil society. Abortion, assisted suicide and numerous other hot-button issues were once settled by people doing right as they saw it without seeking permission from the government.
"Hidden law is exceptionally resilient," Rauch observed, "until it is dragged into politics and pummeled by legalistic reformers." That crowd believes all good things must be protected by law and all bad things must be outlawed.
As society has grown more diverse (a good thing) and social trust has eroded (a bad thing), the authority of hidden law has atrophied. Once it was understood that a kid's unlicensed lemonade stand, while technically "illegal," was just fine. Now kids are increasingly asked, "Do you have a permit for this?"
Gay activists won the battle for hidden law a long time ago. If they recognized that, the sane response would be, "You don't want my business because I'm gay? Go to hell," followed by a vicious review on Yelp. The baker would pay a steep price for a dumb decision, and we'd all be spared a lot of stupid talk about yellow stars.
The government can write all the laws they want. It doesn’t mean anyone will comply with all of them. In fact, they can fight back against the stupid ones by exploiting loopholes or being subversive. All laws written by the current administration should have to pass an acid test to check their motives and the reasons behind them, common sense, and if it violates natural law.
Didn’t list constitutional law as it flies under the flag of natural laws which is in essence what The Constitution is all about.
The whole Civil Rights comparison is invalid, imho.
“Speaking of unreasonableness, according to ESPN’s Tony Kornheiser, if Arizona allows bakers to refuse to bake cakes for gay couples, gays may have to wear “yellow stars” like the Jews of Nazi Germany. It would be Jim Crow for gays according to, well, too many people to list.”
People who make that kind of comparison need their head bashed against a wall a few times. Not only is it completely retarded, it’s disrespectful as all get out.
Quietly, the AZ legislature is now proposing a bill that would protect clergy and churches from being forced to marry people against their religious beliefs. And it may include a measure to protect government employees from acting against their faith as well.
This actually overlaps with previous federal efforts to protect pharmacists and other medical people from having to give abortifacients or perform abortions if it went against their beliefs; though Obamacare tried to sweep that law aside.
I wonder if the author understands the inverse relationship that he stated in this sentence. Society can handle diversity, if it is allowed to cultivate naturally and all parties assimilate at their own pace. However, we have seen "diversity" by massive influxes of diverse cultures that none are willing to give up. This causes immense distrust and social animosity.
With any immigrant, they must realize that the society that they are leaving has failed them in at least one critical way, enough to want to abandon it for one that is superior to the one they left. With that realization, assimilation can then occur. Without it, they simply bring that failure to the new culture and bang, social distrust and eventual rifts in society.
As much as it pains me to say it, this is the inevitable consequence of the feel good Civil Rights Act of 1964. It served as a precedent that the government has the right to limit free association, albeit initially only in matters of in race, color, sex, or ethnic origin. But then in 1974 it was extended to age. Then in 1990 it was extended to those with “perceived disabilities”. See the pattern? Once you establish a legal precedent for the government to abrogate a God given right (the right of free association in this case), there is no stopping it, and in a non-Christian nation it will force us to share our lives, businesses, and provide our services to every perversion and morally repugnant thing imaginable.
Marriage as a bundle of goodies from the government.
Bye Jonah.
How come you stopped right there and did not include the next sentence in the paragraph?
“gays may have to wear “yellow stars” like the Jews of Nazi Germany.”
If they push it too far and demand sexual access to under
age children (NAMBLA) then yes that just might happen. They
tag sex offenders already. We are just now scrapping the
surface of just how vile homosexuality is and what the ultimate goal of the homosexual agenda is, open access
to children for play toys and recruitment.
You will not only have to bake them a cake and take their
picture but you will also have to let them date your under
age child.
They are already forcing acceptance of their perverted
lifestyle on people an the point of the governments gun,
who’s to say they wont have access to you kids at the point
of the same gun.
Bttt
“Now lest you get the wrong impression, I am no opponent of gay marriage. I would have preferred a compromise on civil unions, but that ship sailed.”
Then Jonah Goldberg was a proponent until of course
“that ship sailed”. Which is just another way of saying
he’s a moderate and his morals and principals change
with the wind. It’s just a column, written for a buck.
No absolute conviction of principals, morals or ideals.
Goldberg is just a hack.
I’m still trying to figure out how somebody goes about proving their gay.
Can’t wait for the first divorce between a bi-sexual and a gay because the bi-sexual isn’t really gay ... according to gay folklore.
Or what happens when a CPS takes the children away from a gay couple and fosters them out? Will they exclude traditional couples in favor of gay foster parents?
Or the woman going for an abortion because she doesn’t want her child to be adopted by gay people.
Or explain the suicide rate of sex change operation recipients.
Speaking of homosexuals:
Rink Employee May Have Fondled Feet Of More Than 200 Underage Boys
February 27, 2014 12:55 PM
It’s natural law or common law, not hidden law
People who make that kind of comparison need their head bashed against a wall a few times.
...yeah, that...or even worse, they should be made to host a sports talk on TV with Michael Wilbon...can we imagine anything more dire...?
Once you establish a legal precedent for the government to abrogate a God given right (the right of free association in this case), there is no stopping it, and in a non-Christian nation it will force us to share our lives, businesses, and provide our services to every perversion and morally repugnant thing imaginable.
...you’ve identified where the next salvo will target...the concept of God-given rights itself...to wit, there are none, including free association, which in itself, will be deemed to have never existed...and anything short of open-armed embrace of the atheist community will be tantamount to criminality...
...and the ability of churches to act as functional entities within a community will be attacked, with all vigor...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.