The end of religious freedom in the US
I agree with this article by David Harsanyi:
Not only does the court now apparently hold the power to bore into the souls of shopkeeps to establish that their religious objections aren’t authentic, but it can also decide when their prejudice is. It makes the risible assertion that any theological problem with gay marriage is really just “opposition” to the existence of gay Americans””whatever that means:
“Specifically, Masterpiece asserts that its refusal to create the cake was “because of” its opposition to same-sex marriage, not because of its opposition to their sexual orientation. We conclude that the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craig’s and Mullins’ sexual orientation, and therefore, the ALJ did not err when he found that Masterpiece’s refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was “because of” their sexual orientation, in violation of CADA.”
A person may have gay friends and relatives”“they may even love their fellow gay Americans”“but if they decline to participate in a same-sex wedding for theological reasons, the court wants us to assume they could only be motivated by bigotry.
In any event, I’m sure there will be an appeal. But since most Americans are fine with gay marriage and simultaneously put off by unpleasant (and in this case, deceptive) words like “discrimination” and “prejudice,” the courts”“nearly always driven by the vagaries of public opinion”“will find a way to force all to comply. This will go for any other businesses even tangentially related to weddings, such as food catering, music, and so on. And the crusade will accelerate until the legal lynch mob gets to religious institutions. No doubt advocates will work backwards to come up with a great legal rationalization for all of it.
Indeed.
With one caveat, however. Harsanyi is correct that courts are driven (in part, anyway) by “the vagaries of public opinion.” But they are also driven by ideology. In the same-sex marriage battle, the courts have been ahead of the public in being pro-same-sex marriage. The most recent poll (February 2015) I was able to find on the matter in a quick search says that the majority of Americans favor a religious exemption like the one the baker in the Masterpiece case was requesting, so here the courts appear to be leading (or opposing) rather than following public opinion.
But they’re not creating it.
Merely, they don’t look to public opinion polls primarily to form the cultural views that inform their legal decisions. So if they’re not looking to public opinion polls, then what social nodes are influencing their cultural views?
Public opinion polls are valuable, but clearly, they’re not primary. Prioritize reform of the social nodes that are primary, which will likely require working your way down the chain both overarchingly and sequentially – a Gramscian (counter-)march. As always, the activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is.
Hey Christians, Say Goodbye To Religious Freedom
Christians, to one degree or another, had already said goodbye to Christianity. It had been noticed. The crisis presented an opportunity and it was pounced upon.
It never ceases to fascinate — that look of befuddled amazement, eyes wide open, mouth agape, the ‘whaaa happened?’ dumbfoundedness.
I suspect a thorough history of Christianity would reveal Christians to be strongest when they are most put upon. Let the renascence commence.
I find it interesting that a baker and photographer are now being called public accommodations and are being told they must work for homosexuals. If you read the legal definition of a public accommodation, it is an establishment, not a person. Furthermore, the 13th amendment prohibits all forced labor. The Federal courts have ruled that you can’t be forced to work for someone or penalized if you refuse.
I wonder what would happen if a fat white tatooed biker girl sued one of Michelles favorite designers because she wouldn’t make a wedding dress for her. Or if a modern architect wouldn’t build you a house with pink shutters.
I think we can assume that this judicial logic will be applied very selectively, so that in the abstract that white biker girl might be able to make the same case, she won’t get very far with it.
I’m told by a Facebook acquaintance–so take it for what it’s worth–that Muslim shopowners in Michigan refuse various services for various religious reasons with complete impunity. If that’s true, I imagine a court challenge to those practices would produce lots of warm deference to rich traditions of faith blah blah blah.
There may not be much we can do to stop this, but we can be mindful and truthful about what’s happening.
These court rulings damage far more than religious liberty; the whole of the first amendment is threatened.
It is about religion and the use of religious belief to circumvent law. What you need to ask yourself is where it will lead if the bakers and photographers are permitted an exemption. Christianity is not the only religion. This is a double edged sword that if used consistently will drive a dagger into the heart of Sharia. Think about it.
Can a hotelier be required to accommodate a KKK convention? Can a caterer be required to serve a NAMBLA function? Can a religious baker be required to decorate a cake with “God is Dead?
Mac: “I’m told by a Facebook acquaintance—so take it for what it’s worth—that Muslim shopowners in Michigan refuse various services for various religious reasons with complete impunity.”
Exactly. Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis refuse to serve people with dogs or carrying liquor…..because Islam.
Double standard? You bet!
Pastors being sent to prison has happened before in America at the hands of state governments-in the 17th and 18th century. We may very well see it again:
“Baptists were among the most fractious of all dissenters. They refused to attend the state-backed churches of England or America, or to pay religious taxes to support those churches. They flamboyantly violated rules that required dissenters to secure licenses from the government to preach. Sometimes local authorities would not agree to have these dissenters preach at all. Regardless, Baptist itinerants traveled throughout the colonies, often holding outdoor baptismal services in rivers and lakes, drawing crowds of mockers.”
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/when-america-put-pastors-in-prison
I have heard of pastors refusing to perform straight marriages because they thought something was wrong with that couples union. Are we now going to say they must perform all straight marriages also under penalty of law? Or do only the delicate flowers known as the LGBT “community” get to trump all other considerations, like the time honored traditions of sex segregated public bathrooms, individual religious beliefs, labeling clothes “boy” and “girl” etc????? Why must the entire world shut up and treat the LGBTs like some kind of special royalty?
jon baker:
Well, technically, although that occurred within the geographical area of what we call America, is did not happen in the US under the Constitution. It was one of the things the Constitution was designed to stop.
The Other Chuck:
This will always and only be weaponized against Christians. The Leftists are allies with the hardline Moslems, so no.
But you do put your finger on a problem we haven’t addressed: Christianity and Judaism share an ethical code and most of our theological worldview. Islam’s is radically different.
America hasn’t had to face “integrating” devil worshippers — yet. But we’re looking at that now. Freedom of religion in the 18th century in the West was understood to mean the various factions of Christendom, Judaism, and the odd atheist, not adherents to a theology whose tenets are abhorrent to us, and in many respects illegal.
Fasten your seatbelts: it’s going to be a bumpy decade.
In New York and New Jersey, e.g., the clitorises of muslim baby girls are already being amputated by muslim doctors. The State ignores it. Women are being kept in polygamous marriages, like chattel. The State ignores it.
That’s how it’s gonna go, folks. Because, “culture.” And the “idiots who praise, in enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this, and every country but their own….”
Hey.
As I’ve argued before, re-establishing economic freedom in the US is considerably easier than either political or cultural liberty.
And the first, far more likely to be achieved. The rest may as well be a reach-around for the moon.
Jimmy J.” among others not the current double standard.
a change in the Office of Civil Rights within JOD could effectively change this…for a while.
But will the ruling class permit it to continue? Will the media be braying? Natch.
Beverly, you are unfortunately and probably right. Nonetheless, if the law is applied consistently…
The Other Chuck, RE: using the same logic against Sharia – Yes I agree. But, that “Nonetheless” is not something that I am willing to hold my breath for.
Christian beliefs (and to a lesser extent, mainstream Jewish beliefs) are under attack; but, the same folks going after Christians will NOT say boo to Muslim bigotry.
And, let’s remember the way congress, many states, and local municipalities (led by Democrats and with suggestions by Obama) work is to write laws they know are not constitutional; but, it is only unconstitutional if someone is willing to challenge it in court. I’ll repeat that – something is only unconstitutional if someone is willing to take it all the way to the US Supreme Court – otherwise it is law. And they work that way because they know to challenge something in court is something most folks cannot do.
To challenge something in court so that it will work its way to the US Supreme Court takes a lot of patience (years of it, in fact) and a lot of money. Most folks simply cannot do that.
Google DC vs. Heller to see what I mean.
The lawyer for Heller started looking in 2002 for a 2nd Amendment case that he thought would make it to the US Supreme Court. That lawyer found 6 cases; Heller was one of them. (Heller is a DC cop who MUST carry a gun for his job; but, was denied a gun permit by DC for a gun for his personal safety. Seriously, it is one thing to deny a convicted criminal a gun, and another to deny a common law-abiding citizen a gun; but, just how insane is it to deny a must-carry-a-gun policeman the right to carry his own personal gun?)
Oral arguments for DC vs Heller weren’t heard by the US Supreme court until 2008. And that was after 5 other cases were dismissed by lower courts – only Heller made it through.
So, after 6 years, only one of 6 cases made its way to the US Supreme Court. And that is because a lawyer was looking for a specific case to challenge DC’s law.
Those that challenged the photographers and bakers were just like Heller’s lawyer – looking for a case they could fight. Those lawyers were willing to put in the time, effort, and money.
To cite another case involving a baker refusing to bake a cake because what was asked for was against their beliefs. In NJ several years ago (a while before the “anti-gay” bakers cases) a local supermarket chain bakery not only refused to decorate the cake with a 3-year-old’s name they called Child Protective Services who promptly removed that child and other children from their parents.
The parents were self-proclaimed neo-Nazis and they named their son “Adolf Hitler Campbell.” I am NOT making that up! Really I am not – and his sisters were reported to be called “Eva Braun” and “Aryan”!
Now, despite what you and I and others may think of such idiot parents – how is that case different from the “anti-gay” bakers or photographers? Was it because there were children involved? Was it because it was a belief that most of us find repulsive? Or was there something else that the news didn’t let us know about?
Or, and this is the point I am trying to make with my rambling comment here, was it that no lawyers were willing to fight for that neo-Nazi’s “rights”?
Is there anyone looking to take on Sharia? Is there anyone looking to defend Religious folks from other’s bigotry? I’m not holding my breath waiting to see if there is anyone out there.
Hello ACLU? Nope, they would lose a lot of their donors to take up such an unpopular cause. Clarence Darrow? Last I checked he was dead. And, anyway,both the ACLU and Darrow (he was a part of the ACLU anyway) defended criminals, not Christians. It was/is kind of “cool” to defend “poor” criminals who’ve had such a “hard childhood” – but, it is NOT cool to defend Christians or the victims of Muslims. (Remember some of the comments from the left about Daniel Pearl after he was beheaded by Islamic terrorists? “Well, what was he doing over there anyway?)
So, yea, The Other Chuck; I understand and agree with what you’re saying; but, I just don’t see it happening. Laws are NOT consistently enforced.
Any government which can’t compel its subjects to participate in strange pervasions of its rituals and sacraments is unworthy of the name “government.”