Thursday, February 16, 2017

Of course Brian S. Brown had to add his two cents to the Stutzman decision

Brian S. Brown
Brian S. Brown, leader of National Organization for Marriage, sent out an email to supporters Thursday afternoon titled: “BREAKING: WA Supreme Court Upholds Religious Discrimination Against Christian Florist.” I suppose that there are a few people who might actually believe that a court ruling in opposition to LGBT discrimination is religious discrimination. Those folks are not exactly the world's most proficient critical thinkers. Brown thinks in zero-sum terms. Any measure of LGBT equality or nondiscrimination exacts an “equal and opposite reaction” — a degradation of the Catholic Church.

Apparently Mr. Brown does not understand the relationship between intellectual honesty and not begging the question:
In an expected but nonetheless exceedingly disappointing decision, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled today that the state may punish a Christian florist, Barronelle Stutzman, for declining to violate her religious beliefs and be forced into participating in a gay 'marriage' that is against her religion. This outrageous ruling confirms what we have been saying ever since the US Supreme Court illegitimately redefined marriage in its Obergefell decision — the religious rights of people of faith are being systematically sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and LGBT extremism.
How does this sound? The state may punish a Klansman for declining to violate his religious beliefs and forced into participating in a Jewish wedding. Same excuse. Same religion (more or less). The difference is that the poor schmuck didn't want to rent chairs for the reception.

“Outrageous?” It is abundantly clear via Supreme Court precedent that there are no religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws. It would be outrageous for the state not to pursue those who violate state laws. Brown is asserting the proposition that Stutzman should get a pass because she is a conservative Christian. Of course that would then apply to every religion and non-religion and no law would be enforceable.

Brown continues to frame the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell as “illegitimate” because he does not like it. In point of fact, as the final arbiter of the Constitution, it is impossible for the Court to issue an illegitimate ruling. Then, if only Brown could come up with something more original and thought provoking than “the altar of political correctness.” The very definition of trite. Not discriminating against fellow citizens because of their membership in a minority group has nothing to do with political correctness. That and respect for the law (including laws that we do not like) are some of the basics of good citizenship. This is all just bluster from someone who is trying to be relevant long past his expiration date. Brown lost any claim to relevance when the ruling in Obergefell was handed down and his organization is insolvent.
This case is one of many that illustrates why President Trump must act immediately to protect the religious liberty rights of people of faith. Liberal judges simply will not act to protect people with mainstream, traditional views on marriage and sexuality when they conflict with the ever-expansive demands of LGBT extremists. It is up to President Trump and Congress to act.
Brown is either being dishonest or idiotic (I know, perhaps both). There is nothing that either Trump or Congress can do that would have any effect on state nondiscrimination laws. They tried something like that with the RFRA until the Supreme Court ruled that the federal RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to the states (City of Boerne v. Flores).

As you may have already guessed, this is all about begging for donations:
NOM is working on an emergency communications plan to ramp up public attention on religious liberty and push for a presidential Executive Order and Congressional enactment of the First Amendment Defense Act that will protect people of faith from discrimination by the federal government. Will you help us fight back today against liberal judges and the left with an emergency financial contribution to support religious liberty?
At least now the blowhard seemingly admits that this is limited to the federal government. I wonder what an “emergency communications plan” is. I think that Trump has more pressing issues to deal with including the unraveling of his presidency due to Russian involvement in our election.

In that regard, Thomas Friedman at the New York Times has the definitive post. It is a good read and it is driving the right batshit.

Related content:




No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.