Saturday, October 7, 2017

But ... but ... we MUST discriminate against homosexuals

If someone is that thoroughly mis-wired, there are easier ways to make a living than owning a public accommodation.
Rick Plasterer
Rick Plasterer via Twitter
Rick Plasterer is a staff writer for IRD, Institute for Religion and Democracy. That “D” should really be replaced with a “T” and no one would confuse it with New York City's IRT subway line. It stands for theocracy. Mr. Plasterer writes: “The Telescope Media Group Case: The Folly of Behavior-Based Anti-Discrimination Doctrine.” You might recall that Telescope Media is an Alliance Defending Freedom Client. ADF filed a pre-enforcement action in federal court so that Telescope could offer wedding videography without having to cater to gay people.

As Plasterer explains:
How does one make privilege seem to be equality? Simply have the law declare adverse judgment against it to be discriminatory. This has been the highly successful strategy of the LGBT revolution, and unless defenders of the right of conscience continually point out the illogicality of it, the public will come to accept as common sense the denial of conscientious objection from behavior deemed to be immoral.
Yes. Expecting to be served in public accommodations is part of a larger conspiracy to persecute Christians. Plasterer cut right through that nonsense. Plasterer, you see, is wed to the absurd notion that discrimination based on same-sex marriage is not discrimination against gay people. Of course that flies in the face of Supreme Court precedence (Lawrence v. Texas). I forgot to mention that Platerer is a proud graduate of Eastern Mennonite College. Who would ever have guessed? Furthermore, even if it did discriminate against gay people Plasterer is fine with that. Excuses abound.

Plasterer further explains:
Telescope Media Group founders and owners Carl and Angel Larsen endeavor to glorify God in all their work and present his truth through their video skills.
So of course they incorporated their enterprise as a religious nonprofit organization. No? Well then their objective, just like every other public accommodation, is to earn a profit. Not that they would get a pass on discrimination as a nonprofit but the sanctimonious bullshit gets rather tedious. Nevertheless I will accept, as fact, that these are very pious conservative Christians.
Late last month, the federal district court dismissed Telescope Media Group’s suit with prejudice … The decision gave no weight to the fact that creative skill would be used to promote a message the Larsens disagree with, indeed which they strongly oppose, and opposition to which is part of their artistic effort.
Given their uncompromising belief in Jesus Christ as “Lord” that would rule out filming a Jewish wedding. After all, not accepting Jesus means that the nonbelievers are destined for Hell. Clearly the Larsens “disagree with” Judaism. Indeed it is something that they “strongly oppose.” ADF never worries about all of the other potential compromises. It's just homosexuals who get the extra attention. We are truly blessed.

And of course the Larsens planned to utilize a qualification questionnaire for each wedding. After all, they would not ever want to video the wedding where one or both of the intended are divorced. They also planned to ask every bride if she were pregnant and if the couple had engaged in premarital sex. No, no, no. They would not want to be complicit in those sins.
Presumably the court also meant that denial of service facilitating homosexuality is like denial of service to non-whites. But it is not. Non-whites have immutable racial characteristics which would be the basis of denial in a case of racial discrimination. If personal behavior is the basis of denial, then it is the actions of the person, not the person himself or herself who is being objected to.
Then Plasterer admits the obvious:
And yet courts have rejected this reasoning. Both the New Mexico Supreme Court in the Elaine Photography case (2013) and the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas (2003) held that discrimination against the conduct of persons in a class is discrimination against that class of persons.
Correct and that settles the issue. At least it should because that constitutes the law of the land. Wait … it doesn't?
Homosexual behavior cannot be protected against adverse public or private judgment by appealing to any general principle, but only by moral intuition. Part of the public, and especially its most influential sectors in education and the mass media, are convinced freedom for sexual behavior should be a constitutional right. And so now several justices on the Supreme Court have made it so. But this amounts to imposing the intuition of some citizens on others, not a reasonable judgment from the Constitution.
“They” are convinced that we seek their approval. We really do not care about “adverse public or private judgment.” We want to be served in accordance with the law. That's it. Treating it as an imposition only means that they do not want to confer approval. The Larsens, and Mr. Plasterer, are sufficiently arrogant to believe that filming a wedding has some higher Christian meaning than, well … filming a wedding. They are not guests of either the bride or groom. They have not brought a gift. They are not participating in the nuptials in any way whatsoever. When a correspondent films a war he or she is not a combatant.

What these people seek is what they rhetorically project upon us. In their case, however, it is an absolute reality that they want “special privileges.” The bottom line is that you perform the service. Your omnipotent god knows that you are only doing so to comply with the law so you get a moral pass. There's also that bit of scripture: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.” You collect your money, make a profit and no one dies.

Ah, but Plasterer has more:
This problem of the lack of an immutable characteristic pertaining to homosexuality was alluded to by Justice Scalia in his dissent the Romer vs. Evans decision (1996) – although in a pre-Lawrence context – in which he speculated on exactly how homosexual persons might be identified, and thus claim any possible rights related to their status. But of all of the characteristics considered (sexual orientation, conduct, practices, relationships), not one is an immutable characteristic, and for a given individual, one or all might cease to be the case with that person.
Sexual orientation is not immutable? That defies science but forget science for a moment. The percentage of Jews who have converted to Christianity is vastly greater than the percentage of gay people who have been converted to straight. In fact, according to the American Psychological Association people who subscribe to conversion therapy do not become heterosexual. They are merely taught how to pretend to be heterosexual or, in the alternative, they become celibate. Praise the lord. There is no research published to a peer-reviewed scholarly journal finding efficacy in conversion therapy. In fact every mainstream professional medical and counseling peer group has determined that it is ineffective and possibly harmful.

Immutable means fixed, unable to be changed. If you cannot turn homosexuals into heterosexuals then sexual orientation is immutable. As young adults people of my generation would have done just about anything to not be gay. Justice Scalia was making the losing argument in Romer. Scalia may have had his virtues but above all he was a devout Catholic and a defender of the faith.
…an absolute right to sexual behavior still does not involve a duty to cooperate in that behavior, which is what is being required by courts using SOGI laws at the present time.
Dense. The duty is to the law which says, in some locales (not enough), that one cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. One has to be spectacularly obtuse and profoundly arrogant to come to the belief that service is cooperation or complicity. It's just service. In fact, the state takes the decision out of individual hands which negates the idea of cooperation.
Respect in law for these moral commitments would be true equality, since no one would be required to facilitate activities they believe are evil.
Oh please. Segregation was premised on the religious belief that integration was evil. The real evil is bigotry, particularly when some holier-than-thou hypocrite claims that bigotry is a religious duty. It is not. Most people do not discriminate. Those who do not discriminate belong to every imaginable religion. Some of those who do not discriminate are pastors, rabbis and imams. Respect in law means obeying the law.
The partisans of the sexual revolution may prevail in courts – and in part of the court of public opinion – with loose comparisons of sexual morality to racial discrimination. But they do not have the logic of liberty or equality on their side, and certainly not the priority the Constitution gives to freedom of speech and religion.
This has nothing to do with some sexual revolution. We prevail in the court of public opinion because most people realize that “we don't serve your kind here!” is repugnant. Malodorous. It doesn't smell any better when someone claims that their bigotry doesn't mean that they are bad. To the contrary — their religion informs them that their bigotry is a good thing because it serves their deity. If someone is that thoroughly mis-wired there are easier ways to make a living than owning a public accommodation.

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.