Around our neck of the woods, we have a newly elected
Republican state house and senate to match and Republican Governor. One columnist in the capital's major
newspaper decries the lack of major legislation to deal with what his sees as
the major state issues: education, jobs, and crime. Not that he himself has proposed what to do
about these problems or point to anyone who does. But such are the ways of columnists.
He also decries the "minor" issues the legislature
has on its plate which are soon to be taken up.
Issues he regards as mere distractions--ignoring that the citizenry have
voiced their concerns over these issues.
One such concern is legislation which would protect merchants
(I think they have bakeries, photographers and Churches in mind) from being
compelled to apply their services to gay weddings. He regards this as a divisive measure. He writes:
"Following on the heels of last year’s painful debate over
same-sex marriage, some lawmakers are pushing a bill that would allow
holier-than-thou businesses to discriminate against customers whose lives they
judge to be offensive. "
I have no expertise in matters of constitutional law
regarding these subjects. My guess is
that the proposed legislation would run afoul the judgment of the courts; but
then who knows? Some would say it would
depend on the judges these laws would come before.
What jumps out from the article is the utter contempt the
columnist has for those with inconvenient religious objections. Such is revealed in his delicate phrase
" holier-than-thou businesses ".
In his view, one may hold these despicable convictions, but one can't
act on them. To allow such businesses to
withhold their services is divisive. But
compelling these businesses to work gay wedding--thereby provoking the
resentment of many Christians, Muslims, and orthodox Jews--would not be so disruptive.
Liberals--of which this columnist has exhibited a history of
liberal convictions--typically have little use for people unlike
themselves. Multiculturalism is the watchword;
but genuine pluralism is beyond the pale.
One would think a genuine liberal would treat their opponents with
generosity and respect. But sweeping
conformity to the liberal vision of a just society is the order of the day.
This country has had a long history of making accommodations
to those whose beliefs are outside the norm.
Laws which allow the Amish to use their buggies on state roads, not
force their children to attend school past the eighth grade, and exempt
themselves from military conscription come immediately to mind. If faithful businesses wish to lose trade to
more accommodating merchants, why not let that be their loss?
But, in reality, none of this about gay weddings, flowers,
cakes, or photographs. The real point of
all these efforts to compel these services is to remove any public suggestion that
there may be something morally questionable about homosexuality. One may harbor one's objections (damn your
soul!); but it is not to be brought up among polite company. There is a steady campaign from liberal Christians
which delivers an admonition that the church must be "welcoming" to
cohabitating heterosexual couples, the "welcoming" of these couples
into the church means that it must not bring up Biblical rebukes to the sexual
arrangements they have undertaken. In
the same way, a "welcoming" atmosphere in the church and society at
large for gays requires that moral objections to homosexual behavior must be
kept under wraps if not vigorously condemned.
Many within the
church (as well as many outside of it) are fond of saying that in "ten
years" everyone will recognize the essential health of homosexuality and
wonder what all the fighting was about.
Some even go so far to say even the most conservative fundamentalists
and evangelicals will say they were all for the full acceptance of homosexually
all along. I've heard this "ten
year" prediction since the 1970's.
Perhaps, in the next ten years, they will be proven right. I would count on it.
We have come a long way from the days of "what two
people do behind closed doors is nobody's business". Now, in least to some degree, it's everyone's
business. One columnist I once had a lengthy
exchange with put it to me that he didn't see how two men or two women marrying
each other would have any impact on his life.
I wonder if he would now say the same thing if by law he was obliged to
provide his services to a wedding he had no desire to approve by his
participation?
