recently passed a bill stained with the self-pitying tears of a religious
minority called The Religious Freedom
Restoration Act. Such a law would be
completely unnecessary if our nation's courts were doing their job in vacating
laws which deny someone the ability to practice his religion as he sees fit
over the objections of those around him.
But as we've seen over and over and over again, they aren't. Hence, the need for specific laws.
honest, when I first heard of this new law, I assumed it was a yet another
Hobby Lobby swipe against Obamacare, pitting a state law to not be compelled to
provide birth control coverage due to the religious sentiments of a business
owner against the federal law which compels all business owners to provide birth
control coverage despite their religious sentiments, thus setting up a court
showdown over federal incursions into state matters. Lo and behold, however, the liberal orthodoxy
and its media lapdogs has defined it as a christian bigot swipe against the
rights of homosexuals to compel a bakery to bake a wedding cake with two grooms
— or two brides, as it may be — on top.
made my position on this so clear as to be transparent: the Constitution
conveys no power of the [federal] government to control who can and who cannot
be married, and therefore, because of Section 1 of the 14thAM, neither can the
states' governments; ergo, gays cannot be legitimately
denied the right to a future divorce, and laws [state or federal ] which
prevent it must be voided … if our courts were to obey the Constitution. But the Constitution also does not convey any
power of the [federal] government to compel a business owner to do business
with someone he doesn't want to do business with and therefore [etc] neither
can the states'; ergo, if a bakery, florist, photographer, et cetera, doesn't
want to be hired into gay nuptials, no power can legitimately compel him there, and laws which do must also be
voided … if our courts were, again, to obey the Constitution. Let the business risk bankruptcy. It's the owner's business if he wants to
deliberately turn away the business of homosexuals and the growing legions of
their family, friends and other sympathizers … which includes me.
Lining up to
predictably, if tediously, spout their own self-pitying tears and denounce
Indiana as christian bigots are the usual liberal suspects in politics and
Hollywood, but also Angie of Angie's List
fame which is foregoing plans to expand its internet service to Indiana
[because Indiana obviously doesn't yet have an Internet Service Provider], and
the band Wilco which I'd never heard of until it made headlines by cancelling
its Indianapolis concert over the matter.
The mayor of
Seattle and the governor of Washington have imposed travel bans of municipal and
state employees to Indiana in the performance of official business. My guess is that this move is designed to be
symbolic, as I would hope — for the fiscal sake of Seattlites and Washingtoners
— that the opportunity to perform "official" city or state business
in Indiana is vanishingly rare.
Connecticut has followed Washington into pointless spitefulness, and my
hopes for fiscal sanity extend to Connecticants as well.
I will do my
best to ignore the nation as it descends into the inevitably faddish and boring
orgy of sanctimonious accusation and recrimination in this matter. Instead, I'll use the time to remind everyone
of what happened just five short years ago in Oklahoma, and hope that some
people will pull their heads out of their asses long enough to stop being
hypocrites. Yes, I know: doubtful.
to a group of muslims in, I recall, Oklahoma City asserting the superior
authority of islamic Sharia Law over state law in settling the divorce of a
muslim couple, the Oklahoma legislature passed, and the Oklahoma governor
signed into law, a bill that would prohibit the courts from entertaining the
validity of "Sharia or international law" in Oklahoma's state courts. In the divorce in question, the husband — a
muslim — claimed that his wife was duty-bound to submit to the one-sided terms
he offered her; the wife, whose muslimity was either gone or never there to begin
with, claimed otherwise. The state court
ruled that Sharia Law was superior to Oklahoma's divorce statutes in this case,
due to the husband at least being muslim, over the objections of the wife and every
sane person in the state. Soon
thereafter, the Oklahoma legislature passed the law designed to prevent this
from happening again.
The law which
would have prevented further idiocies of this type was later struck down by a
federal judge in Oklahoma; the ruling claimed that it would deny muslims their
religious freedom manifest in the subjugation of women, even in defiance of state
laws which would prevent the subjugation.
The United States apparently cannot deny a person his religion and
prevent him from practicing it on those around him, no matter how repressive his
religion may be.
were immediately thrown into a quandry!
Do they support the federal court's ruling as the enlightened validation
of muslims? Or do they denounce the
ruling as a benighted backlash against women's rights? [Liberals were not moved to question whether the
entire fiasco impinged upon American constitutional democratic republicanism;
liberals don't seem to recognize the concept exists].
Further questions plagued liberals in the aftermath of this federal court
ruling: Sharia Law permits — indeed requires — the exclusion of many, many
people from the daily activities of good muslims going about their
business. People such as: Jews. People such as: atheists. People such as: homosexuals. Under islamic law, the only people permitted to
be treated equally are other muslims, and then only if they are male. Muslim women are only millimeters above dogs
and Jews in second-classhood.
liberal contrarians posited the notion that if muslims could subjugate women during
a divorce in defiance of state laws prohibiting such, then they could also, as
businessmen, deny service to improperly-clad women, atheists at all, Jews not
willing to pay double, and — yes — to homosexuals who may wish to rent a canopy
for their gay wedding reception from Omar the Oklahoma Tent-Maker. This denial of service would meet the
"religious freedom" mandate of the federal court ruling which
asserted that Sharia Law is superior to domestic law when the person desiring
the Sharia outcome is a muslim, regardless of who any other party may be.
liberal contrarians were immediately shushed by the liberal establishment. No, the establishment claimed, Oklahoma is a conservative,
redneck state full of snake-handling bible thumpers and the only reason their
legislature passed a law prohibiting Sharia's superiority over state law was
because they are religious bigots and racists who hate muslims … even though
islam is not a race, but a religion; one cannot be racist toward a religion. Liberals have a duty to support muslims over
a perceived christian majority no matter what backward bigotries muslims impose
on everyone around them. …because christian bigotry is far, far worse. Obviously.
Did Angie's List pull out of Oklahoma in 2010,
after learning that muslims are permitted, with federal protection, to be religiously
free to treat women as chattel? No. Angie believes that the christian religious freedom to refuse a wedding cake to a gay wedding is far worse than the muslim religious freedom to treat women like dogs.
Did Wilco cancel their Oklahoma concerts, and did their lead singer's wife, actress
Megan Mullaly, whose acting style consists of turning every character she ever
plays into Megan Mullaly, issue condescending scolds of Oklahoma over muslims
there being religiously free to treat Jews as fully-formed second-class citizens? No. Wilco and Megan — the sweetie — support muslims' religious freedom to be anti-semites but not christians' same to be anti-gay marriage.
liberal politicians and Hollywood simpletons issue their trite, canned,
scripted screeds about the religious intolerance of muslims in their doctrinal denunciation
of atheists now permitted to be enacted in Oklahoma under federally-protected
Sharia Law? No.
self-aggrandizing "progressive" governors of various
"progressive" states issue pious, sniffling, self-aggrandizing travel
bans to Oklahoma in protest of the Oklahoma muslims' religious freedom to deny
service to homosexuals that Sharia Law, now protected by federal court ruling,
requires? No. It is religious freedom for muslims to be homophobes, but it is plain old bigotry for a christian.
The liberal mindset,
such as it may be, deems it permissible, outright obligatory, to allow muslims
to defy local, state and federal laws in their vassal-like treatment of the
general [i.e., non-muslim] public required by their religious convictions as a
testament to American-style religious freedom, and American-style "tolerance"
of different ethno-cultural values. Yet
that same liberal mindset sees any other religion being granted the same
privilege as a dog-vomit stew of every bigotry imaginable.
…with one notable
exception: anti-christian bigotry. That
bigotry is owned by liberals.