Joseph Farah has written the one millionth column declaring that same-sex marriage is tyranny on the grounds that people should be allowed to discriminate against gay people. Like the first 999,999,999 times, he doesn’t bother to explain why his logic applies only to gay people and not to any other group that could be discriminated against on the basis of religion.
You’ve heard about the Christian florists forced to close up their business after being forced by the state to pay egregious fines for politely declining to participate in same-sex marriages as a matter of religious conviction.
You’ve heard about the wedding cake bakers who were forced to close up their business after being forced by the state to pay egregious fines for politely declining to participate in same-sex marriages as a matter of religious conviction.
You’ve heard about the photographers who were forced to close up their business after being forced by the state to pay egregious fines for politely declining to participate in same-sex marriages as a matter of religious conviction.
Now meet Robert and Cynthia Gifford, family farmers who have been hit with a $13,000 fine by New York state’s division of human rights for politely declining to host a same-sex marriage as a matter of religious conviction.
These are real-life examples of citizens being deprived of the free exercise of their religious beliefs, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by officials in four different states. It’s becoming a trend. It’s what I call “same-sex marriage tyranny.”
So why isn’t it also “tyranny” to prevent all those business owners from discriminating against an interracial or interreligious marriage? Why isn’t it “tyranny” to prevent them from refusing to hire or rent a room to someone on the basis of their gender? Lots and lots of people also think they should engage in those forms of discrimination “as a matter of religious conviction.” So if your reasoning is applied consistently, the entire Civil Rights Act must be repealed, right? There’s only one consistent answer to that question.
In states that have rewritten their laws to change the definition of marriage from an institution between one man and one woman, or, which have been coerced to do so by federal judicial rulings, the rationale for such decisions has been “tolerance,” “diversity,” “non-discrimination” and other nice-sounding platitudes. But the consequences for these decisions mean just the opposite of “tolerance,” “diversity” and “non-discrimination” for some innocent bystanders – mostly Christians – who seek only to remain true to their religious convictions.
Yep. Just like racist Christians “seek only to remain true to their religious convictions” by refusing to hire or serve black people. Or Muslims. Or Jews. Or women. So we’ve been living under “tyranny” since 1964, right?
There is no inalienable right to force individuals or businesses through government coercion to become active participants in activity that violates their most fundamental religious or moral beliefs.
Okay, so again, the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, right? Right? They never answer this question because they know that they have two choices. They can say yes, the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, and they know that this will destroy their credibility with 90% of the country. Or they can say no and prove that their argument isn’t a serious one, it’s merely a pretext to justify this particular form of discrimination that they want to be able to engage in.