Farah: Same-Sex Marriage is Tyranny!

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 So if your reasoning is applied consistently, the entire Civil Rights Act must be repealed, right?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.

"" I think maybe what you are getting at with your statements about the Koran ..."

Yes, the Bible Does Say to ..."
"A young man I know explained his estrangement from his father by sharing his paternal ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"We’re into the Smart justifications-Maxwell Smart, that is.Would you believe he chased teenage girls because ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"Studying her linguistic patterns, I think Crokin tipped her hand on this one. She said ..."

Crokin: Hillary Clinton Sex Tape Will ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://thebronzeblog.wordpress.com/ Bronze Dog

    I find it ironic that the sort of people who denigrate secularists as having a “culture of permissiveness” seem to think that religious conviction permits people to do anything they want without regard for how it’ll harm other people.

  • hunter

    I think the basic flaw here is the assumption that “religious liberty” includes the right to impose your beliefs on everyone else under any and every circumstance.

    Of course, that’s just the basic flaw.

  • D. C. Sessions

    So we’ve been living under “tyranny” since 19864, right?

    Typo or not, off by a century.

    And, yeah, under the Confederate definition of “tyranny” [1] he’s right.

    [1] Any deviation from the Proper Social Order, no matter how implemented.

  • cptdoom

    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.

    Actually, Ed, I am not sure he really understands the Civil Rights Act. Here is another part of his drivel;

    Suppose a Christian couple planning a marriage went to a Jewish baker and requested a wedding cake decorated with a cross. And suppose the Jewish baker felt uncomfortable with that idea. Should he forced to do so? I don’t think so. Nor can I imagine any Christian couple wanting to use the coercive power of the state to do that. They would simply go to another baker. That would be the logical, non-tyrannical thing to do.

    Here’s another hypothetical scenario: Suppose a Jewish couple chooses a homosexual photographer to take pictures at their wedding. Among the things they require the photographer to do is to take a photo of them before a banner emblazoned with the following scripture verse: Genesis 2:24 – “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Maybe the photographer feels uncomfortable and even spiritually condemned with this requirement. Should he be forced by the state to do it because failing to accept the assignment would be tantamount to violating the Jewish couple’s “sexual orientation” or even their religious convictions? I don’t think so. Nor can I imagine any Jewish couple wanting to use the coercive power of the state to do that. They would simply go to another photographer. That would be the logical, non-tyrannical thing to do.

    IANAL, but I could see either scenario as violating anti-discrimination laws for the businesses involved, and certainly the aggrieved couples would have the option of going to the state and suing, or suing in federal court.

    What’s really ironic is this part of Farah’s column:

    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.

    Actually, changing the marriage laws to include same-sex couples does not automatically mean such couples or individuals are covered by anti-discrimination laws. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the state now has marriage equality, but no anti-discrimination statutes protecting LGBT people. Thus the businesses that have (so far) refused to serve same-sex couples are not going to face any legal or civil tort issues from their actions. Of course, the very fact that such businesses are being criticized on social media for their actions is “discrimination” to people like Farah.

  • Chiroptera

    Suppose a Christian couple planning a marriage went to a Jewish baker and requested a wedding cake decorated with a cross.

    Well, I’m guessing that if the baker isn’t in the habit of putting religious symbols on cakes to begin with, then there is no legal requirement to make the baker do so. I don’t know the law well enough to know what would happen if the baker has some cake-related religious icons but not others.

    And suppose the Jewish baker felt uncomfortable with that idea.

    Eh, I’m sure that most Jewish bakes, like most Christian bakers, have good enough business sense that they’d be more uncomfortable with the idea of not making a sale.

  • Chiroptera

    Also, the problem with Farah’s “go to another shop” is that it’s pretty easy to do that if you are a Christian. If you are a minority, especially one living in a small community, there may not be any shops willing to do business with your kind. Even worse, if a business is willing to cater to a locally despised minority, the backlash (boycotts by the majority, even vandalism) may be far to costly and the business may be forced to discriminate. One thing anti-discrimination laws do is they provide cover for the people who want to do the decent thing.

  • Artor

    Just how politely can someone say, “No fags!” About as politely as they can say “No ni**ers!” or “No Jews!” In other words, not at all.

  • scienceavenger

    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.

    And like the first 999,999,999 times he doesn’t bother to explain how baking a fucking cake, or arranging flowers, qualifies as an “activity that violates their most fundamental religious or moral beliefs”. The way he talks you’d think the florist was expected to deliver the flowers after a naked roll in them with all the wedding guests.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    How about we meet in the middle and have The Gays go to Christian bakers and get cakes made with two cocks on them forming a cross? Then everybody’s happy, right?

  • Pierce R. Butler

    … the one millionth column … Like the first 999,999,999 times, …

    What about the brutal dictatorship of suddenly being flung across three orders of magnitude without any warning? You know who else couldn’t keep their “millions” and “billions” straight?* The conceptual violence of being dragged across nine hundred ninety-nine million unwarranted instances of unpleasantness rams innumerable violations of numeracy down our unsuspecting throats!

    *Actually, those bloody Brits – but don’t get me started…

  • caseloweraz

    Nat Hentoff? ACLU supporter Nat Hentoff writes for the WND? I guess I don’t know Nat Hentoff as well as I thought I did.

    [Googles] Ah — former ACLU supporter.

  • caseloweraz

    Pierce R. Butler: …innumerable violations of numeracy…

    <G>

    (I almost wrote “innumberable violations of numerancy”, which would be numerable violations of spellage.)

  • John Pieret

    Chiroptera @ 5:

    Suppose a Christian couple planning a marriage went to a Jewish baker and requested a wedding cake decorated with a cross.

    Well, I’m guessing that if the baker isn’t in the habit of putting religious symbols on cakes to begin with, then there is no legal requirement to make the baker do so.

    Yes there is. If the baker is in a jurisdiction that has anti-discrimination against refusing business for religious reasons, s/he has to accommodate other peoples’ requests as long as they are possible. If the couple asked for an exact replica of Michelangelo’s Last Supper on the cake (although there are now computer-driven printers that can do such thing in frosting), if the particular baker didn’t have one of those, s/he could refuse the job … but a simple cross? The baker would have to come up with a better excuse than ‘it made me religiously uncomfortable.’

    Nor can I imagine any Christian couple wanting to use the coercive power of the state to do that.

    No, of course not! We only have that asshole, Pastor Michael Williams, wanting to amend the Constitution to make the “practice of homosexuality” a felony “punishable by ten years in prison at hard labor.” Heaven forfend that any Christians might use the power of the state to oppress anyone!

  • dingojack

    Pierce R. Butler – do I detect a little case of ‘billion envy’?*

    :) Dingo

    ———–

    * it’s not the size, it’s what you do with those billions that count.

  • eric

    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.

    AFAIK, the constitution does not stipulate that the government has the “inalienable right” to do anything. ‘Inalienable’ was used to describe what citizens had, not what government had. But if you change that claim to the less hysterical ‘does government have the right to coerce people into participating in acitivies that violate their beliefs,’ then the obvious answer is yes. The system can’t work any other way. From mundane stuff like paying taxes to extreme cases like conscription into war, the government can and has compelled people to act against their beliefs.

  • RickR

    John Pieret @13- “Michelangelo’s Last Supper”

    That was Da Vinci. But your point still stands.

  • https://www.facebook.com/kalli.procopio Kalli Procopio

    I think an important thing to remember is that these businesses violated the non-discrimination laws politely. As long as you are being polite, apparently that makes it OK. As in Please understand that we are not hiring you because…. Or please don’t sit at the front of the bus… Or please use the water fountain for your kind and not mine.

  • Ethan Myerson

    “You’ve heard about the photographers who were forced to close up their business after being forced by the state to pay egregious fines ”

    Don’t you mean “shutter” their business? C’mon, Farah, that’s a gimme.

  • John Pieret

    RickR @ 16:

    I wondered if I had the right great artist but was too lazy to look it up. Thanks for the correction!

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    “… inalienable right to force people…”

    I don’t know about government inalienable rights, but the Constitution does have that interstate commerce clause thingy that seems to grant Congress plenary power to make such rules.

    Constitution sucks, doesn’t it.

    One nice thing about law school (I mean real law schools), no matter the persuasion of the instructor, you do get to understand the document, and the case law interpreting it. Not a bad arrow to have in your quiver.