‘Sexual Liberty’ and Religious Freedom

Lee Duigon has his usual inane column at BarbWire where he uses some rather odd definitions of terms to create a false dichotomy. The column is titled “How ‘Sexual Liberty’ Devours Real Liberty.” But he seems not to have any idea what either sexual liberty or real liberty is. Witness the opening two paragraphs:

Whenever there is a conflict between “sexual liberty” and religious freedom, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any cases in which religious liberty should win.”

So spoke Chai Feldblum, Georgetown law professor and member of the Obama administration, a commissioner of the EEOC. We understand her to mean that “sexual liberty,” or the freedom to fornicate, must always trump the free exercise of religion.

One has to strain to even imagine a scenario in which the “freedom to fornicate” could possibly be in conflict with the free exercise of religion. How does someone else’s choice of sexual partners affect your religious freedom unless your idea of religious freedom includes the authority to prevent others from having sex in ways that you disapprove of? Of course, that’s exactly what Duigon does mean by freedom of religion. He is a Christian Reconstructionist, which means he thinks the government should put to death gay people, adulterers, fornicators and women who aren’t virgins on their wedding day.

Case in point, and only one of many: the attorney general of the state of Washington has vowed to fine a florist $2,000 a day because she committed the crime of refusing to decorate a homosexual mock marriage event. She, with her little one-shop business, is an enemy of the people. She must be crushed. And just to make sure she gets the message, the ACLU is suing her, too. To stop her from being a bully, I guess.

No, not a case in point. It has nothing at all to do with any “freedom to fornicate.” Gay people already have the freedom to have sex with any other consenting adult they wish (sorry, Christian fascist Duigon, you already lost that battle) and whether they are allowed to get married will not have any effect at all on that right. This is solely about whether a business can discriminate or not. Sex is irrelevant.

The homosexual movement is insatiable and unappeasable. Like a fire, it won’t stop after consuming half the log. It’ll go on and on until either someone puts it out or all its fuel is consumed and there’s nothing left to burn.

Here is what we must expect.

The free exercise of the Christian religion will give way to the forced exercise of the secular humanist religion.

The federal government will force churches to perform same-sex “marriage” exercises. Pastors and priests will be punished if they speak against it.

*yawn* Yep, you just nudge me when that actually happens. Until then, you’re either a moron or a demagogue.

About Ed Brayton

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

  • Kevin Kehres

    Gee, an old vinyl record. Seems to be skipping. Playing the same fragment of the same tune over and over and over again.

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    Until then, you’re either a moron or a demagogue.

    Or both!

  • StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return!

    secular humanist religion.

    Secular.

    Humanist.

    What?

    Those ain’t religions. Either one or combined.

  • dingojack

    Like a fire, it won’t stop after consuming half the log. It’ll go on and on until either someone puts it out or all its fuel is consumed and there’s nothing left to burn.”

    Lucky he’s a ‘columnist’, not a fireman.

    Dingo

  • cry4turtles

    The fastest growing group of people in America are people of no faith. Tick tock tick tock…

  • reddiaperbaby1942

    “The free exercise of the Christian religion will give way to the forced exercise of the secular humanist religion.”

    One can only hope!

    Except that secular humanism isn’t a religion, it’s a worldview.

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

    The homosexual movement is insatiable and unappeasable.

    He’s right. It’s like The Blob, but sparkly.

  • eric

    Like a fire, it won’t stop after consuming half the log.

    I soooo hope that “won’t stop after consuming half the log’ replaces ‘shove it down our throats’ as the right’s go-to accidental porn reference.

  • eric

    [Duigon] The federal government will force churches to perform same-sex “marriage” exercises. Pastors and priests will be punished if they speak against it.

    [Ed] *yawn* Yep, you just nudge me when that actually happens. Until then, you’re either a moron or a demagogue.

    The federal government should and probably eventually will force for-profit buisness “churches” to perform SSMs. I expect that’ll impact things like Vegas casino wedding chapels, but not the local parish that asks for $50 to cover clean-up costs.

    The fairest, freeist, and least endorsing (to either religion or non-religion) method of enforcing the law is: your ideology is irrelevant. If you operate like a business, you must play by business rules. If you operate like a private residence or organization, you don’t.

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

    eric “The federal government should and probably eventually will force for-profit buisness “churches” to perform SSMs. I expect that’ll impact things like Vegas casino wedding chapels, but not the local parish that asks for $50 to cover clean-up costs.”

    If past patterns continue (Catholic churches don’t have to marry Protestants, Christian Identity ones black people, no church has to admit Canadians*, etc), no. Most “Vegas chapels” will rush to do them without force, because the money from doing them will be greater than any loss incurred by conservatives not getting married there. Conservative churches, though have the opposite problem, and won’t do them.

     

    * They know what they did!

  • John Pieret

    The free exercise of the Christian religion will give way to the forced exercise of the secular humanist religion.

    There can be only one!

  • http://florilegia.wordpress.com Ibis3, Let’s burn some bridges

    It’s possible, just possible, that in the far-distant future, a church preaching against homosexuality will be perceived as we currently would a church that practised human sacrifice–i.e. doing something illegal and harmful that ought not to be allowed at all, even under the protection of religious freedom. But how long is that day away when we still have places/situtations where parents can refuse to give their children life-saving medical treatment on the grounds of religious belief? Christianity might not even be the majority religion by the time that happens. It might be some new religion that hasn’t even been invented yet, and those who practise religion at all might be in the minority by then.

    Meanwhile, we’ve had marriage equality for over a decade *and* existing hate propaganda laws and still Christian bigotry is allowed to continue unhindered. They have nothing to worry about.

  • Pingback: What I’m Reading, September 9, 2014 | Cryptic Philosopher()