The One-Way Street of (In)Tolerance
The furor over the legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman has escalated this week with the passage of a constitutional amendment to that effect in North Carolina, even as our President came out in support of states being allowed to define it as such or not, while personally supporting such a change in the historical definition. Huh?
I just have one question: Just when is tolerance and acceptance going to become a two-way street?
One of the primary drivers of resistance to changing the definition of marriage, and therefore offering government endorsement of any variation on marriage a person may prefer, is that under federal civil rights legislation, the rest of us have already become obligated to change our behavior and speech in order to suit the whims of those who reject societal norms. At what point will our freedoms be protected – freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom to live our religion without government interference?
I find it fascinating that when a state passes civil rights protection legislation based on sexual orientation, there must be exemptions put into these laws for churches. Without such exemptions, churches could (and most definitely would) be sued for refusing to perform same-sex marriages or unions. Oh no, already happened, even with those legislature-granted exemptions.
Based on President Obama’s recent pronouncement declaring that religious organizations must provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans, despite the fact that religious exemptions were promised during the passage of the Obama healthcare law (seriously, you believed a politician?), the maxim that what government has the power to give, government certainly has the power to take away could not have been proven more true. Our founders declared that those rights came from God. And no, Barack, they didn’t mean you.
So if a law must have exemptions for churches written into it, doesn’t that tell us that the law itself is probably already overstepping its bounds with regard to our individual freedoms? While “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” probably has to do with the operation of the churches themselves, the part about “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” certainly applies to us as individuals exercising our own rights to apply the principles of our religion in our daily lives as we see fit.
That personal application of religion could include, for some, not being willing to participate in activities or ceremonies that they find offensive or blasphemous. Who could balk at that in this great nation of diversity? Oh, the same people pushing for you to accept and celebrate everything about their lives while at the same time attempting to undermine and disparage anything they don’t agree with or like about yours.
A few cases in point:
EHarmony was sued for not providing gay dating services. According to a settlement, EHarmony will need to “do more to welcome gays and lesbians to its site.” Just makes you feel so good, doesn’t it? An entirely new company was formed under the settlement, just to accomodate gays.
Ever think of starting your own company if the businesses out there aren’t meeting your needs or desires? That’s what many of the rest of us would do, but no, not the open-minded, non-judgmental crowd. According to them, you not only have to accomodate whatever they want, but you ought to be required by law to provide it personally, and on a silver platter, thank you very much. Oh, and by the way, $500,000 was set aside in the settlement for those who were harmed by EHarmony not providing this service prior to the settlement. I’m wondering if I can sue because they weren’t providing services at all before I was married, and I wasted a lot of time dating and getting to know people on my own!
A Methodist church that refused to allow same-sex weddings in its religious buildings (they had offered use of their property, just not buildings where religious meetings were held), lost its case when a lesbian couple sued them and lost their tax exempt status on the building in question. All because this couple wanted use of these privately-owned facilities and it mattered not to them what the owners of the facility wanted. Yeah, it’s all about compromise. (Is legal coercion while one side stomps its feet and throws a fit, then gets its way thanks to nanny-state courts, the same as compromise? If so, then yes, this is compromise.)
A photographer was sued by a lesbian couple whose wedding she didn’t want to shoot. The photographer was found to have violated the Human Rights Act and fined $7,000. One of the women who sued her was actually an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity and a member of the Diversity Committee at the University of New Mexico. Apparently diversity means that you accept me and my feelings while I reject you and yours.
As a Mormon, I wouldn’t really want an anti-Mormon who didn’t have respect for the sanctity of my marriage taking pictures at my wedding; just might affect the quality. Do you think they really wanted this photographer that badly, or they just wanted to “re-educate” her? Hmmm, I could swear I’ve seen this somewhere before . . . maybe somewhere where “freedom” wasn’t much of a priority?
A Christian baker who politely informed a lesbian couple she wouldn’t feel comfortable making their wedding cake is not only facing a boycott and harassment, but could potentially be facing a civil rights suit.
So hey, I’m all for you doing your thing, just wondering when you all are going to come out in support of me doing mine?