Thursday, February 27, 2014

Rich Lowrey At NRO: Governor Brewer's Foolish Veto

WAS THIS BILL---JUST VETOED BY BREWER--- EGREGIOUSLY MISREPRESENTED AS ANTI-GAY, WHEN IN FACT IT WASN'T ANYTHING OF THE SORT?  

Was its very wording once championed by Senator Ted Kennedy? Read NRO editor Rich Lowry's compelling piece appearing today at Politico and decide for yourself.  It sounds to me a lot like its narrative was hijacked by the radical gay left which made it all about its agenda when in fact it wasn't at all.

I didn't read anything about this controversial bill until now---preferring to focus on other things.  Lowry's piece opened my  eyes.

Some highlights:

 A religious freedom statute doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to do whatever he wants in the name of religion. It simply allows him to make his case in court that a law or a lawsuit substantially burdens his religion and that there is no compelling governmental interest to justify the burden.

For critics of the Arizona bill, the substance was almost an afterthought. They recoiled at the very idea that someone might have moral objections to homosexuality or gay marriage.
The cases that have come up relevant to the Arizona debate involve small-business people declining to provide their services to gay couples at their marriage ceremonies. A New Mexico photographer won’t take pictures. A Washington state florist won’t arrange flowers. An Oregon bakery won’t bake a wedding cake.

It’s easy to see how offensive these decisions were to the gay couples involved. An entirely understandable response would be for the couple to say, “I’m sorry you’re so narrow-minded and I hope you evolve one day. In the meantime, I’ll take my business elsewhere.”

The market has a ready solution for these couples: There are other bakers, photographers and florists. The wedding business is not exactly bristling with hostility to gay people. If one baker won’t make a cake for gay weddings, the baker across town can hang a shingle welcoming all couples for all types of weddings.

This is how a pluralistic society would handle such disputes. Instead, in the cases mentioned above, the gay couples reported the businesses to the authorities for punishment.

The question isn’t whether businesses run by people opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds should provide their services for gay weddings; it is whether they should be compelled to by government. The critics of the much-maligned Arizona bill pride themselves on their live-and-let-live open-mindedness, but they are highly moralistic in their support of gay marriage, judgmental of those who oppose it and tolerant of only one point of view on the issue — their own.

For them, someone else’s conscience is only a speed bump on the road to progress. It’s get with the program, your religious beliefs be damned.

No comments:

Post a Comment