Mediaite has a clip up from CNN re: the Indiana special-rights-for-bigots law and it should open the door for a realistic application of so-called ‘religious freedom’ laws.
The clip features a quote from some business owner [NOTE: Here is a link to the video that Lemon is referring to; apparently the business owner is from Georgia, though the issue is essentially the same] with a feigned, er…, claimed religious belief against doing business with gays – and Don Lemon mentions that the same person had, in the same interview, when asked if he’d refuse to do business with an adulterer, said he would not so refuse because he sees the sins as being different. (And here’s how you know just how psychotic the Indiana mess is: Don Lemon actually said a few things that actually made sense.)
Here’s where the entire methodology utilized by courts in the area of religion needs to be torpedoed.
Currently, there is an insane notion that when someone makes a ‘religious liberty’ claim against the application of a generally applicable law, that person’s beliefs can’t be scrutinized and that the person can’t be subjected to some scrutiny as to whether the person is being grossly selective and/or hypocritical as to how the person is expecting the government to ‘protect’ his or her ‘religious beliefs’ (i.e., demanding to be allowed to exclude gays but not making any effort to exclude people who eat shrimp, or demanding to be allowed to refuse to do business with gays based on the christian bible but having no problem doing business with adulterers despite what the christian bible says about adulterers.)
This must be the new rule of constitutional and statutory analysis regarding any claim of so-called ‘religious liberty’: If you expect the government to act as a sword in your battle to achieve a special right (e.g., dodging the application of a law that applies to all), then that same government not only has the right but also the obligation to probe your claimed religious beliefs for consistency.
You say you don’t want to provide your female employees access to contraception in your healthcare plan based on your ‘religious belief’ that nothing should ever come between a sperm and the possibility of baby-creation and anything that does is eeeeeeeeeeee-vul?
But then you get to go under the microscope. The government that you are, for all practical purposes, asking to be your faith enforcement agency, gets to inquire as to whether you’re picking and choosing which aspects of your religion – the religion that is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo important to you that you need a special legal exemption – you want to supersede the right of your employees under state and federal statutory law to be free from religious discrimination.
You say you personally use condoms?
When last I checked the purpose of latex is to come between sperm and the possibility of baby-creation.
But you say its because you don’t trust that your, in your words, ‘jezebel wife’ isn’t cheating on you and you want to dodge STDs?
Well, lets put that aside for a second and go to the next item: You also don’t trust your daughters to be as chaste as you expect them to be, so you arranged for all of them to have access to birth control, right?
Now you really lose.
See how easy that is?
I’m talking to you, the divorced, Republican alcoholic adulterers who think that divorced, Republican alcoholic adulterers should have a special so-called religious right to discriminate against LGBT people without having the honesty and consistency behind your ‘sincere religious beliefs’ put to the test.
Leave a comment
No comments yet.