America, Religion

Secession is the best outcome now

George Neumayr has had enough. He writes at the American Spectator re: the backlash against Indiana’s RFRA:

On Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos repeatedly hectored Mike Pence, Indiana’s governor, with the question: “If a florist in Indiana refuses to serve a gay couple at their wedding, is that legal now in Indiana?” Pence declined to answer the question. But the truth is that it was already legal before this new law passed. And why shouldn’t it be? Pence should have thrown the question back at Stephanopoulos: Do you believe that Indiana should change existing law to force owners of businesses to participate at gay weddings?

Coercing conscientious objectors into supplying a service at a gay wedding is a blatant violation of a historically Christian country’s tradition of religious freedom. Calling that conscientious objection “discrimination” is absurd. Discrimination connotes an act of unquestionable immorality. But there is nothing immoral about declining to serve at a gay wedding. A country not in thrall to gay activism would recognize that as an obvious and reasonable exemption from nondiscrimination laws.

Perhaps holding the view that such an exemption is legitimate, Pence avoided giving an answer to Stephanopoulos’s bullying question. But now under constant pounding from secularists and financial pressure from the business community, Pence is waving the white flag. He implied at a Tuesday press conference that he should have given Stephanopoulos the answer he wanted. He assured reporters that no denial of gay wedding services will be permitted under the new law. He then went back to singing the praises of religious freedom’s vitality. But how vital can religious freedom be if it doesn’t even apply to Christians dragooned into aiding and abetting gay weddings?

That is a far more serious violation of religious freedom than laws interfering with Peyote-smoking or the design of Amish carriages. Liberals can accept a trivialized conception of religious freedom that makes them feel like large-minded benefactors of “religious minorities.” But doctrinal Christians are a different story. They don’t count in the eyes of liberals as a religious minority, even though they increasingly are, and their supposedly eccentric views don’t command any sensitivity whatsoever.

It’s not tolerance when it’s a self-segregating group like Indians or Amish. It’s easy to tolerate someone who doesn’t witness against the falseness that you’ve let define your existence.

The debate is over. They’ve won and they don’t have to hide their contempt or their true intent anymore. As Andrew Walker said over at First Things: “It is impossible to will a world where religious liberty is protected while endorsing a jurisprudence that describes opposition to gay marriage as animus.” At this point, secession is the best outcome. The alternatives are this civil war heating up, dhimmi subjugation by secular authorities, and a Maoist cultural revolution.

And where is the faux-libertarian leader Rand Paul on this? The presidential candidate most closely identified with liberty has yet to come out in defense of private property. This is his opportunity and he’s blowing it. He showed such promise early on in his Senate career. Then he threw in with social liberals to appeal to potheads and sexual hedonists, whose conception of freedom is closer to license. They fail to realize that, even in “freedom,” they are slaves of the ones they obey, to paraphrase Romans 6:16.



6 thoughts on “Secession is the best outcome now

  1. I’ll try to keep my reaction simple and concise. Trade is not a religious activity under current law, and US courts have not (to date) affirmed a First Amendment right to merchants regarding their choice of customers. The only legal weight those “We have the right to refuse service” signs in restaurants have is in cases where the prospective patron isn’t behaving appropriately (bars “cutting off” an inebriate), or isn’t willing to pay. That’s why in each case so far, those merchants have lost on appeal. You can choose an occupation that doesn’t involve commerce, but if you sell to the public, you sell to the whole public.

    Posted by Invisible Mikey | April 1, 2015, 12:41 pm
    • That is interesting, Mikey. By this logic, Angie’s List is breaking the law with their boycott of Indiana. By this logic, we have to do anything a customer asks us to do, because to refuse is illegal “discrimination.”

      Thomas Sowell calls this stage 1 thinking. You’re not thinking through the logical consequences of your positions.

      At any rate, I’m glad we have liberals on record now saying losing proprietorship of your property is in the definition of commerce when their hedonist lord of Sodom is invoked.

      Posted by Joseph Dooley | April 1, 2015, 1:26 pm
      • I’m not exclusively liberal, depending on the issue. Just stating the facts about the history of the legal cases so far. No, merchants don’t have to do “anything” a customer asks. They just can’t refuse service for reasons of moral objection, because commerce isn’t protected as an exercise of conscience.

        I’m a medical imaging tech. Sometimes I’ve performed exams on gang members, real badass criminals, people who I sincerely believe lead an evil lifestyle. I am not allowed the option to refuse treatment, or behave any differently toward them than other patients. I’m paid to serve the public, so it means the entire public.

        Posted by Invisible Mikey | April 1, 2015, 1:56 pm
      • Well Mikey, I’m a writer. And I’ll be damned if I don’t have the right to refuse a commission for any reason. To hear you say in effect moral discernment has no place in vocation gives me the chills. Stalin lives.

        Posted by Joseph Dooley | April 1, 2015, 3:41 pm
    • There’s a difference between selling a pre-made product available for sale to everyone, and requiring a custom made product that the maker finds disgusting, sacrilegious, or just plain old evil.

      No bakery could refuse to sell pre-made cakes and donuts based on the sexual orientation of the customer, but asking the baker to bake penis eclairs with the creme oozing down the shaft is a completely different argument. Even if you say that my example is a straw man because that’s not what gay grooms are demanding from the baker, you should be able to see that for some people, what they’re asking the service provider to do is so morally repugnant that they just won’t do it.

      Finally, the 13th Amendment forbids slaver. End of discussion.

      Posted by Cyclops Jack | April 1, 2015, 5:14 pm
      • The issue goes further, Cyclops Jack. As the proprietor I shouldn’t legally have to put up with nonsense from customers. Breastfeeding mothers, for instance. I don’t want that in the open in my business. Perverse sexuality as well I don’t want to put up with, nor should I have to. If I want to serve families I should be able to create a space for families.

        Look, I get that people are all different, but since when do we have license to be whatever we will and therefore do whatever we will, leaving the public and now property owners no recourse?

        Posted by Joseph Dooley | April 2, 2015, 7:05 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by sword. The other is by debt." -John Adams 1826


Red Pill Report is a labor of love for the many contributors who post here. They share their thoughts and talents with us because, like you, they love this great Country and hope to contribute in some small way to returning America to the principles on which it was founded. How can you help? Please share our articles with friends and family. Share buttons for Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, and Email are found at the bottom of each article. Our writers also love your comments, so please share your thoughts with us, when you can. We appreciate our readers, and would love to have more! Thank you!



%d bloggers like this: