Suppression of the Opposition

Do we know what fascism looks like? Because we're seeing it.

We have some educating to do.

You’ve probably seen some of those interviews where a guy with a microphone and a camera goes on a college campus, or on the street, and asks basic questions, and hardly anyone knows the answer. Like this one on free speech. And this one on “How Well Do Americans Know Their Presidents?”

The Berlin Wall fell in 1991, marking essentially the end of the Cold War with its existential threat. Everyone born that year turns 28 this year. Let’s add five years to that and say anyone 33 or younger was born too late to be personally aware of the existence of the Iron Curtain.

I remember the first time I saw the movie Gandhi, in 1982. I was out of college, recently married (we saw it together). And I was stunned that I’d never heard his story before. What was wrong with my history courses? It’s because world history always started way way back in time, and worked its way forward. And the closer to the present day, the more likely the school year would end before we got to the material. We were lucky to get as far as World War II.

I was interested in history, and good at remembering things, but I knew nothing about some major world events. So I had to educate myself as an adult. (Homeschooling helped.) But for students who aren’t interested, and also happen to have schools fail to provide the material, are in a state of ignorance we shouldn’t be surprised at.

So, for the sake of education, today we’ll cover some -isms.

According to my favorite nearly 40-year-old dictionary, totalitarian has two definitions:

1.    Designating, of, or characteristic of a government or state in which one political party or group maintains complete control under a dictatorship and bans all others.

2.    Completely authoritarian, autocratic, dictatorial, etc.

As a noun, it’s a person who favors such a government or state. And totalitarianism is the noun form, or name for such a government.

In the same dictionary, fascism has three definitions:

1.    The doctrines, methods, or movement of the Fascisti [elsewhere defined as an Italian political organization under Mussolini from 1922-1943].

2.    A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc.; first instituted in Italy in 1922.

3.    A political movement based on such policies, or fascist behavior. See also Nazi.

To be thorough, the definition of Nazi is “designating, of, or characteristic of the German fascist political party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), founded in 1919 and abolished in 1945; under Hitler it seized control of Germany in 1933, systematically eliminated opposition, and put into effect its program of nationalism, racism, rearmament, aggression, etc.” A Nazi can also be a support of this or any similar party; fascist.

Will Witt (right), screenshot from here

One of those on-the-street videos by Will Witt’s asks the question, “What does holocaust mean?” And a surprising number didn’t have a clue. There are holocaust museums (a very good one here in Houston, another in Washington, DC). It’s a word synonymous with genocide. And even though more individuals were killed under Soviet communism and other socialist regimes, we as a world are pretty aware of the six million Jews killed in fascist Germany’s holocaust during WWII.

The world has said “Never again!” But if young people don’t know what this is, then they’re susceptible to the same forces that allowed it to happen before.

I’d like to focus on the behaviors of totalitarianism, and its synonym fascism, rather than on the “government” aspect of the definition, which is certainly related—but we know that politics is downstream from culture.

So I’d like to look at the “forcible suppression of opposition,” which leads to “authoritarian, autocratic, dictatorial”—essentially tyrannical governments.

A person who is in favor of—or actively pursues—forcible suppression of opposition is fascist.

A person who seeks to control the behavioral freedoms, the economic freedoms, and even the social thoughts of others, to stamp out opposing viewpoints it totalitarian. Such people, in power, seek to destroy opposition, doing away with a second party, or even a second choice. Elections in such regimes are a joke: “Do you vote for the supreme leader? Yes or No? Only Yes votes are counted.”

It’s possible that people who have grown up in a milieu of freedom might not realize what their forcible suppression of opposition inevitably leads to. So maybe we’ll hold off calling them totalitarian until they have some statist power. But they are nevertheless fascist.

It’s time for some examples, in no particular order (unless I go back and edit).

Strange Planet

Strange Planet birthday

There’s a four-panel cartoon, called Strange Planet, of aliens doing normal human things and describing them in absolutely literal ways, which turns out to be pretty hilarious. These have been showing up on my Facebook feed often, and I enjoy them a lot. Many young people have been enjoying them, but, as they say, #canceled. The online magazine Nylon, which I had never heard of, let out the news that, Nathan Pyle, the writer of this funny and non-controversial comic, is pro-life—and therefore no one should ever share or even look at his funny comics again! 

For those of us conservatives who have tolerated Hollywood for all these decades of ridicule, we think never enjoying a comic strip again because the creator has gone so far as to support his girlfriend for attending a pro-life rally (but hasn’t publicly ever even talked about pro-life issues) is narcissistically intolerant. And any person who not only boycotts based on such a small disagreement but insists on spreading the word so that all others within their influence will also boycott—that is fascist.

Chick-fil-A

As I mentioned recently, the San Antonio city council refused to allow Chick-fil-A to have a concession in the airport, supposedly because of the bigoted homophobic beliefs of the company owners. Added to that, Buffalo, NY,airport was about to get a Chick-fil-A, but after complaints from a city councilman, reversed their permission.   

Have those owners, or the company, spoken out against homosexuals or refused to serve them delicious chicken sandwiches and amazing lemonade? No. They are avowed Christians—like 70% of the US population—and therefore one can extract from this information that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman (as has been the belief of all humanity for all the millennia of history up until about five minutes ago). And therefore they should not be allowed to do business? That’s fascist.

Attacks on Chick-fil-A have been going on for quite a while. Fortunately they produce a very good product at a better-than-practically-anyone efficiency, and non-fascists tend to appreciate that and support them even more.

Oculus

Blake J. Harris, author of History of the Future: Oculus, Facebook, and the Revolution That Swept Virtual Reality, was on Glenn Beck radio recently. He told the story of Palmer Luckey, the teenager who started a virtual reality company, which was acquired by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. It looked like things were going great for the young man when word got out somehow, shortly before the 2016 election, that he was a Trump supporter. Zuckerberg stepped in personally and insisted that Luckey sign a declaration that he was not a Trump supporter, but was instead voting for the Libertarian candidate, which was not true. Despite giving in and signing, he was then put on leave for six weeks—with people being told he had asked for this personal time. Then he learned, during a conference call at the end of that imposed vacation, that he had asked for another six weeks off—which of course he hadn’t even considered. Shortly after that he was let go, severed from his creation. Because he liked Trump’s free-market ideas.

Author, Harris, was a fan of Facebook and Zuckerberg going in, which is probably why he had such great access to all the players, and watched what happened first hand. The book is about more than the maltreatment of Luckey; it’s about the rise of virtual reality. But that episode is part of the tech world. And it’s definitely fascistic.

I’m a Facebook user, although rarely political online. But most weeks I have political friends who announce that they’re back on after being put in Facebook jail for a day or a week, or have had materials deleted. As far as I can verify, none of these has been for profanity, lewd conduct or language, inciting violence, or anything you might want Facebook to protect you from; they have been for political content that Facebook deems unacceptable.

Meanwhile, Facebook friends who have Zuckerberg’s political leanings spew uncalculable amounts of lying trash (my words, but I think this is a somewhat expert opinion) without so much as a warning.

“Forcible suppression of opposition” is what’s going on. That’s the definition of fascist.

Human Rights Tribunal in Canada

This headline is from Vancouver, British Columbia: “Court orders Christian to pay $55,000 to trans politician for calling him ‘biological male.’” 

The Human Rights Tribunal ruled that it’s unlawful discrimination not to accept transgender people as the gender they claim to be. Also, “there’s no room for any public debate in the matter.”

Bill Whatcott had dispersed flyers that referred to NDP candidate Ronan “Morgane” Oger as a biological male. His defense, which was not allowed to be presented, was proof of Oger’s biology, but the judge ruled “the ‘truth’ of the statements in the flyer is not a defense.”

The flyer compared Oger to another man, Walt Heyer, who had gender dysphoria, had undergone hormone and surgical transformation to “become” a woman, but eventually realized that was a lie and transitioned back, now again identifying as a man. Making this comparison cost Whatcott $35,000 for injury to the “dignity, feelings and self-respect” of the man presenting himself as a woman, and also $20,000 for alleged improper conduct (not sure from the story what this entailed).

Truth is not a defense? There is no room for public debate? I’d call that forcible suppression of opposition: fascism.

Artificial Intelligence Ethics Council

Here’s another from this week: “Google Cancels AI Ethics Council after Employees Demand Removal of Conservative Heritage President Kay Coles James.” It’s worth noting that, in the group identity politics of the opposition, James checks a lot of boxes; she’s a black woman of a certain age. But being conservative—which is about beliefs and ideas rather than surface details—is unacceptable at Google. She opposes transgender activism—not people with gender dysphoria, but the imposition of the transgender agenda on society. That means the controllers of the largest and most used search engine, controlling our access to information, is about the forcible suppression of opposition; Google is fascist. 

Yale Law School Blacklists Christian Firms

Yale Law School has decided not to do business with any Christian law firms. Also, Senator Ted Cruz has announced an investigation into discrimination at the Yale Law School, which receives federal funding and is therefore prohibited from this sort of discrimination. According to Cruz, “Public news reports indicate that Yale Law School has recently adopted a transparently discriminatory policy: namely, that Yale will no longer provide any stipends or loan repayments for students serving in organizations professing traditional Christian views or adhering to traditional sexual ethics."

Not long ago, there was loud protest about VP Pence’s wife getting a part-time art teacher position at a Christian school, purportedly because this school went out of its way to exclude gays or transgenders. In actuality, the school simply asked for an affirmation of belief in the millennia-old definition of marriage and that sex should only be between married husband and wife. That was considered radically offensive?

If all Christians are to be ousted from the public square, and refused employment, or education, or any of the normal opportunities of society, that leaves far above half the population in unemployed status, dependent on government, meaning the non-Christian (or possibly non-religious) remainder would be required to support those they have disenfranchised. You can see why the labeling of such outcasts as subhuman for the sake of taking their lives with impunity has been the path taken by fascist dictators historically.

The stories of fascist suppression of the opposition are ubiquitous. And they are one-sided. Let’s look at the Spherical Model to see why.

Freedom of people, markets, and ideas is a northern hemisphere (on the model) characteristic. Control of people, markets, and ideas is a southern hemisphere (on the model) characteristic. You don’t find people who strive for freedom, prosperity, and civilization—the northern hemisphere—trying to suppress ideas, because you can’t be northern hemisphere and do that. So all the suppression is done by those who favor control over others, or tyranny.

If you think you have an example of conservative suppression of discourse, you’re wrong. Freedom of speech is an element of the north. If a religious person is suppressing truth—or the legitimate expression of what one thinks is truth—that so-called religious person is acting in a controlling manner, using coercion rather than persuasion. It’s not possible to conserve civilization with coercion. They are incompatible.

So you’re not seeing any religion stuffed down anyone’s throats unless it’s done by people trying to wield power over others. Tyrants. Or fascists. By the way, secularism is a religion, and it is being stuffed down the throats of non-secularists by fascists.

Let’s be clear about definitions, so we can identify exactly why fascist suppression of opposition is so wrong. Then we can see clearly why we need to stand up against it. Now, on our watch.

Thought Crime Press

I have a list of questions:

·         When five of nine judges make a societal change, are all Americans required to change their beliefs to align with that slim majority?

·         If individuals don’t immediately realign, should they be shunned, publicly shamed, forced out of their livelihood, and protested? Should this happen based on assumptions about someone’s beliefs, rather than on what they have done?

·         If one judge swings the majority opinion to something at odds with entire religions, such as Catholics, most Protestants, Latter-day Saints, and Muslims, should all of those adherent be required to denounce their religions or face the loss of their rights to participate in the marketplace and society?

·         If everyone is to change their opinions to align with that slim majority, does that include the four dissenting judges? Should the dissenters be forced to change their opinions or else risk being drummed out of their positions?

·         If even judges are to be forced to change their opinions whenever they are in the minority, does that need to happen even when a ruling goes against the side you’re now supporting?

·         Does that mean that you must change your beliefs whenever a slim majority of the Court goes against you? Should you be subject to coercive efforts such as shunning, public shaming, being protested, and forced out of your livelihood?

I’m asking the questions to carry a thought to its logical conclusion. Because people who police other people’s thoughts and attack them for disagreement tend not to be people who think things all the way through.

I’m hoping that we’ve reached the end of that pendulum swing (the disallowing dissent from current popular beliefs, particularly those in progressive/social-justice-y minds) and moving back to actual tolerance and respectful disagreement and dialogue.

This past week there was the attempt at public shaming of Chip and Joanna Gaines, hosts of HGTV’s Fixer Upper. I’m a fan. I’ve binge watched the seasons available on Netflix, and I’m glad a new season is underway. We’ll be within an hour of their store in Waco during the holidays, and we’re trying to work out a visit.

Chip and Joanna Gaines of HGTV's Fixer Upper
Photo from HGTV on Twitter, also found here

One of the things I love about the show is their happy family. They show the kids, at home around their farm. And they show how the family works around the parents’ busy schedules to make sure there is time for kids. There’s a little bit of family in every show.

They’re Christian. They’ve been very open about their faith in multiple interviews. Joanna has talked about how God led her, first to close down the store she loved to spend time with her small kids. And then, when it was time, step out and build something even better. Their growing business isn’t just about hard work, skill, and Joanna’s exceptionally good taste; it’s about using their talents to serve others and glorify God.

The attack in the press, BuzzFeed, was underhanded, and couldn’t even qualify as journalism. They spread the story that Chip and Joanna attend a church where the pastor is against “same-sex marriage.” There was no interview of the pastor; there was nothing in his behavior to show that he has attacked homosexuals or even been unkind to them. There was only assumption and inference. And, by association it was implied that the Gaineses ought to have publicly denounced their own pastor. And, failing that, maybe their show ought to be boycotted.

But, instead of some of the torches and pitchforks we’ve seen surrounding this issue, even people who support “same-sex marriage” were saying, that’s not only bad journalism, it’s just the wrong thing to do.

In a Heritage Foundation panel discussion, “Decision 2016: What’s Next for Conservatives?” Ben Domenech of The Federalist talked about this in a way that made me hopeful:

I don’t think we should underestimate how significant an issue the fact was in this election, that we had an election after the progressive left in America had announced an end to the culture wars. They were confident that the culture wars were over, “and we won. And we’re going to go around the battlefield shooting the wounded. And we’re going to continue to do that in a very public way. And we’re going to single out American individuals, private citizens, who simply have what is, from our perspective, the wrong views. The wrong views about God. The wrong views about family. The wrong views about the way that we live.”

I think it is very interesting what happened over this past week with the targeting of the HGTV hosts Chip and Joanna Gaines, merely for the fact that they went to a church where the pastor was a Christian and believed Christian things that one would expect to see if you went to a church in Texas and heard Christians talking about Christianity. And the fact that there were a number of members of the media, the left media included, who stood up and said, “This is unfair. You shouldn’t do this. You shouldn’t target people this way.”

I think that we are in an entirely new space culturally, about where there are a number of people on the left who recognize, “Hey, there are a lot of Americans who don’t agree with us about things, and maybe we should acknowledge that those views are acceptable to have within the public square. Maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to embark on this type of targeting.”

I think, under this administration, you are going to see an amazing thing happen, which is that the left is suddenly going to rediscover that they like civil liberty, that maybe federalism is a pretty good idea. Maybe not the entire country needs to be governed by the same rules or expectations whereby a centralized government in Washington… I think you’re going to see them rediscover the fact that, hey, local things are good—and not just food. And that’s something that I think is going to be a very beneficial trend. And it’s one that conservatives, that people who believe in the Constitution, should be prepared to seize a hold of. Because, if the outcome of that is to devolve power back to our citizens, to our communities, to our neighborhoods, to our states, that’s something that we’re all going to benefit from.

Chip and Joanna Gaines said nothing during the week of attacks on them. Then Chip finally tweeted this:

Chip Gaines

✔@chippergaines

Regardless of our decision to make a statement about all this craziness, or not, I ask that people please! respect @KateAurthur & @ginamei

3:15 AM - 3 Dec 2016

He asks for respect. That is all. After taking the attacks without so much as a single defensive grumble, he appeals to common decency. In other words, he has responded as a good Christian.

Maybe there’s something in Christian beliefs that build people like this, or at least people who strive to be like this as much as we have learned so far.

I don’t know the anything more about Kate Aurthur, who wrote the non-news piece with the insinuating headline. I’m not inclined to shun, shame, and protest until she is fired and blacklisted. But I’d like to point out the irony of her claim—after what she just did to Chip and Joanna—that Christians are immoral. And I suggest she open up a Bible and look up Matthew 7:4 or Luke 6:42 and read about motes and beams in the eye.

The Free Exercise of Religion Clause

One of my most popular posts (in fact, the second most viewed) is my 200^th post, in January 2012. It was a little grammar lesson about the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment. It's short, so I'm about to re-post some of it:

First, let’s do a little grammar practice. This is what the 1^st Amendment to the

Constitution says concerning religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

There are two parts. So how would it read if we clarified by making each part its own sentence?

·         Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

·         Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

It’s not really that difficult, grammatically. The second has been violated many times because of some twisted misunderstandings about the first. What would it mean for Congress to establish a religion? It would mean that they would make one particular religion (sect) the preferred religion—they would “establish” that religion as “the” official religion of the nation. Adherents to that particular faith would have preferred status under the law. Our founders didn’t prevent particular states from establishing their own state religion, and in the beginning several did indeed have state religions. But the Constitution prevented that from ever being done at the federal level. (And states figured out on their own it wasn’t a good idea at their level either.)

There is nothing about getting all religious expression out of public life. In fact, getting religious expression out of public life would indeed violate the second part; it would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

So what about non-believers, or different believers? They get to tolerate differences in religious beliefs, just like the rest of us.

I wrote that the week the Supreme Court voted unanimously to sustain a parochial school’s right to terminate an employee who refused to sustain their religious beliefs. Usually the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religious freedom. More Obamacare mandate cases are coming up this spring.

In the past, religious freedom won on religious exemption for churches, and religious exemption for religion-affiliated non-profits, such as Catholic schools. The First Amendment also prevailed on exemption for closely held corporations, such as Hobby Lobby. Still to come are rulings on Little Sisters of the Poor, an independent non-profit serving the elderly poor, clearly formed and run by religious people—but the administration refuses to give them an exemption as a religious entity. We also don’t have any exemption in sight for larger corporations that were formed based on religious people and are run by board with those religious principles in mind.

The federal government has no business forcing anyone to purchase any service. But aside from that, forcing someone to make a purchase that goes against their religious beliefs is clearly in violation of the first amendment protection of religious freedom.

Let’s be clear: the Constitution does not grant religious freedom. God gave us religious freedom. The First Amendment is a declaration to make it crystal clear that the limited powers granted to the federal government do not include any power to prohibit the free exercise of religion. We would still have those freedoms, even without the Bill of Rights. Those first ten amendments were put there just in case there came a time when the people no longer understood what was self-evident to the founders.

We are living in such a time.

I’ve written a few times on business people who are being forced to perform services against their religious beliefs, most often regarding same-sex “marriage,” a movement becoming more and more coercive against religious people. We’re on a knife-edge, waiting for SCOTUS to rule on same-sex “marriage” this term. Oral arguments will be heard April 28^th. They’ve allotted more than the usual hour, planning to determine two issues: Are states required to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples? (It’s often erroneously worded as, “Are states allowed to ban same-sex couples from marrying?”) And also, are states required to recognize same-sex “marriages” of couples “married” in states where such “marriages” are legal?

In Texas there’s a bill in the legislature, HB 623, making it clear that officials cannot grant same-sex “marriage” licenses against Texas constitution and law. (Breitbart had a piece on the bill when it was filed.) Lest you think there will be confusion, we already don’t recognize illegal marriages; for example, in some Middle Eastern countries, polygamy is legal; if such people move to the US, only one wife is recognized as legal. In addition, within the US, some states recognize common law marriages, but not all states are required to recognize such marriages. So there’s already precedent for handling marriage law differences. It’s a state’s rights issue, regardless of what SCOTUS rules. But we can still pray that the rulings go the right direction, to minimize the momentum of the hate-religion groups, chief among which are LGBT activists.



Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone
AP photo found at Wall Street Journal

Another religious persecution case came to my attention this week. Catholic schools in San Francisco. As you would expect, teachers in Catholic schools are supposed to uphold the doctrines of the religion. That includes “denouncing masturbation, pornography, same-sex marriage, contraception and other issues that, in line with Catholic teaching, are described as ‘gravely evil.’” Seems totally unsurprising, if you know anything about Catholic doctrine. But some California senators and assemblymen took issue with the statement of belief, and are asking for a discrimination investigation of the archdiocese. Ryan Anderson wrote about this, and a list of other attacks on religious institutions. He included these:

·        Gordon College, a religious school, with a conduct standard (I believe for students and employees) of chastity—no sex outside of marriage—is being investigated for discrimination based on that behavior standard.

·        Notre Dame and Wheaton College being forced to provide contraceptives according to the HHS mandate.

·        Washington, DC’s private schools, including religious schools whose beliefs would be violated, to be required to recognize LGBT clubs and host “gay pride” events on campus.

I went to a large religious-affiliated university. I can't imagine any of these coercions being submitted to there. But the need for defiance may be simply a lawsuit away. I don't know.

What is clear, if you read the First Amendment with any basic understanding, is that the federal government is making laws (or making up meanings of laws) prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

This Is Not Tolerance

This past week I came upon yet another story of a private business being attacked by the “gay mafia.” And this time it was kind of personal. (This case was also mentioned last year here.)

Arlene's Flowers, in Richland, WA
photo from Alliance Defending Freedom

The business being attacked this time is Arlene’s Flowers, in Richland, Washington. The name and photo of the shop look familiar to me. We spent most of a decade living in that corner of Washington. Daughter Social Sphere was born in the hospital in Richland. We didn’t have a lot of events that called for flowers back then, but chances are if Mr. Spherical Model brought me flowers when our daughter was born, they came from Arlene’s Flowers.

Owner of Arlene’s is 70-year-old Barronelle Stutzman, who has been making a living as a florist for 40 years. She has served everyone, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. But she’s a Christian, and in 2013 when a longtime customer asked her to do the flowers for his same-sex wedding, she declined. It was the event, not the client, that she declined, because, to her, marriage is sacred and something that can’t be mutated to mean same-sex.

Stutzman must have been rude enough to really anger the client, right? No. “I put my hand on his and said, ‘I’m sorry Rob, I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ…. We talked a little bit, we talked about his mom [walking him down the aisle]…we hugged and he left.”

But the result of her friendly, gentle refusal was to suffer a discrimination lawsuit. More than one. First, the Washington State attorney general filed suit, requiring a $2,000 fine in addition to an order that the service be rendered. Then the couple filed another suit through the ACLU. Last week a Washington State judge ruled against Stutzman. The result is worse than just putting her out of business.

She said, “They want my home, they want my business, they want my personal finances as an example for other people to be quiet.”

An ACLU lawyer said, “Religious freedom is a fundamental part of America. But religious beliefs do not give any of us a right to ignore the law or to harm others because of who they are. When gay people go to a business, they should be treated like anyone else and not be discriminated against.”

So, religious freedom is OK and tolerated—unless it isn’t. Because…law.

So, a moment of history about marriage law in Washington. In 1997, following a threat to the definition after Hawaii had challenges to marriage there, the legislature wrote legislation defending the long-standing definition requiring one man and one woman. It passed  63 to 35 in the House and 27 to 19 in the Senate, but Governor Gary Locke vetoed it. He said it was divisive and unnecessary, since the law was already clear on the definition. And he added, "Our overarching principle should be to promote civility, mutual respect and unity. This legislation fails to meet this test." Please remember that. Veto override vote failed 26-20, when seven Democrats who had voted in favor of the law changed their votes to support the governor.

In 1998 the legislature attempted similar legislation, a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The governor vetoed this one as well, saying, "Our laws right now prohibit same-gender marriages, and I oppose this legislation because it is trying to make illegal something that is already illegal." The veto was quickly and soundly overridden. Yes, the definition of marriage was settled, but the people wanted it protected.

Over the following decade same-sex “marriage” advocates could not get traction, because public opinion in the state continued to support the existing definition of marriage. So they pushed instead for domestic partnership status, through initiative in 2007, withdrawn for lack of signatures to get it on the November ballot. But in the meantime they did establish domestic partnerships through the legislature in April 2007.

Then in 2012 the legislature voted to enact same-sex “marriage” on close votes. After a delay to let the people decide by referendum, the voters approved the law 54%-46% (I believe that’s the first state to choose same-sex “marriage,” rather than have courts or legislators force it on them against their will). It went into effect in December 2012.

Three months later Robert Ingersoll walked into Arlene’s Flowers and ruined Barronelle Stutzman’s life. It was a no win for her.

I think a businessperson should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. But that’s an argument for another day.

She didn’t refuse service to anyone; she refused to perform a particular service for a particular event. She did no damage to the customer; he could go elsewhere. He knew she hadn’t ever discriminated against him because of his sexual orientation. But, instead of going and finding a willing florist, he decided she should have her business taken, her livelihood and savings siphoned off in fines and court costs, and threaten everything she had, which at her age she could never recover from. Because she said she wouldn’t do a particular kind of event—that had been against the law for the entire history of the state until three months earlier and was only made law by a close margin.

Somehow that takes precedent over anyone’s personal religious beliefs, even though religious protection is guaranteed in the First Amendment because it is God-given and inalienable.

Alliance Defending Freedom has stepped in, to help her appeal. But even an eventual win will leave her years older, herd business closed, her savings gone.

What Stutzman did was tolerant. What Ingersoll did was beyond intolerant; it smacks of mafia.

Eventually, if the Supreme Court reads the Constitution and grows a spine, we can hope cases like this will be reversed. That will be good news for all people who engage in commerce while living religious lives. But the businesses already attacked will probably never recover.

Because of the threat of these anti-discrimination lawsuits, a religious person doing business today risks losing everything as soon as a protected-class customer walks through their door.

There’s no safety for religious businesspeople, but there are some rather painful alternatives:

1.      Incorporate, rather than have a sole proprietorship, to limit the assets that can be accessed in a lawsuit. The business, then, is sued for discrimination. You’ll need to have the business go bankrupt right away, but at least your personal assets can’t be seized.

2.      Limit your business in a way that will prevent the dilemma. This would look something like “we never do wedding arrangements,” which is pretty limiting but avoids the attack. This would be true for cake decorators and photographers as well. But, it might be hard to keep the business going if you have to turn away work for the 99.99% of customers who might your skills for a regular wedding.

3.      Take the job, and then purposely do a very poor job. Your reputation may be at risk. You may have to return any money you were paid. You may even be out the cost of resources and time. But you can’t be sued for refusing service to a protected-class person, and you haven’t used your skills and abilities in honor of something that offends your religious heart.

The thing that has bothered me so much about these cases is the expectation that a person must do work that some judge says they must. If you must do work that you haven’t contracted to do, that is coercion.

Another word for it is slavery. But there’s a difference between this and the slavery we saw in the South prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. Back then, the slaves could be forced to work. But they could not be forced to create beauty. Mostly slaves wouldn’t be trained to do artistic work. They could be asked to work in a garden, but they wouldn’t be expected to design the garden. They might be an excellent cook, but they wouldn’t be expected to be a haute cuisine chef.

But today’s “gay mafia,” along with the judges that are their tools, are trying to enslave people who should have the expectation of freedom (they are their own bosses in their own artistic businesses) to do things that not even “legally owned” slaves could have been forced to do.

When you’re taking the life, livelihood, home and savings of a 70-year-old woman who has always served you sweetly and cheerfully, you really need to re-think who is the intolerant one.

I’ve written enough for a day. I thought I’d have a portion to devote to the singe same-sex “marriage” that happened in Texas last Thursday. So, just to re-cap, the federal judge who required it had no power of mandamus; he had no authority to require a state judge to do what he asked. The state judge who allowed the license to be granted did so unlawfully. The Jewish rabbi who “married” the two lesbian women was not abiding by any Jewish religion that I’ve ever encountered (but I’m sure I’m not familiar with ever version of Jewish belief). The case is not in any way precedent setting, and the state attorney general has already made clear to all the state’s judges that such licenses cannot be granted in Texas at this time, while cases are pending in the 5^th Circuit and there is a stay. The attorney general has the right to challenge the legality of the “marriage,” since the granting of the license did not abide by Texas law. So, except that two people started calling themselves “married,” nothing has changed in Texas.

I’ve written recently on the same-sex “marriage” issue here and here. I wrote about religious freedom here. The two topics are closely tied.

 

Courts and Public Opinions

The Supreme Court reversed its October decision, wherein it decided not to rule on states’ being required by circuit court judges to change their definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Maybe you saw what I did there; I did not say states were being told it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriages—for several reasons: 1) the Constitution is silent on that issue, which leaves it to the states; 2) keeping the definition as it has been in most cultures during all the millennia of human history is not a ban, which would require taking something existing away; and 3) people need to be aware that a change in definition of terms for a particular contract is what’s going on, such that marriage would no longer include permanence, exclusivity, and the sexual act required for procreation, but would simply “honor” anyone in any sort of sexual relationship at the current time, regardless of society’s interest in such a relationship.

Anyway, the SCOTUS changed because there is now a split among circuit court rulings, which gave them impetus to rule sooner rather than later. We can expect a decision by late June.

I never like putting matters of basic right and wrong ordained by God into the hands of a few judges (mainly appointed for their leanings). But we can pray that a good decision on their part might be helpful. As president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, said, “Lower court judges have robbed millions of people of their voice and vote on society’s most fundamental relationship—marriage.  There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the courts to silence the people and impose a nationwide redefinition of marriage.”

So, this decision for SCOTUS to get involved happened Friday, January 16^th. The previous Friday, January 7^th, the 5^th Circuit Court heard oral arguments on the cases before it, relating to Texas. An interesting group of amicus briefs was presented—against same-sex “marriage,” from adults who had been raised by same-sex parents. Their complaints ranged from sexual confusion, to fear of disagreeing with the same-sex “marriage” promoters (risking ostracism from family relationships), to subjugation to sexual predation—apparently unprotected by the parents, and possibly even enabled by those parents.

I find some of what these people suffered to be horrifying. Their testimonies are anecdotal. However, they represent much larger numbers who have feared to come forward. Going against the culture they were raised in puts at risk the relationships they have reason to value.

The prescribed claim being made about “same-sex families” is that children raised by same-sex couples differ in no particular way from those raised by heterosexual couples. It might look like a pleasant claim, but it’s unsupportable. Studies have generally compared such children to children raised by heterosexual unmarried parents—which have significantly poorer outcomes than children raised by their married mother and father. More evidence is coming out that, not only are these children not better off than other children lacking a mother or father; these children also have the addition of sexual confusion and other sexual-related problems (overly sexual at a young age, inappropriate sexual relationships with much older adults, promiscuity, prostitution).

If the question is what is best for the children, there is nothing about same-sex parenting that satisfies society’s interest.

I listened to a good part of the oral arguments [here]. The plaintiffs’ claim that there is a Constitutional right to same-sex “marriage” fails to identify what marriage itself means. Their claim is that a minority group cannot be discriminated against by denying them marriage. This argument fails, because marriage laws do not prevent any homosexual person from getting married to a person of the opposite sex. Many homosexuals do that very thing; it’s the main way children come to exist for homosexual parents (adoption and in-vitro fertilization from a non-parent sperm donor being the other ways, because obviously a homosexual couple cannot produce offspring together).

So the argument further claims that there is a fundamental right to marry the person of your choice. But that simply isn’t so—and the different limitations are determined by the states. No state allows persons to marry someone already married, or someone under the age of consent without the consent of a parent (and then within a limited age range), and each state determines the level of consanguinity allowed (i.e., no states allow brother/sister marriage, and most disallow first cousins from marrying, maybe even second cousins). While the plaintiff’s law team made a show of reason and case law, their argument boils down to, “You have to call homosexual relationships equivalent to heterosexual marriage, because they want that, and you’re just being mean.” It’s emotional, not logical.

Some of the questioning of the defense dealt with various past cases and what each had contributed. Mostly they dealt with the question of whether and how marriage had been defined. A case concerning whether inmates could marry didn’t determine, for example, whether there was an inviolable right to marry, but related somewhat to whether a marriage could take place if there was no chance that the couple could consummate the marriage. Which really leads to a germane question that gets danced around: is it marriage if the couple does not intend to—and indeed cannot—consummate the marriage with the act that marriage is concerned with? You know the one—the particular kind of sex that can lead to procreation.

Some of the questions related to cases in which there is infertility or age impediments to procreation. But those are old, and answered; the law assumes that a man and wife with the appropriate genetics have the theoretical possibility of being fertile, and so the law does not interfere on that basis. However, failure to participate in the procreative sex act has been grounds for annulment or divorce pretty much universally; it’s a breach of the marriage contract.

What should be asked of same sex couples is, do you intend to behave as a married couple? i.e., engage in the required type of procreative act? And is it possible for you to do so with one another? If it isn’t possible, genetically, then what they are asking us all to do is pretend something is marriage that is not marriage. Our agreeing with them and proclaiming it so will not make it marriage; that will only disregard the underlying purpose of marriage.

Marriage may be much more than simply the sex act, but it must be at least that. Love is not required, but that particular behavior is. So to suddenly come up with a definition of “marriage” that excludes one of those basic essential details of what marriage means seems imprudent at best—and a hundred years hence will look foolhardy. There will not be (cannot be) progeny from same-sex couples, so the progeny of that generation will ask, “What were they thinking?”

Elder Dallin H. Oaks
photo from MormonNewsroom.org

In the wake of these marriage issues, there was a news conference this Tuesday, a relatively rare thing for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, asking for protections for freedom of religion. The whole twenty are worth hearing in context, but I’ll try to summarize the three parts. Sister Neill Marriott represented Church Public Affairs, and talked about respecting each other’s views and working together to understand one another. Elder Dallin Oaks, who has been a state supreme court judge, talked mainly about issues related to same-sex marriage—and the persecution that has come upon those who stand for traditional marriage. He pointed out that a people should be granted basic rights, and he enumerated things like being able to find employment and housing. But he also asserted the right for individuals to disagree on belief issues, and we should respect rather than stifle the freedom to believe differently. He was followed by Elder Jeffrey Holland, who spent much of his time concerning the larger questions of religious freedom, such as being able to choose whom to hire or what services to perform as a business, without coercion by government or pressure groups.

I thought they all three sounded reasonable and kind—extremely kind. There was no hate speech there. Nor was there any new doctrine or shift in policy. There was simply a declaration that the doctrine is what it is, and while we can respect that many people don’t believe the same way, we request, and firmly insist, that we have the right to our beliefs as well. We have been kind and respectful, and we ask for that in response.

Whatever the Courts decide, God will still have His will, and it’s up to us, in our personal ways, to go about aligning ourselves with that. Let’s pray that the Courts don’t make things harder for any earnest believers.

Houston's Intolerance Problem Is the Mayor

Houston; we have a problem. It’s the mayor, Annise Parker. She’s notable for being the first openly homosexual mayor of a major US city. The thing is, she ran, a known democrat for the nonpartisan position, as a sensible businessperson ready to rein in overspending and implement common-sense policies. She claimed to be able to clean up a number of money mismanagement areas left over from Mayor Bill White—also a democrat who had run as a businessman who cared about money management rather than liberal ideology, but who then went on to mess up the budget and follow liberal ideas like being a sanctuary city for illegal aliens.

Mayor Annise Parker, center
photo found here

So Annise Parker did not run as either a liberal or as a homosexual. In fact, I was not even aware she was a lesbian until the week before the election. And when that information came out, in the context of the rest of the campaign, it didn’t seem relevant. Houstonians didn’t elect a lesbian mayor; they elected the candidate who convinced them she would be most effective for the city.

I live a mile outside the Houston city limits, so I don’t vote in city elections (nor do I have to suffer additional city taxes). While the city leadership affects all of the Greater Houston Area, it’s less relevant when we don’t actually live in the city. There was a Republican opponent (and others), but I don’t remember who. In Houston, as in pretty nearly any urban area, getting the least liberal democrat is about the best you can hope for. So I looked on, hoping she wouldn’t be too bad.

Then, the moment she got elected, the big news was that Houston had shocked the world by not being bigoted against a lesbian in their mayoral election. Hmm. And she has been much better at pushing the LGBT agenda than getting Houston’s fiscal house in order. Practically every time she’s in the news, it has something to do with her lesbianism, rather than her caretaking of the city.

The big one this past several months has been policy purportedly for “fairness” toward transgenders. In June, she pressed a bill through the city council (so, not entirely her fault, but wouldn’t have happened without her pressure) what is referred to as the “bathroom bill.” The city created transgenders as a protected class, and one cannot do anything to “discriminate” against a protected class. In this case, transgenders get to choose which public restroom to use on any given day, depending on which gender they feel like that day. No matter how they may dress, one cannot question whether they’re inappropriately in the wrong restroom.

There’s an ick factor involved in having a six-foot-three obvious male, either dressed as a male or a female, in a women’s restroom. But it’s not so much with transgenders that the public has a problem. It’s sexual predators. No one is allowed to ask, or suspect. So if an obvious male appears in your women’s restroom, you must accept his presence or be subject to prosecution for going against the city ordinance that is intended to prevent transgenders from feeling uncomfortable (regardless of any discomfort they might make you feel). So that tells predators, “You can go into women’s restrooms and prey upon unprotected females, and no one can question your being there.”

The problem was brought before the city council and the mayor. They dismissed it as just more bigotry against LGBTs. That scenario, they claim, might never even happen.

But for some reason the public doesn’t trust them on that. Imagine you’re a dad with a 9-year-old daughter who needs to use the restroom. You let her go in, and you stand outside the door. Then, following her in is a burly, obvious male. What do you do? Follow the guy in and stand guard for your daughter? One thing you don’t do is think, “Oh, the mayor says I shouldn’t worry, so I’m sure my daughter is safe enough. I'd much rather risk my daughter's safety than risk hurting the feelings of a possibly transgender person.” The mayor is expecting the public to go against human nature. But, then, she’s not a father, and neither she nor her “spouse” can ever be.

There was a huge public outcry against the policy. Some 55,000 signatures were collected from the public in a referendum demanding repeal; only 17,269 signatures were required. The Houston City Secretary and staff counted the signatures, and when they got to 19,177, they validated the count without going on, since the threshold had already been surpassed.

But then the mayor decided to look into the validity of the signatures. Among the certified count were enough disqualified signatures (didn’t contain adequate information, or didn’t qualify as city residents) to drop the count to around 15,000. Without counting the additional 30,000+ signatures, the mayor threw out the initiative as invalid. In other words, she acted like a dictator and unlawfully overruled the people with her own dictates. Just like any other petty dictator.

A coalition was formed to sue the mayor over the issue, referred to as Woodfill v. Parker. (Lawyer Jared Woodfill was until recently the Harris County Republican Chair. He's on the legal team for the suit.)

This week the news got out that, in the city’s defense against the lawsuit (using taxpayer dollars), she has subpoenaed certain information from five area pastors. These pastors are NOT part of the lawsuit. They are, however, outspoken opponents of the mayor’s “bathroom bill,” (among 400 or so who took a stand against it) and sometimes against the mayor’s more general LGBT activism.

To be clear, in defense of a lawsuit, one can gather information from many places, including from witnesses that are not part of the lawsuit itself. Her seeking information from these particular pastors is not in itself illegal. But the overly broad request is a bit shocking: "All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO [what the Mayor calls the ordinance], the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker's homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you (the Pastors) or in your possession."

What she wants to know specifically is, did the pastors, or their surrogates under their approval, request that their congregation members sign the petition? She wants to claim that this would disqualify the churches for getting involved in politics.

But that, in itself, is a misunderstanding of political participation. Churches generally (not technically prohibited by the Constitution, but by recent readings of it by SCOTUS) aren’t allowed to choose parties or candidates to support. But issues—particularly issues related to religious beliefs—are always fair game. Always! Putting abortion, or “same-sex marriage,” or various family laws, or prostitution or public nudity, or location of bars, etc., on the ballot does not place those issues out-of-bounds for churches to talk about. That would be an absurd approach to religious freedom.

But absurd is the typical approach of Mayor Annise Parker and others who think they have the only acceptable beliefs—the intolerant.

There are a couple of other absurdities here: the sermons were already offered publicly. And sermons are not necessarily written. This is similar to subpoenas made by the IRS to True the Vote and King Street Patriots—requiring they detail, in writing, every person who spoke and every word spoken at meetings—where people get together to speak their minds—not typically written out, and not expected, in most cases, to be recorded. So, is it because Parker and her people don’t have going-to-church experience? Or is it less about gathering information and more about squelching future speech? As with the IRS, it looks like the latter is intended.

Already she has backed off the original subpoena—because of pressure, and bad press. She claims she wouldn’t have worded it the way her lawyers did. (The broader elements of the subpoena have been changed to more specifics, but the subpoenas are still in process.)

She’s still defending her behavior:

·        Forcing the “bathroom bill” on the people of Houston (and anyone who works there or visits and might need a public restroom).

·        Illegally throwing out the validated signatures expressing of will of the people.

·        Defending her position, using taxpayer dollars, against the people’s will, by attacking pastors in their churches.

So, while she isn’t, at this point, “monitoring” churches to make sure they don’t say anything she doesn’t like, we can probably assume she’s bigoted enough against religious people (or anyone who disagrees with her) to quash religious speech is she could. Ironically, she does it in the name of tolerance.