ROPER: You would give the devil the benefit of law’.
MORE: ‘Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get at the devil?’
ROPER: ‘I would cut down every law in England to do that’.
MORE: ‘And when the law was down and the devil turned around on you, where would you hide; the laws being all flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast, and if you cut them down, do you think you could stand in the winds that would blow through them?’.
– Bolt, A Man for All Seasons (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqReTJkjjg )
My post about a lesbian couple’s contemplated use of an Iowa law to correct the thoughts of a Christian baker drew a bit of controversy to this, my humble home on the ‘net.
Until recently, I honestly found it hard to believe that there would be anybody (especially people who are, and always will be, in the minority) who would advocate using the law as a weapon to enforce ideological conformity.
I guess such people never thought about the possibility that, when weaponized, law could be used to harm them just the same way that it is used to harm those that they hate.
Throughout history, fanatics of all kinds have celebrated as the machinery of compulsion has been erected to force heretics to do the bidding of the faithful. Many times, however, those same faithful who cheered the construction of that machinery of compulsion have lived to cry as they were racked on that same machine.
It therefore puzzles me that anybody could react with anything short of horror that people would want to sue (or that the state would allow people to sue) those who refuse, for reasons of conscience, to do their bidding. Those who criticize me now do not see how, when the tables are turned, (and it is a fact of human society that the tables always seem to be turning) that they could be the target of weaponized law.
Let’s see how something like this could happen in a plausible future.
It is conceivable that in the future, as science learns more about neurobiology, that science will discover the reasons for sexual preference, and other aspects of personality. It is also conceivable that science will find ways to modify a patient’s neurobiology in a way that would induce a desired state with respect to the patient’s sexual preference. In other words, science may come up with the dream of many in the religious right: a “cure” for homosexuality. Remember, ten years is a lifetime in neuroscience. Our understanding of the mind is so much greater now than it was ten years ago. If progress continues apace, we may discover things that would horrify advocates of sexual freedom. We do not know what the future of science will bring.
If such a treatment ever becomes a reality (it may not be likely, but it may indeed happen) I would bet LOTS of money that many parents of effeminate sons and tomboy daughters would take their children to neurologists, psychiatrists, genetics doctors or whoever administers such treatments. Heck, if some snake oil treatment that only purports to change sexual nature is touted, I could see certain types of parents trying to take advantage of it. The efficacy is not the issue. The belief in the efficacy is.
And you know what else I could imagine? I could imagine that morays might change so much that state medical boards would require doctors to administer certain treatments (like the one I just discussed) as a condition of licensure. I can imagine state legislatures enabling patients to sue of they are not granted the desired treatments.
Does anybody seriously believe that the future will be free of people who want to use the law to force others to do their bidding? Does anybody take seriously those who say they know for certain that the future will not belong to religious folk who want to force others using the law to conform to their religious ideals? If we model this form of dispute resolution to our descendants, how do we know how they will apply it? It seems eminently plausible that in future weaponized law could be used both to prosecute either LGBTQQI people or their ideological adversaries.
Let us remember, now, that the religious outbreed the secular by a landslide. Patriarchy might be on its last legs now, but there is no guarantee that it will stay that way. Remember, in any human society, the tables are always turning.
Let us not cut down the laws that protect our ideological opponents. We don’t know what the future may bring. Those same laws that I am being criticized for opposing may be all that protects my critics in the future.
“Until recently, I honestly found it hard to believe that there would be anybody (especially people who are, and always will be, in the minority) who would advocate using the law as a weapon to enforce ideological conformity.”
No one is asking that woman to stop hating gay people. They are asking her to not discriminate in her services. Ideology is not compelled, however much you may say otherwise.
You seem to have missed the point of my post.
You’re still basing your argument on a mischaracterization of the situation. You write “lesbian couple’s contemplated use of an Iowa law to correct the thoughts of a Christian baker”. You know that’s a completely inaccurate description of the conflict. It’s her business practices, not her beliefs, that need correcting. There’s a big difference – how about a little honesty.
Ken,
The thoughts of the baker are her reasons for not wanting to bake the cake. The thoughts are the reason for the suit. I presume it’s the thoughts that need correcting here.
And happy thanksgiving.
Just because people don’t want to sanction homosexual behavior, that doesn’t mean they hate the people. But that seems to be the only charge homosexualists can level. After all, it can’t be a rational disgust for bad sexual behavior, it just has to be bigotry and hate. Very illogical.
The woman did not want to give tacit approval for fake marriage, did not want to participate in someone’s sinful behavior. And yet the “tolerant” homosexualist can have none of that. FORCE her to accept your behavior, FORCE her to sanction fake marriage. She has no right to her beliefs!
She should be able to deny them service if she didn’t like that they were chewing gum. If she didn’t like the way they walked, if she didn’t like the horoscope she read in the newspaper that morning, if she thought that two was an unlucky number and decided not to serve pairs of customers. Why should the government be in the business of giving any consideration whatsoever to the baker’s thoughts. As long as she’s not putting poison in her cakes, or baking files into her cakes and sending them to prison inmates, the government has no business whatsoever in her business.
A will NEVER apologize for saying that those who take advantage of the government’s offer to regulate the thoughts of their fellow Americans are absolutely reprehensible.
Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving.
I can think about how much I want to murder people all I want. The government doesn’t care.
Similarly, the shopkeeper can think of how much gay marriage makes baby Jesus cry all she likes. Its when she denies people service that there is a problem.
Your refusal to acknowledge that does not reflect well on you.
Your objection would only work if I said that the government is interested in correcting ALL improper thoughts. Clearly it does not.
MrRoivas,
She denied service because if she provided the service she would be giving tacit approval to a deviant and perverted behavior. Why should anyone be forced to give approval to that sort of behavior? Should you be forced to approve of bestiality or necrophilia?
“She denied service because if she provided the service she would be giving tacit approval to a deviant and perverted behavior. ”
How? If I can a cashier and see someone wearing a swastika, do I condone Neo-Nazism? How about if they are buying some red paint that could possibly be used to paint a swastika?
Mr. Rovias,
The words “Hitler”, “Nazi” and associated terms are strictly forbidden on this blog. Not because they make for bad examples, but because they’ve been so over-used as to be boring and make my eyes glaze over. Why not select some other villain of history. Mao Zedong or Hadrian come to mind.
MrRoivas,
She wasn’t just a cashier – it was her business. She MAKES the cakes; she is not a go-between.
I play bagpipes for all sorts of occasions. I was recently asked to play for ceremony to celebrate a polygamous relationship and turned it down. I have also been asked to play for Freemason ceremonies and turned them down. I have been asked to play for false religious ceremonies and turned them down. I have been asked to play for parties in bars and turned them down.
Should I then be forced to play for any of these festivities just because they wanted me to? Anything I play for, I am approving what is taking place – taking part in their ceremonies. If I cannot approve, then I don’t play. But in your logic I should be forced to play and give my approval!