The
more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more
something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a
culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes
normalized.
But
when it comes to the government's attack on our religious freedoms, it is our
sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to
happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the
brave.
According
to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman
declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex "wedding," she violated
the states anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on
her customer's sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his "wedding
ceremony."
Attorney
David French is correct in emphasizing how
this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict
was announced): "If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience,
or even the English language, there's a chance that this morning you felt a
disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were
suddenly silenced."
As
French clearly explains, "she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a
decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She
would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or
straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive
courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the
'status/conduct' distinction, and essentially interpreted the word 'orientation'
to also mean 'action.'"
In
a million lifetimes, the Founders could never have countenanced such an outrage.
In fact, I doubt that the leading pioneer gay activists could have countenanced
something this extreme when they launched their movement less than 50 years
ago.
It
is imperative, then, that we not lose our sense of shock and outrage just
because things like this are becoming increasingly common. For the sake of our
kids and our grandkids — not to mention for the sake of our contemporaries — we
cannot become desensitized.
What
the court has said in Washington echoes what other courts have said around the
country: Regardless of your religious or moral convictions, you must participate
in gay "weddings" if your business provides any service related to such events.
Otherwise, you are guilty of discrimination. (This, of course, is just the tip
of the iceberg. There are many other examples of the government or corporations
or schools punishing Christians for their faith.)
What
this means is that a gay couple could go into a bakery in Williamsburg,
Brooklyn, home to tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews who primarily live
and do business among themselves, that couple could ask the devout Jewish baker
to bake a cake for their "wedding," and that baker could be put of business if
he refused to comply. (Stop for a moment and try to imagine this scenario in
your mind. It really is unthinkable.)
Or
that same gay couple could go into a bakery in the most religious part of
Dearborn, Michigan, home to tens of thousands of Muslims, some of them very
religious, and a Muslim baker could be put of business for declining to
participate in their "wedding." How could this be?
Are
religious Jewish photographers required to shoot Christian weddings under
penalty of law? Of course not.
Are
devout Muslim photographers required to shoot Hindu weddings under penalty of
law? Obviously not.
Why
then are Christian bakers and florists and photographers required to provide
their services for gay weddings under penalty of law?
To
say it again: This is an absolute outrage, and to shrug our shoulders with
indifference is to insult Jesus, to insult our Founders, and to insult our
brothers and sisters in the faith.
What
if a Christian woman went into the store of an Orthodox Jewish woodworker,
asking that craftsman to make a crucifix for her to wear around her neck, then
taking him to court when he explained that, as a religious Jew, he could not
take her order, since that would be sacrilegious for him. Would the courts
really rule for the Christian woman and claim that the Orthodox Jewish craftsman
was guilty of discrimination based on religion? To do so would send shockwaves
through the Jewish community nationwide, and rightly so.
