I've written before that there is a difference between refusing to serve a gay couple at your restaruant and declining to cater a gay wedding. How that difference, largely unacknowledged now, is handled will deteremine how well religous libery advocates and and anti-discrimination advocates are going to be able to accommodate each other.
Now comes a new wrinkle:
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released an opinion tonight stating that county clerks in the state will not have to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples if doing so violates their religious beliefs:
This seems to me closer to the refusing-restaurant-patrons end of the spectrum. Licenses are issued on behalf of the state, not the individuals in the clerk's office, so it is up to each county to issue a license to anyone who wants to marry. If the clerk is unwilling to issue it because of religious convictions, someone else in the office can. The county's legal obligation has been met and the clerk has not violated his beliefs. I've mentioned this before (see earlier post about tatto artists), but it's like the situation with an editorial page. It belongs to the publisher, not me, so if he wants an editorial written I can't agree with, we get someone else to write it. He got his say on his page, and I didn't have to write something I didn't believe.
On the other hand, there is this:
When you block all normal means of dissent, whether by ignoring the political will of you opponents or using the media to mock and abuse them, you build up the pressure. In 30+ years as an active conservative, I’ve never heard people so angry, so frustrated, so fed up. These emotions are supposed to be dissipated by normal political processes. But liberals are bottling them up. And they will blow. It’s only a matter of how.
Liberals need to understand the reality that rarely penetrates their bubble. Non-liberal Americans (it’s more than just conservatives who are under the liberal establishment’s heel) are the majority of this country. They hold power in many states and regions in unprecedented majorities. And these attacks focus on what they hold dearest – their religion, their families and their freedom.
What is the end game, liberals? Do you expect these people you despise to just take it? Do you think they’ll just shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, I guess we better comply?” Do you even know any real Americans? Do you think you’ll somehow be able to force them into obedience – for what is government power but force – after someone finally says “Enough?”
Opposition from religious belief can be handled, as long as advocates of the new reality are sensible and gracious about it. But if we get to that "Enough!" moment, all bets are off.
Comments
Just a few thoughts.
1.) Leo writes "there is a difference between refusing to serve a gay couple at your restaruant and declining to cater a gay wedding." There is no difference. Serving food and catering weddings both provide a service for a fee. It's called a business. When dealing with the public you cannot descriminate. You can set conditions, IE: "no shirt or shoes no enter" but that applys equally to anyone wishing to enter. As has been talked to death already, if your business is catering, you can't discriminate by hiding behind your religious beliefs. If you are a racist and don't wish to serve blacks, then don't open a restaruant. If you are a bigot and hate gays, don't open a business that caters weddings. No one forces you to own a business. If your religious convictions are that strong, then choose your morals over your money.
2.) Of course it would be Texas that would still allow clerks to not issue licenses. The same state that wants to build their own Ft. Knox to house their gold in preperation for the succession. The same state that ordered their National Guard units to defend Texas against an impending Federal takeover from Obama. And now we see Tea Party Republicans vowing to defy the Supreme Court's decision. Tea Partiers claim to love and cherish the constitution but when they get a ruling they oppose their answer is not respect for the process the constitution they cherish has established, but as Bobby Jindel says ""Why don’t we save some money and get rid of the Supreme Court?" Brilliant.
3.) "And these attacks focus on what they hold dearest – their religion, their families and their freedom." Really? How does two married gays living across the street effect yor religious beliefs or ability to worship anyway you want? How is your freedom threatened? How are your families attacked?
Contrary to right wing talking points, this is not a "Christian nation". It is a secular nation. Christianity in all it's forms is the major religion but all religious views and beliefs are protected and guarenteed in the constitiution. Issues arise when Christian's enter the political arena in an attempt to force their morality on the nation. Whenever religion and politics mix, the risk is creating a Taliban.
Having a right to a same sex marriage is not a right to impose that belief on others.
Places of worship, whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, tend to find this type of behavior objectionable and against God's laws. They do not have to perform these marriages against their faith. They are not businesses.
There will be plenty of places, both secular and some religious, to have these unions performed.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other who marries who, the only thing that irritates me is the constant shoving-it-in-your-face attitude.
"And now we see Tea Party Republicans vowing to defy the Supreme Court's decision.”
Defy the court’s decision ??
Let's not forget how many times the Supreme Court has itself been overturned, either by a later decision by the same court, by legislative action or by virtue of a constitutional amendment.
I doubt this is even close to being over …