That’s the basic gist of the following wingnut conversation, which boils down to, ‘homosexuals are intolerant of religious nuts’ intolerance!’
David Frum Canada starts it off, cites a new British law that requires all adoption agencies, including religious ones, to stop discriminatiing against homosexual couples. The outrage! Even more sickeningly, religious schools may no longer demonise homosexuals. BLARGH!1!!
There is a widespread view that gay liberation is a movement toward greater freedom. Up to a point, that was true. That point, however, is now receding in the background. The movement for gay equality has rapidly evolved into movement to restrict personal freedoms, including freedoms of religion and conscience. The British example is not a special case. What is being done there today will be demanded here tomorrow.
Then, gratutiously, he predicts that the new rules will only apply to virtuous Christian and Jewish bigots, not to the nasty Islamic bigots.
Above: Charles Nelson Reilly, destroyer of religious freedom
Andrew Stuttaford, a libertarian and frequently an adult voice in contrast to the Corner’s playground cacaphony, writes back to the effect that Frum wants to exempt religious bigots from anti-discrimination laws, which will not do in a democracy.
Frum says: ‘Sure, laws must apply equally. And that is…’
…precisely why the gay rights movement is inherently an illiberal one. When you decide to extend your nondiscrimination principles to behavior condemned by your society’s majority religion, you are embarking on a course that will sooner or later require the state to police, control, and punish adherents of that religion.
You can’t legislate away the majority’s bigotry! It’s from scripture: no man can take it away from a believer! Incidentally, Frum’s Schmittian reasoning here is identical to that which he used to justify the teaching of ‘intelligent design’:
Whether he personally believes in evolution: “I do believe in evolution.”
What he thinks of intelligent design: “If intelligent design means that evolution occurs under some divine guidance, I believe that.”
How evolution should be taught in public schools: “I don’t believe that anything that offends nine-tenths of the American public should be taught in public schools. … Christianity is the faith of nine-tenths of the American public. … I don’t believe that public schools should embark on teaching anything that offends Christian principle.”
But anyway, Stuttaford’s answer inspires Doughy Pantload to reply in an argumentative clusterfuck of wingnuttery. It’s difficult to parse, but I’ll try.
First Pantload says that what liberals regard as bigotry caused by religion is actually just the natural effect of the ‘social fabric’ that the Founders first weaved. Ok, then forgetting that discrimination is ‘not religiously based,’ he says it is, but that multiculturalism and other liberal movements are religions, too, presumably with their own forms of bigotry. Devious leftists know this, which is why they identify such movements with any word except ‘religious’. He says he’s opposed to Christian efforts at controlling society, but he just doesn’t see this happening much. But on the other hand, he is very tolerant of Christians controlling society at the local level. Thus, Pantload unwittingly reveals what Republicans actually mean by ‘federalism.’ But he is also against secular forces doing the same thing (no caveat here, of course, about ‘local’ efforts). He says that a movement shouldn’t be free to tell people how to live, simply because that movement is not religious. I missed where homosexuals were telling people how to live by demanding to not be discriminated against, but whatever.
Then Pantload strikes the familiar majority/religious notes of self-pity and persecution: Why should Gay Pride Day be allowed but Christian Pride Day be forbidden? Natually, the next step is invoking the Constitution — in favor of bigotry! Pantload insists that the Constitution gives wide latitude to religious freedom, and so it does, but not the freedom to legally nullify the civil rights of others. Simple, right? Not to Pantload.
Nor is it to Cornertard Jack Fowler, whose comments are generally few and brief, what with his other jobs of cleaning cubicles, sweeping Cheetos crumbs, and using a cattle prod on local bovines JPod and K-Lo. Fowler sneers that the filthy liberals can’t take away the Bill of Rights’ language which guarantees the “free exercise…of religion’, so the fags can put that in their pipe and smoke it! The majority is free to perpetuate or even strengthen the structures of institutional bigotry! And if fags don’t like it, well they can repent of their sins and stop being atheisticcommimexifascisthomofagfags!
Moral of the story: these Christians and Jews believe bigotry is an indivisible part of their religion, which says a lot not only about what they think of those against whom they discriminate, but about what they think of religion.
STOP TRYING TO DESTROY RELIGION, FAGG0RTS!!1!!!