In essence, what we have is a legislative sledgehammer coming in response to the abuse of another legislative sledgehammer, thanks to the redefinition of “tolerance” to “forced acceptance and participation.” In my column for The Week today, I prescribe a lot more old-school tolerance and a healthy respect for personal choice as the antidote:
Oh, horseshit, Ed.
It’s bigotry, pure and simple, and you support it. And you have no more credibility than those Southern “state’s rights” bigots who tried to keep blacks as second class citizens – or worse – back in the 1960s. Because tolerance - of racism.
Let’s go back to Scalia on religious freedom:
As the Supreme Court majority wrote in 1990, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law … On the contrary, the record of more than a century of free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”
Before someone complains about left-wing justices ignoring constitutional norms and legislating from the bench, note that the author of that opinion, and those words, was none other than Antonin Scalia. Enough said.
Indeed. Ed, you don’t have a leg to stand on, constitutional, legal, or otherwise. But bigotry never needs to make sense. It just needs something (sin) or somebody (gays) to hate.