Conscription

If I am invited to a gay wedding and choose not to go for whatever reason, should our government force me to attend else I would be accused of homophobic intolerance? David Brooks has an op-ed that deals with the issue of the trade-offs between religious liberty and equality ... all in the light of Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act that has created a firestorm of religious intolerance ... this time spewing from those who normally require tolerance in others ... see: New York Times Op Ed. Like most of Brooksie's writings, this op-ed skates back and forth between the liberal and conservative takes on this religious-freedom controversy, but I think he is really saying that the ham-fisted backlash against Governor Mike Pence of Indiana is overdone. I agree.

"No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" ... this is a frequent sign found at beach-side establishments. It seems to me that business' have certain rational prerogatives when it comes to what are acceptable for employees and customers. Yet these prerogatives have been proscribed so that certain groups are protected from arbitrary discrimination. Besotted drunks can be denied service at a bar, but cross-dressers cannot. Yet women can be forced to sit in the balcony of an Orthodox Jewish temple. Why? Because of the Constitutional notion of religious freedom. The rub obviously comes when such religious freedoms bump up against the latest fashion in protected behavior.

I can understand bakers being forced to cater gay weddings if they are the only game in town. But it seems a little conscripting to force them to violate their religious principles if there are multiple other willing options. Will President and Michelle Obama accede quietly to their girls entering into same-sex relationships? Can cross-dressers claim that no shoes and no shirts are part of their protected costumes? Will Tim Cook, CEO of Apple Computer, ever allow fundamentalists Christians to bring poisonous snakes to work as religious idols? Will a same sex marriage ever take place in a mosque?

This issue is far more complicated than our media is now allowing ...

Afterward: George Will has a nice turn of phrase when he labels those ranting about this new Indiana law (Apple's Tim Cook) as having "selective indignation" ... see: Daily Caller Story. And it also occurred to me that such phobics as Cook also are very quick off the blocks whilst people like Pence are a little more cerebral ... and often unprepared for such media sucker punches.

After Afterward: I had a analogous thought today ... how is the government forcing a fundamentalist Christian to cater a gay wedding any different from forcing a conscientious objector to serve in the front lines of the military? (Hint, also substitute fundamentalist Muslim for fundamentalist Christian and see if your answer is the same ... see: Louder with Crowder Video.

In the Weeds

There is a popular media putdown for anyone who tries to explain anything more complicated than how to take an aspirin.  This goes something like "you're too far in the weeds on this."  In other words, "the American public is too stupid (or distracted) to understand the details of what you are trying to say."  And so, the viewers or listeners seldom get the real story beyond the superficials on any issue.  And to continue the thought on my previous blog (A Master Politician) ... politicians have come to rely on this tropism and convolute their messages so as to win the soundbite contest.  A perfect example of this trend is the current back and forth between religious freedom and HHS Secretary Sibelius's edict on medical-insurance coverages.  I won't go into the weeds on this issue, but you decide which message is directed to a dumbed-down American electorate.

Apparently this was not the case when Ross Perot was running for President in 1992.  He could pull out his many financial charts on the Larry King Live show and expound for an hour on how the United States was going down the tubes.  And we listened to him ... and, if he had not gone a little paranoid toward the end of his candidacy, we might well have elected him.  What has changed?  I wish I was smart enough to figure out this conundrum.  But, if I could, I doubt if many would stick around long enough to read my analysis.