Recently, there were reports that the gay mayor of Houston issued subpoenae to local pastors seeking copies of sermons given in which homosexuality or the mayor was mentioned. Putting aside for a moment the obvious First Amendment issues in play -- that the city attorneys would even agree to issue a subpoena for this is astounding -- there are open questions as to the motivation of a public official who wants copies of sermons given in church by ministers.
The inference that can be drawn is that the mayor objects to anything that opposes the homosexual lifestyle and is looking for ways to withdraw the not-for-profit standing the churches enjoy so as to be able to tax them. The chilling effect of such a move is obvious, as is the constitutional violation.
But it's perhaps the most visible of a string of belligerent moves made by gays in the name of equality that is upsetting to me. For the record, I am fully in favor of equal rights for gays, although I'm ambivalent on the issue of gay marriage. As an attorney, I have to support the legality of gay marriage, but I'm not necessarily in favor of it personally. That being said, I would never condemn a gay couple for being married and would show them the same respect as I would a heterosexual couple. Otherwise, I have no truck with equality for gays in our society.
But that's just the point: Movements across the country have endowed gays with superior rights to other citizens. In New Mexico, Washington and other states, legislation exists that penalizes businesses that choose not to provide services to gays. It has forced some businesses, after litigation resulted in adverse decisions against them, to close. The purpose of the laws is to prevent discrimination, with which I fully agree, but the laws are overbroad and infringe upon another First Amendment guarantee.
Some businesses refuse to contract business with gay couples due to their religious beliefs. The laws are written in such a way that the shop owners are compelled to do business with gay couples who approach them; failure to take business from gay couples results in the severe penalties we've seen in New Mexico and Washington, where the mere refusal to take business from gay couples subjected the business owners to penalties in the thousands of dollars. This isn't right.
As an attorney, occasionally clients want to retain me whom I know are going to be nothing but trouble. I should have the right not to engage them if I so choose. If they're gay and I were in one of these states, I could be subject to fines and penalties simply because the potential clients are gay. That other business people choose not to be retained because of their religious beliefs should be respected. That gays may not get a particular baker or a photographer doesn't mean they won't get a baker or photographer doesn't mean they won't get any bakers or photographers, just not that one. I find it hard to believe in this day and age there is such anti-gay bias that collusion will prevent gays from finding the professionals they need or want to have something done. Subjecting people to penalties for their religious beliefs is simply wrong.
As if that weren't bad enough, we now have a politician who wants to vet sermons from local ministers. If a straight politician were to do something similar with a pastor known to have gay community ties, there would be an uproar, and rightly so. Yet this news has barely been noticed.
Frankly, the mayor should be fined and penalized for trying to curtail the pastors' speech. There is absolutely no reason why a mayor should subpoena the sermons of local pastors unless there is some attempt at suppressing those sermons planned. If the mayor is truly interested in what the pastors have to say, she can get her butt to church every weekend to hear for herself what the pastors are preaching. But to demand copies of the sermons for what can only be called a nefarious reason is unpardonable.
That the mayor even thinks she has the right to demand the sermons speaks volumes about just how much power gays think they have. By all means they should be treated equally. They should not be made to feel like second-class citizens. But equality and superiority are two different things. No one, be he gay or straight, has the right to prevent the free exercise of speech or religion, unless the speech or sermons fall within reasonable time, place and manner restrictions or a seditious in nature. That the speech or sermons may offend people is of no consequence.
Ironically, gays use this tactic all the time themselves, referring to themselves in terms that, were a straight person to utter the words, would cause a backlash. But this falls under the liberal mantra of do as they say not as they do.
That is not equality.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment