This post about Conscience Clauses by Jesse put words to a thought I've often had.
It’s the same problem as the tolerance/intolerance argument: you create an insane recursive loop of oversensitivity, where your conscience violates my conscience, but since you started it, you get to call me a hatemonger and yourself the innocent victim. If I don’t have to issue a marriage license because of my moral convictions, why should I have to process unemployment benefits or respond to your crime report or deliver your mail? The entire point of America is supposed to be that, at the very least, we extend rights to all who abide by the law, regardless of who they are or where they come from.
If you find yourself unable to extend a constitutional right to those to whom it applies because your sky-man told you it was wrong, then go pray for a new job and let someone else serve the public. It’s certainly an issue for taxpayers to get angrier about than, you know, teabagging.
2 comments:
haha.. sky man!
i agree though.
My thought about consciousness clauses relates more to the separation of church and state. That religious freedom is both about allowing people to be free to practice any religion, but also to practice none at all. It also exists to protect people in one religion (or no religion) from the dogmas and practices of other religion.
This is similar, but it doesn't stop at religion. It also relates to all sorts of discrimination cases and there are definitely parallels to be found in racial segregation defense writing. Unfortunately, we didn't have the internet and blogosphere back then, so the writing is little and it is probably easier to avoid writing parallels to it. That assumes that the people making these arguments see the parallels in the first place, which would make them realize how bigoted they are being. Did you read the disgust blog post I sent out?
Post a Comment