I mean, Real Tolerance

by Andrew Roman

_____________

By all accounts Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day was a rousing success across the land. In fact, it looks like it was a record setting outing.

And it had nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

There were some minor protests, sure….but rallies comprised mostly of ignorants and spoiled-brats who have no clue what real discrimination or oppression is only make me chuckle  – that is, until they start defecating on police cars and sleeping in public parks adorned by urine-soaked Che Guevara t-shirts.

Prior to yesterday's sensational free-market referendum on free speech and religious liberty, I listened intently to public officials condemn Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s support of traditional marriage. 

I assure you, the dazzling irony of all this was not lost on me.

It is the mantra of those who suddenly become Constitutional warriors and brand themselves "offended" whenever a Christmas Tree is lit in a public setting, a cross appears on a city seal or the ten commandments are within view of a courthouse: It is a "violation of the separation of church and state." It doesn’t matter what the “it” is; as long as the “G” word is in the mix, it is a gross violation of everything this country really stands for: freedom from God and religion in a public setting.

Then exactly how do Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Philadelphia City Council Member James F. Kenny, and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn (among others) justify their remarks as publicly elected officials against the beliefs of Mr. Cathy? Haven't they quite literally combined church and state by using the pulpit of their elected office to condemn a private citizen's religious convictions?

Councilman Kenney, for example, is actually sponsoring a bill that condemns the intolerance of Mr. Cathy, saying biblical beliefs of this sort (supporting the traditional definition of marriage) cannot be tolerated. Said Kenney: “My effort is to allow people to understand that in certain segments of corporate America there are folks who are using their dollars to promote hatred, bigotry and discrimination." (Note the obligatory dig at "corporate America). He also said that people who are opposed to same sex marriage need to understand that there are consequences to those beliefs.

Mr. Kenney is an elected official.

I’m confused.

Don’t these purveyors of universal tolerance and group hugs represent the governments of their respective cities? Aren’t they overstepping their boundaries as defined by their own twisted understanding of the first amendment? Aren’t church and state supposed to be separated at all times?

Seriously, if this constitutionally mandated “separation” applies to such things as barring the word “Christmas” in public schools, shouldn’t it also apply to a body of government and how it is allowed to conduct itself regarding a man’s personal opinion on the definition of marriage?

I emphasize that this is Mr. Cathy's personal opinion…

So, what happened to the separationists on this one?

It must be that “living, breathing constitution” thing we keep hearing about.

Are one's personal beliefs now to be as relevant – or perhaps more relevant – than one's actions in the public arena?

These enlightened lefty types seemingly want the Chick-Fil-A chain punished…not because of the way it conducts its business or treats its customers, but because of the religious beliefs of its big boss.

Let’s be clear … Mr. Cathy did not speak negatively about gays. In fact, his franchise (employing over 50,000 people) has an actual standing policy of welcoming and treating all customers equally and with respect in all of their establishments, regardless of the race, creed or sexual orientation.

Horrible, I know.

There is no – repeat no - policy against gays at Chick-Fil-A …or anyone for that matter. By all accounts, Chick-Fil-A conducts its business admirably, and their customer service is excellent. Everyone – from cross-wearing Sunday-schoolers to pentagram adorning goth chicks - is welcome in all of their stores.

That is Chick-Fil-A policy.

On the other hand, Mr. Cathy’s personal religious beliefs are not franchise policy….and he certainly should be entitled to them without having to worry about the heavy hand of government bullying him or affecting the future prosperity of his company with threats.

If Mr. Cathy, for instance, said that married gay people were not allowed in any of his stores or that homosexuals were required to pay higher prices if they wanted to patronize his menu, then yes….his religious beliefs could be reasonably construed to be belligerent, if not hateful. If he posted signs in his establishments quoting biblical verses condemning homosexuality, then yes….one could reasonably conclude that Chick-Fil-A was institutionally anti-gay.

But nothing of the sort has happened.

Not even close.

His store is as accessible to everyone as, say, JCPenney - a store which has used a same-sex couple in a Father's Day ad. (I'm still trying to calculate how many Republican politicians have vowed never to allow a JCPenney in their jurisdiction again).

Elected officials have no moral right or constitutional authority to make things more difficult for Chick-Fil-A to set up shop in their town based on the personal religious convictions of its owner. Politicians cannot, on one hand, blast the mingling of church and state while, on the other, use their position to pass resolutions condemning law-abiding privately owned companies whose owners express their religious beliefs.

Where does it stop?

Will all businesses in Boston now be surveyed so that their owners' positions on same-sex marriage can be ascertained?

What country is this?

This kind of intimidation from the powerful left defines modern liberalism.

Indeed, anyone can choose to patronize or boycott any establishment they choose. That is free market economics. But from what orifice do publicly elected officials pull out these “thought police” cards? Does it really matter what Mr. Cathy believes? What does his support of traditional marriage have to do with the way his company hires workers (many of which I presume are gay) or treats its customers? Cathy isn’t an elected official, is he? His personal convictions have no effect on whether or not same-sex marriage becomes legal in any given state. He hasn’t violated any discrimination law with respect to his business orhow it interacts with the public.

Remember, liberals believe all speech, expression and actions are fully protected by the first amendment … unless, of course, its coming from a Christian.

All of this begs more clarification. 

Why exactly are big-hearted, open-minded liberal mayors accepting of mosques run my Imams who denounce homosexuality then?  Or welcoming of blatant racist, anti-gay, anti-Semites (Louis Farrakhan, for example)?

Oh wait, Farrakahn is black … and not conservative.

Silly me.

Again I ask…which color of the all-encompassing rainbow flag of tolerance and unity represents Mr. Cathy?

And can liberals define the word “separation” for clarity’s sake?

It is worth noting that many of the people across the country who patronized Chick-Fil-A yesterday on what Dan Cathy himself is calling a record day said that they were actually in support of same-sex marriage...but equally in support of free speech.

Now, that is what I call genuine tolerance.

---

New York's Same Sex Marriage Law and Libertarians

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

_________________________

As the State of New York officially starts recognizing same-sex marriage - and as libertarians and liberals alike continued to sing the praises of the triumphs of liberty - I remain befuddled.

My general opposition to same-sex marriage aside, I cannot help but be puzzled at libertarian support for the redefinition of marriage as it came to pass here in New York.

A few weeks ago, the Mercatus Center - a libertarian think tank at George Mason University – ranked the state of New York dead last in its “Freedom in the 50 States” index. The authors of the report even used the phrase “by far” to show how deep into the cellar the once most-populous state in the nation has descended.

Its contentions were based principally on the Empire State’s sickening levels of taxation.

That higher taxes always mean increased levels of government spending cannot logically be disputed by anyone who claims to be on a first-name basis with their own brains. More government spending - and by natural extension, increased intrusion and control - definitionally means more government.

Period.

How can one deny it?

It's like denying the dampness of water, the uselessness of Keanu Reeves as an actor, or, if you're a liberal, the certainty that the planet is teetering on disaster because of man-induced climate change.

As talk-show host and author Dennis Prager often says, the bigger the government, the smaller the individual.

Indeed, bigger government means less liberty. Again, by definition. (I needn't explain this to conservatives or libertarians). It simply isn't possible for an ever-more intrusive, powerful governing body to spawn more freedom.

How would that work exactly? What model is there to base that fantasy on?

Among other qualifiers to New York’s dubious distinction is the fact that the state has "the strictest health-insurance community-rating regulations in the country.” New York is also an anti-smoking zealot’s Xanadu. The strictest tobacco laws anywhere exist in New York. (That tobacco use has not been found to be an outright act of violence here is still perplexing). Mix in such acts of nanny-statism as mandating what oils restaurants can cook with, barely constitutional anti-gun laws, painfully excessive home schooling regulations, usurping the will of the people on term limits, banning smoking in privately owned bars and public parks, ridiculously stringent motor vehicle laws, rampant "Eminent domain abuse," and the almost obsessive war on salt by the likes of Michael “New-York-City-Welcomes-All-Illegals-To-Come-And-Stay” Bloomberg, and you’ve got a recipe for an ever-growing soft tyranny, a phrase that talk show host Mark Levin has popularized (quite accurately).

Yes, there is a totalitarian tendency in modern liberalism.

To the left, government knows best how to spend your money, feed you, teach you, medicate you, make health decisions for you, and so on. It’s the leftist's impulse to exert more influence in the everyday lives of its citizenry, because, according to them, they know best. That totalitarian inclination instinctively feeds the human being’s native longing for power and control, and helps to exemplify his inherent inability to know when to curtail that power when given more of it.

The term slippery slope comes to mind.

In other words, people just don't know when to stop.

That's why we create laws.

When this report was released last month, co-author Jason Sorens, a University of Buffalo political-science professor, offered an opinion as to how the State of New York could begin the process of healing its freedom-stifling wounds.

Legalize same-sex marriage.

Said Sorens, “"The most liberal state in the country can surely find the political will to legalize same-sex partnerships of some kind," he said.

The passage of same-sex marriage here in New York continues to be touted as a win for not only supporters of redefining a millenia-old institution but of teeny-tiny-government libertarian types who equate allowing more people to get hitched with less government control.

Hail freedom!  Get out of our lives, you big ol' Government, you!

But this thinking is misguided and hardly libertarian.

New York's sanctioning of same-sex marriage has actually served as an expansion of the government's reach - something that is supposed to be an anethma to a libertarian. With the redefinition of marriage, government is now more involved in our lives.

And yet another powerful lobby has successfully buried its hooks into the soft, fleshy matter of the statehouse.

Where exactly do New York's elected representatives summon the arrogance to believe they can redefine the basic institution of society? What makes them competent enough to do so? Simply because they're elected? Because they say so? Because they want to? Because they feel like it? Beacuse someone has to? Because their collective wisdom exceeds all of the history of humanity that preceded them? Because a given special interest group knows how to bang their cans more loudly?

New York's elected officials have taken a page from Mayor Mike Bloomberg's totalitarian-light playbook. Remember when Mayor Mike decided one day that New York City's term limit law didn't suit him? So he said, in effect, "To hell with what the people want, New York needs me." Likewise, Albany is saying that because a group of people say life is unfair, it has the faculty and qualification to change - literally change - a millenia-old societal institution that transcends every culture and civilization.

Think about that.

That's not a recession of government power - that's a full-fledged expansion of its power.

What will government decide it has the power to change next? What will they decide they need to be involved in after this?

That the question is even being asked flies in the face of libertarian principles.

Twenty-five years ago, the very thought of two people of the same sex marrying was considered one of those, "Don't be ridiculous" notions. Today, proponents of keeping the definiton of traditional marriage in tact are called ridiculous and antiquated. Same-sex marriage is suddenly  - magically - an issue of equality, freedom and civil rights.

And where does it end?

Today, the thought of someone marrying, say, their goldfish or a cup of Snack Pack butterscoth pudding is one of those "Don't be ridiculous" notions.

But will it be in twenty-five years?

If you could go back in time a quarter of a century and tell the citizens of New York City that smoking would be banned in bars and taverns, or that the government would keep free citizens from using perfectly legal cooking oils in privately owned restaurants, they'd look at you as if you had a pulsating basketball-sized goiter growing out of your neck.

The fact is, the loss of liberty is incremental and often barely noticeable.

This is the slippery slope.

When does it end?

And because of the passage of same-sex marriage in New York without a referendum, how could a government ever say "no" in the future when some new special interest group with resonating garbage cans comes a-clanging, making a huge noise about wanting to marry their ink jet printers? Or a jar of pitted olives? Or a sister? Or a dog? Or whatever the hell he or she wants to join in matrimony?

On what basis could the government say "no?"

Is this what New York libertarians had in mind?

This is nothing but government-constructed relativism. That is supposed to be the antithesis of libertarianism.

Proponents of keeping the definition of traditional marriage as it has always been draw the line at one man and one woman. Proponents of same-sex marriage draw the line at two individuals, regardless of sex.

By definition, both discriminate. 

Same-sex marriage advocates scoff at the suggestion that this opens the door to allowing such things as multiple spouses or sibling marriage, but on what grounds? Same-sex marriage has its limitations and discriminations, too, doesn't it? Why then is so called "gay marriage" discrimination acceptable and traditional marriage discrimination not?

Why are the inequalities and prejudices of permitting same-sex marriage okay?

And on what do same-sex marriage advocates base their matrimonial line in the sand? On how they feel? On what sounds good? How could they logically argue against a polygamists' movement? Or sibling love?

But what do I know? I've already been told on numerous occassions that I hate gays.

I can only hope my sister knows I don't hate her because of my opposition to sibling marriage.

-