Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Two stories, one from California and one from New York, illustrate nicely the growing power of the gay rights movement in its efforts to purge American society of those who will not conform to the Zeitgeist. First, theDaily Caller reports that judges in the Golden State who do not bow the knee to the God of Gay will no longer be allowed to ply their trade:
In a move with major legal implications, The California Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics has proposed to classify the Boy Scouts as practicing “invidious discrimination” against gays, which would end the group’s exemption to anti-discriminatory ethics rules and would prohibit judges from being affiliated with the group.
“This proposed amendment has as its overtly-stated purpose the branding of the BSA as an organization whose members must be assumed to be biased and thus unfit for the bench. The Committee states that ‘eliminating the exemption… would enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,’” [Catherine Short, legal director of the pro-life group Life Legal Defense Foundation] said.
Not that that’s a good thing:
“On the contrary, by promoting a hierarchy of politically-favored ‘victim’ status through pointlessly impugning the integrity of members of a venerable American institution, the proposed Amendment will communicate to the public that judges are being told by the California Supreme Court what to think, whom they may associate with, and what are permissible opinions to hold, and that only those who toe the line will be allowed to sit on the bench. The public can hardly expect impartiality from the judiciary in such a climate of intolerance,” Short wrote.
So what this amounts to is an effort by the California Supreme Court to put an end to all debate over the moral as well as legal status of homosexual behavior. Think about it: if you say that association with the Boy Scouts is no longer permissible, what stands in the way of saying that membership in a church that doesn’t approve of homosexuality or has a specific policy of hiring those who uphold and live by such a tenet is just as verboten? And of course this is just about judges, but The Movement will naturally seek to extend it to a wide range of professions, which will be purged of practicing Catholics, traditional evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, and who know, maybe even Muslims (though I suspect they would be given a waiver).
On the other coast, it seems that some business are to be judged solely by the private moral and religious beliefs of their owners, regardless of whether their businesses have ever done anything outside the law.LifeSiteNews reports:
A New York City councilman has effectively told traditional marriage supporters they are “not welcome” in the Big Apple.
In response to Chick-fil-A’s proposed plans to expand their business and set up restaurants in several locations, including New York City, Councilman Daniel Dromm told the Huffington Post that the fast-food chain would not be welcome in the most populous city in the country.
“We don’t need bigots coming to New York City,” Dromm told HuffPost. “They are not welcome here unless they can embrace all of New York’s diverse community, including the LGBT community.”
[Chik-fil-A CEO Dan] Cathy has recently said he wishes to expand the company and consequently not be so vocal about his personal opinions.
This pledge of silence, however, does not placate Councilman Dromm’s desire to keep traditional marriage supporters out of New York City.
“We don’t need bigoted people even keeping their opinions to themselves,” Dromm said. “They need to wake up and see reality.”
Mr. Dromm obviously doesn’t know his own city very well. I know from first-hand experience that the Big Apple is full of bigots. Some of them even occupy city council offices.
What New York is also full of is people who think 1984 was not a novel of denunciation but a textbook of advocacy. The city’s colleges and universities as well as the New York Times editorial board are infested with them, and clearly they have some devotees in high office as well. I will be interested to see how the councilman’s next bill–which will undoubtedly outlaw thought-crime as defined by the councilman and his cronies–fares when he brings it before his colleagues.

No comments: