I swear, the Left must do all this crap on a set schedule. The ink wasn't even twenty-four hours dry on the Supreme Court's heinous Obergefell decision and the mask we always knew the ACLU has worn has now been taken off and thrown away, revealing the full, furious Christophobia underneath:
The RFRA was passed in 1993 after two Native Americans were fired from their jobs and denied unemployment benefits because they used peyote, an illegal drug, in their religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court rejected a claim they had brought under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, but Congress disagreed with the justices and enacted the RFRA with near-unanimous support.
The ACLU supported the RFRA’s passage at the time because it didn’t believe the Constitution, as newly interpreted by the Supreme Court, would protect people such as Iknoor Singh, whose religious expression does not harm anyone else. But we can no longer support the law in its current form. For more than fifteen years, we have been concerned about how the RFRA could be used to discriminate against others. As the events of the past couple of years amply illustrate, our fears were well-founded. While the RFRA may serve as a shield to protect Singh, it is now often used as a sword to discriminate against women, gay and transgender people and others. Efforts of this nature will likely only increase should the Supreme Court rule — as is expected — that same-sex couples have the freedom to marry. [emphasis added]
The ACLU has always been primarily concerned with zealously protecting and championing the civil liberties of the dregs of society and the scum of the Earth. Recall that they once fought for the right of the American Nazi Party to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois. They have a particular and inordinate fondness for Islamic Fundamentalist liberties. Whereas they have been the bane of the First Amendment religious liberties of evangelical Christians for decades under the unconstitutional "separation of church and state" canard. So their use of Obergefell to make de jure the anti-Christian hostility that has heretofore been transparently de facto is really not much of a surprise at all,
But it's still breathtaking in its slanted audacity:
That last declaration is rather curious, considering all of which precedes it in Melling’s argument. She decries its use in the Hobby Lobby case, despite the fact that the HHS contraception mandate is government explicitly imposing its views on the business owners in contradiction to their right to live their faith and their views on abortion and the nature of human life. Melling also objects to RFRA defenses for people like bakers and photographers who are being forced to either participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies that violate their religious tenets or pay massive fines to governments, and in some cases endure “sensitivity training” that forces the government’s views on private citizens. Melling also faults the Catholic Church for receiving government funds to reimburse its service to refugees without knuckling under to government edicts to endorse and facilitate abortions, cooperation with which would prompt excommunication automatically for Catholics.
All of these cases involve government imposing its ideas on citizens, not the other way around. Catholics aren’t physically preventing people from getting abortions; bakers and photographers aren’t stopping people from getting married; Hobby Lobby isn’t preventing its employees from using abortifacients. They are declining to participate in those actions out of sincere religious belief and their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The Constitution separates that from the freedom of speech because it doesn’t just encompass speech; if it did, the passage would be entirely redundant. One would think a group so dedicated to “civil liberties” that it defended the right of neo-Nazis to parade past Holocaust survivors would know that.
Oh, they know it, all right. They just don't believe it applies to Christians. In effect, and certainly as far as the ACLU is concerned, we have no rights. The Constitution only extends to the Leftwingnut "tribe" and its constituent identity groups. Followers of Jesus Christ are persona non gratta, and fair game for any and all enemies to prey upon them, with no hope of protection or justice,
The Supreme Court made it official in Obergefell. The Great Persecution has begun.
And the ACLU has put in for its RSVP.
No comments:
Post a Comment