What gay activists and their water-carriers get wrong almost every time is that where there is no monopoly on a product or service their attacks on conscientious objectors is not a battle for tolerance it is an exercise in intolerance. Embrace their worldview or be destroyed, personally, professionally, publicly.
Bakers, photographers, florists, and now judges.
The Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability will hold hearings in November concerning the case of Marion County Circuit Court Judge Vance Day, who has been refusing to perform same sex-marriages.
Patrick Korten, a spokesman for the legal firm Day has hired, told the Oregonian the judge never prevented a gay couple from getting married, as Kim Davis did in Kentucky by refusing to issue marriage licenses.
Instead, Davis simply referred gay couples to other judges who would perform the ceremonies.
“For him as a religious matter it’s not something that he wished to participate in, and he doesn’t have to,” Korten said. “He has First Amendment rights, just like everybody else.”
There are ample services available to meet the needs of gay couples seeking a justice to perform a civil union. The only reason for scrutiny in this instance is to send a message that the exercise of religious conscience is subject to approval.
I don’t hold out much hope for anyone in Oregon, but there is no monopoly. The judge is not denying anyone access to anything, instead directing them to amenable resources.
Sadly, the LGBTQ+ movement rarely displays the tolerance it demands of others. Objectors are pilloried by major media, harassed by activists, and intimidated into…a closet of silence.
That isn’t a love, or a rights argument. It is isn’t a struggle for acceptance. It is a militant minority participating in a cultural inquisition. If you cannot embrace their worldview then pretend, or keep quiet.
A second Oregon judge, Thomas Kohl, responded to a similar threat of investigation by announcing that he will no longer perform any marriages, of any sort. How long before that extends itself into every case of religious liberty, and doesn’t that appear to be the intention?
In Tennessee a judge is now questioning the states (and his) authority to decide matters of divorce.
“The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee. This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary,” [Judge] Atherton wrote in his decision.
“The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces.”
How does the Gaystapo respond to a judge who will neither marry nor divorce any couple, for fear of being investigated?
I guess we’ll have to watch and wait.
