Letter to the editor: NDO arguments don't hold water - By Peg Wherry

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------

Here is yet another post regarding the NDO.  I must apologize. I am reluctant to continue discussing this issue, but the advocates continue hammering false memes and non sequiturs in a vain search for an argument. Read on:

-----------------------
I have noticed that one prominent theme in objections to creating a non-discrimination ordinance for Bozeman has been that homosexuality is a sin and as such is not appropriate to recognize in some contexts. I don’t happen to agree that homosexuality is a sin, but I’m willing to entertain the concept of how sins and sinners are to be regarded in our public life. If sin is the basis for continuing to exempt LGBT individuals from the requirement that all Americans be treated without discrimination, what shall we do with other sinners? (Notice the misdirection. This is what is so frustrating about debating leftists. They can't seem to understand even the most basic things about their opposition's positions. It's like they deliberately choose not to understand. It frequently makes them look foolish at best or deliberately ignorant at worst.

First, the writer characterizes the opposition as being concerned solely with sin, a particular sin. However, quite simply, opponents of the NDO don't want to be forced by the government to do things, including things they find offensive. It may indeed be a moral objection, but that doesn't matter. Government does not have authority to calculate the validity of someone's personal morals. Nor can government make laws about what should be voluntary associations. No one should be forced to do things they don't want to do. 

Second, she attempts to make it something about "public life." The "public" nature of this is an artificial distinction, as if by allowing people to enter your business premises is somehow a matter of interest to the government, but allowing people to enter your church is not. Why a person should be forbidden from voluntary associations in their business yet be allowed them in other environments is a mystery.  In fact, neither is of interest to government, and it should not be allowed to meddle.

Third, she assets that there exists a requirement that all Americans be treated without discrimination. This is preposterous on its face. There are many times and places where discrimination takes place for all sorts of reasons. 12 year olds cannot drive. There are around sixty women-only colleges in the U.S.. A person cannot enter a Stones concert without a ticket. One must be black to be a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Discrimination is not only allowed, it is desired.

She then concludes from this faulty procession of logic that other kinds of sinners need to be considered. However, "we" don't need to do anything with other sinners. There is no "we," unless "we" means government. And government doesn't need to do anything.)

Just to start with the sins outlined in the Ten Commandments, should it be permissible to ban from public accommodations those who covet? Ought I to worry that the person in the next restroom stall might be an adulterer? Should a religious school be able to discriminate in hiring against those who bear false witness? Should MSU be allowed to ban from its residence halls students who do not keep the Sabbath? (The writer appears to be saying that people who commit other sins also need legally-enforced access to "public accommodations." This is the conclusion that follows from her argument. If to avoid discrimination LGBTs need to have the force of government applied in their favor, then so do other sinners, right?)   

“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” (John 8:7) (Ok, since we're now appealing to Scripture, I guess all I need to do is offer more Scripture.

Lk. 12:57 “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?"

Jn. 5:30 "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."

Once again we have a self-appointed theological expert informing us regarding as to what is correct belief, who ironically judges those with whom she disagrees. I for one wish that she would stop attempting to legislate her morality.)

Peg Wherry, Bozeman