------------------------
Mr. Millhiser has appeared on this blog for various reasons. He is an inevitably hyperbolic leftist who appears to be content with spouting talking points with little desire to understand the issues beyond that.
The thing to note is, the Left loves government intrusion. They are happy to bring government to bear to defend someone's rights at the expense of someone else's rights.
This is a critical understanding. When government intervenes, it chooses sides. It favors one party, and the other party suffers. It creates a hierarchy of rights, where expression of sexual preference trumps expression of moral preference, where objecting to religious practice is more important than engaging in religious practice, and where claiming someone else's money for your own is more noble than claiming your own money for your own.
Rather than let people associate as they see fit, rather than staying out of the free speech of people, rather than allowing people to decide for themselves what is moral, the Left wants government to install leftist preferences carrying the weight of law.
------------------
One of the Christian right’s top policy priorities is to effectively create two different codes of law in the United States. The first code, which applies to people who do not hold conservative religious views, is rigid and unmoving. The second code, which would apply primarily to Christian-identified conservatives, contains broad exceptions for people who hold the right religious beliefs. (That is quite an astounding assertion. Let's see if he quotes any prominent Christian who has advocated such a thing.)
The endgame is a world where Christian conservatives can treat much of the law as optional — applicable only to people who are not like them. Think of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where an anti-gay business owner claimed that he could refuse to follow his state’s civil rights laws because his religion taught him not to serve same-sex couples at their weddings. (Is that what Masterpiece claimed? Even this leftist journalist has the capability to accurately represent Masterpiece's claim:
The four most conservative members of the Supreme Court signaled on Tuesday that they are itching to turn this agenda into law. Indeed, Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District suggests that the Court’s right flank would give conservative Christians such broad immunity from the rules that govern all other Americans that it is unclear that the government would be allowed to manage its own workforce — at least when some members of that workforce identify with the Christian right. (It is interesting that the author doesn't mind that all sorts of laws compel people to do things they don't want to do if they're Christians, but howl and complain when a Christian might embrace his constitutional rights to the detriment of the leftist agenda.)
Kennedy involves a former high school football coach who was fired because he would conclude football games by walking out to the 50-yard line and performatively praying in front of his players and the crowd. The school superintendent instructed him not to do so for two reasons — by walking out to the 50-year line, the coach abandoned his players at a time when he was supposed to be supervising them, and by praying “on the field, under the game lights, in BHS-logoed attire, in front of an audience of event attendees,” the coach falsely gave the impression that the school district endorsed a religious viewpoint. (The law does not [or should not] care what "impression" is given. The coach's claim was that
Despite the superintendent’s instruction, Coach Joseph Kennedy continued to pray at the 50-yard line after games. The district eventually forbade Kennedy from participating in its football program. Kennedy responded by filing a lawsuit claiming that the district violated his free speech rights and his religious freedom.
As a matter of law, (That is, laws that violate the Constitution... "Congress shall make no law," remember?)
school districts are allowed to regulate what kind of speech their own employees engage in when those employees are on the job. A district may require teachers to teach the state curriculum, and not whatever topic the teacher feels like teaching that day. A school district may order its teachers not to belittle their students. It may order a coach not to use curse words in front of their players. If a high school math teacher decides to ignore math to teach their students about the Bible, the school may fire that teacher.
(...)
Mr. Millhiser has appeared on this blog for various reasons. He is an inevitably hyperbolic leftist who appears to be content with spouting talking points with little desire to understand the issues beyond that.
The thing to note is, the Left loves government intrusion. They are happy to bring government to bear to defend someone's rights at the expense of someone else's rights.
This is a critical understanding. When government intervenes, it chooses sides. It favors one party, and the other party suffers. It creates a hierarchy of rights, where expression of sexual preference trumps expression of moral preference, where objecting to religious practice is more important than engaging in religious practice, and where claiming someone else's money for your own is more noble than claiming your own money for your own.
Rather than let people associate as they see fit, rather than staying out of the free speech of people, rather than allowing people to decide for themselves what is moral, the Left wants government to install leftist preferences carrying the weight of law.
------------------
One of the Christian right’s top policy priorities is to effectively create two different codes of law in the United States. The first code, which applies to people who do not hold conservative religious views, is rigid and unmoving. The second code, which would apply primarily to Christian-identified conservatives, contains broad exceptions for people who hold the right religious beliefs. (That is quite an astounding assertion. Let's see if he quotes any prominent Christian who has advocated such a thing.)
The endgame is a world where Christian conservatives can treat much of the law as optional — applicable only to people who are not like them. Think of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where an anti-gay business owner claimed that he could refuse to follow his state’s civil rights laws because his religion taught him not to serve same-sex couples at their weddings. (Is that what Masterpiece claimed? Even this leftist journalist has the capability to accurately represent Masterpiece's claim:
A cake baker claims that a Colorado civil rights law, which requires him, as a merchant serving the public, to provide his product on a nondiscriminatory basis to gay people for their weddings, unconstitutionally compels him to speak.That is, Colorado law is violating his rights by compelling him to do something he doesn't want to do.)
The four most conservative members of the Supreme Court signaled on Tuesday that they are itching to turn this agenda into law. Indeed, Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District suggests that the Court’s right flank would give conservative Christians such broad immunity from the rules that govern all other Americans that it is unclear that the government would be allowed to manage its own workforce — at least when some members of that workforce identify with the Christian right. (It is interesting that the author doesn't mind that all sorts of laws compel people to do things they don't want to do if they're Christians, but howl and complain when a Christian might embrace his constitutional rights to the detriment of the leftist agenda.)
Kennedy involves a former high school football coach who was fired because he would conclude football games by walking out to the 50-yard line and performatively praying in front of his players and the crowd. The school superintendent instructed him not to do so for two reasons — by walking out to the 50-year line, the coach abandoned his players at a time when he was supposed to be supervising them, and by praying “on the field, under the game lights, in BHS-logoed attire, in front of an audience of event attendees,” the coach falsely gave the impression that the school district endorsed a religious viewpoint. (The law does not [or should not] care what "impression" is given. The coach's claim was that
he lost his job as football coach at a public high school because he engaged in conduct that was protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.No matter how the author dances around with claims of discrimination, Congress shall make no law regarding the free exercise of religion.)
Despite the superintendent’s instruction, Coach Joseph Kennedy continued to pray at the 50-yard line after games. The district eventually forbade Kennedy from participating in its football program. Kennedy responded by filing a lawsuit claiming that the district violated his free speech rights and his religious freedom.
As a matter of law, (That is, laws that violate the Constitution... "Congress shall make no law," remember?)
school districts are allowed to regulate what kind of speech their own employees engage in when those employees are on the job. A district may require teachers to teach the state curriculum, and not whatever topic the teacher feels like teaching that day. A school district may order its teachers not to belittle their students. It may order a coach not to use curse words in front of their players. If a high school math teacher decides to ignore math to teach their students about the Bible, the school may fire that teacher.
(...)
No comments:
Post a Comment