The Left is great at making weak analogies and poisoning the well. By linking Christians who hold to certain moral values with Sharia Law, the goal is to taint anything a Christian ever says about law. It’s a neat trick, and it often works with low information voters and even some sophisticated thinkers who are blinded by their operating assumptions.
You can see how easily duped people are by watching the reaction of crowds of spectators who watch street magicians perform a couple of card tricks. Many of them actually believe these guys have magical powers.
The latest is from Dean Obeidallah over at the Daily Beast. The summary paragraph reads:
“It’s not just the fringe anymore. Mainstream conservatives are trying to bring America’s laws into agreement with ‘God’s law.’”
Do you want to guess what Obeidallah has in mind? You know the answer: same-sex sex, better known as homosexuality.
“Just last week we saw another example of creeping Christian Sharia Law with a bill passed by Kansas’ House of Representatives that would allow people and businesses to deny services to same sex couples if it violated their ‘religious beliefs.’ This proposed law would in essence legally sanction discrimination against gay Americans because same sex marriage is not approved by the Bible. Similar bills are pending in other State’s including Mississippi, Idaho, and Arizona.”
Why do homosexuals want to get married since the basis of marriage is found in the Bible? If Obeidallah wants to be consistent, he should reject all marriage because marriage is based on the opening chapters of Genesis.
Marriage isn’t found in nature. Rape is found in nature. There are other laws found in the Bible against stealing, kidnapping, murdering, infringing on property rights. Does he want these to go as well?
Would it be OK with Obeidallah for a black man to deny service to a racist or a Jew who wants to deny service to an anti-Semite? If the KKK wanted to rent out space in a hotel for a meeting, would it be morally and legally permissible for the hotel to refuse? Would that refusal be a form of “Shariah law”?
Would it be legal and morally OK for a print shop owned by a black family to refuse an order of shirts that promoted white supremacy? Would this family be practicing Shariah law, too?
In several cases where homosexuals have been denied service, it’s not because they were homosexuals, it was because they wanted a service that would promote a lifestyle that was offensive to the service provider. There’s a difference.
Should a photographer have to photograph any event that he or she finds offensive? Should a baker be compelled to make a cake for an event he considers to be hateful or in poor taste? I bet it happens more often than we know. It seems that only homosexuals are protected.
Obeidallah also brings the “separation of church and state” argument in. Instead of actually citing the First Amendment, which is the law of the land, he appeals to Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists where our third president uses the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state.” This is not a church-state issue. No one is being forced to believe anything except the businesses that are being bullied by the courts and people like Obeidallah to act contrary to their religious convictions. It’s a freedom of religion and speech issue.
Instead of citing a letter of a president that is not the law of the land, Obeidallah should have made his case based on the First Amendment, but then he wouldn’t have a case since it states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .” Obeidallah wants the courts and state legislators to deny the right of people to exercise their religious beliefs.
By the way, I don’t want a law that only protects people with certain “religious beliefs.” I believe everybody has a right to deny service for anybody for whatever reason. Let the market decide.