Tuesday, July 07, 2015

Fisking Pruzansky On Obergfell

Among the many crimes Pruzansky commits every time he posts is his attack on brevity. Why can't the man say what he has to say and be done in under, say, 3000 words?

This selfish indulgence of his make his posts difficult to read, and more importantly difficult to fisk (Once I labored through seven posts just to adequately deal with a single one of his eruptions) so we won't be addressing every stupid thing he says in his new post about Jonah and Obergfell. Just the highlights. Here we go..

That is a joke (I think) – and of course this is not meant to equate all sexual sins – but what is no joking matter is the threat to religious liberty posed by this decision. All of Kennedy’s protestations notwithstanding, people of faith – people who believe in G-d’s Bible and its objective moral laws and attempt to incorporate those laws in their daily lives – will suffer as a result of this decision. Wait – it won’t be that long – for a same sex couple to demand their right to hold their wedding in a church or synagogue. A refusal will result in prosecution, lawsuits and/or loss of tax exempt status. 

This is just stupid. No one will prosecute, because a church that refuses to host a gay wedding isn't breaking the law. The rejected couple might sue - you can always sue - but the the first judge to see the case will point to the Second Amendment and laugh the litigants right out of the building.  And who is going to strip the Church of its tax exempt status? Congress? Don't make me laugh. Even if they tried, the Court would go all McCulloch v. Maryland on their asses. 

Wait – perhaps a little longer – for a rabbi, priest or minister to be sued for refusing to officiate at a same sex wedding. 

I can sue a church, priest or minister for looking at me wrong. I can sue a priest, church or Rabbi for writing a long-winded and stupid blog post about gay marriage. I can sue for any reason I like (The answer to "Can I Sue?" is always "Yes.) So sure, a clergyman might get sued for refusing to officiate at a same sex wedding, but the important thing is this: The person bringing the lawsuit would never win. 

And let me add something brilliant our friend MarkSofla said earlier. In this country, Jews can marry Catholics. Its perfectly legal. Go to the county clerk and ask for a license to marry someone of a different faith, and you'll get it. Every time. But when was the last time, an interfaith couple sued a Hasidic Rabbi for refusing to officiate at their wedding? Has it ever happened? If it did happen, do you imagine that there's any chance the Rabbi would lose? 

The homosexual lobby masterfully (and disingenuously) conflated same sex marriage with interracial marriage; consequently, religious institutions or individuals that continue to object to same sex marriage will be no better than racists. Recall that Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status in 1983 because its policies banned interracial dating (it rescinded the policy in 2000). Get ready, people of faith. Our heads are now on the chopping block.

Has Pruz read the Bob Jones case? I haven't, but I skimmed the Wikipedia article about it and all it too was 30 seconds to determine that Pruz has the case and its consequences all wrong: 
The Court, speaking through [Justice] Burger found... "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions." 
So some schools might have a problem if they wish to employ discriminatory admissions policies, but shuls can continue to rest easy. (This is nothing new. A yeshiva or day school that banned gay students was on the wrong side of the law before Obergfell. I'm not sure how Obergfell puts them at any new risk. Readers?)

That is the invariable next step now that individuals have already lost their religious liberties and rights of conscience. 

They haven't lost this at all. I'm still free to hate black people, for example. I can say nasty things about black people, and preach about their inferiority, and the government won't interfere. I only get into trouble if I refuse to sell a product or a service to a black person, on the grounds that he is black. This doesn't interfere with my "rights of conscious" I still get to hate black people. I just don't get to make the black person suffer. 
This is what makes Pruzansky's position so obnoxious. He doesn't merely want to hate gay people. He wasn't to harrass and humiliate them. He wants the right to get in their way, and  to cause them difficulties. And now that this privilege he been taken away he whines that all he really wants to do is hate them. Well, then he's in luck. Hating them is still ok. 

The Mozilla CEO was hounded out of his position because he contributed to a ballot initiative in California that – successfully but now futilely – opposed same sex marriage.

In the Mozilla case private people reacted privately to something that they found unacceptable. If they had drummed the CEO out of office for wishing to gay marry someone, presumably Pruzansky would applaud. 

Bakers, caterers, photographers, and florists have all refused to lend their personal services to same sex weddings on grounds of religious conscience, have all been sued, and have all lost. 

They sued on grounds of religious conscience, but that's not why they lost. The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker all get to continue hating gays.  That hasn't been taken away. What they can't do is discriminate against  people on the basis of race, creed or sexual orientation. And as a member of a historically persecuted minority myself I think that's a very good thing. 

And here’s the secular danger to the decision: it will result in the collapse of the family, already under siege in this hedonistic society. American youth, already bedeviled by gender confusion and late to marry, if at all, will grow up in a society in which there is no preferred family structure – no vision of an ideal family unit that has the best chance of rearing healthy, well-grounded, and productive children. The radical homosexual activists would have us believe that it does not matter whether one is raised by a mother and father, two mothers, two fathers, one mother, one father, or any other permutation thereof. But, of course, it does, and G-d – and common sense – teaches us otherwise.

Where did God personally weigh in on any of this? Can you show me the verse, please? And common sense gets things wrong all the time. Comon sense told us that the sun rotated around the earth. Common sense told us that leeches were a great way to cure diseases. So rather then relying on Pruz's "common sense", I'd like to look at the science: 
Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents. In fact, one comprehensive study of children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers concluded that children raised by same-sex parents did not differ from other children in terms of emotional functioning, sexual orientation, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, learning and grade point averages. Where research differences have been found, they have sometimes favored same-sex parents.
More later when the vomit subsides

No comments: