Tonight is the night of the Academy Awards and in the meantime, certain talking heads and politicians are continuing to deliver oscar-winning performances on the TV. The latest is George Will:
During a panel discussion on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Will to respond to a viewer who disagreed with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s decision to veto a law that would have allowed discrimination against gay and lesbian customers on the basis of religion.
“That’s a settled issue,” the pundit noted. “That said, this too must be said: It’s a funny kind of sore winner in the gay rights movement that would say, ‘A photographer doesn’t want to photograph my wedding — I’ve got lots of other photographers I could go to, but I’m going to use the hammer of government to force them to do this.’”
“It’s not neighborly and it’s not nice,” he added. “The gay rights movement is winning. They should be, as I say, not sore winners.”
Will grudgingly admits that they are right as a matter of law, btw.
But let's use a baseball analogy here. If you're going to be an umpire, or any other kind of sports official, then you need to call it both ways. If you're going to rip the LGBT community, then you have a responsibility to rip the businesses who refuse to follow the commands of Christ and go the extra mile for people. Businesses have a moral obligation to either follow the law or accept the consequences. It's not OK to refuse to follow the law just because you're a Republican.
Certain politicians cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, certain members of the right claim that the Constitution is based on God's law. But then when it turns out that it is unconstitutional not to serve gays or some other objectionable person that you don't like, then they conveniently forget that point. So which is it? Was the Constitution written by men of God who wanted to apply His law to man? Or do they maintain that it was written by man, in which case they don't support the Constitution anymore?
Last time we checked, being neighborly means respecting other people even if you don't agree with their lifestyle. That is the whole basis of the 1st Amendment guarantees of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. Call it both ways, George.