The new tyranny of secularizing “sin”
So, you know all this brouhaha, all these hysterics about how bakers, and photographers, and other service-providers who routinely work for gay clientele (but draw a line at serving gay weddings because they feel it imperils their souls) are horrible people?
And you know the whole “if you think that way, then you’re a bigot,” thing, because governments and pundits have taken it into their heads that it is their job to define “sin” to another person?
And you know that whole, “refusing to serve someone because they think differently than you is all Jim Crow-y and immoral?”
Yeah, well…so much for that.
A gay stylist in Santa Fe refused to cut New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez’s hair due to her stance on same-sex marriage. KOB-TV’s Stuart Dyson reports.
A Santa Fe hairdresser is waging his own boycott of sorts: He is denying service to the governor of New Mexico because she opposes gay marriage.
Antonio Darden, who has been with his partner for 15 years, said he made his views clear the last time Gov. Susana Martinez’s office called to make an appointment.
“The governor’s aides called not too long ago wanting another appointment to come in,” Darden told KOB.com. “Because of her stances and her views on this, I told her aides, ‘no.’ They called the next day asking if I’d changed my mind about taking the governor in, and I said ‘no’ again.”
Martinez has said marriage should be between a man and a woman. Darden, who said he has cut the governor’s hair three times, said he won’t serve her unless she changes her mind about gay marriage.
Darden apparently feels that it would go against his own personal moral code — his individual conscience — to cut the governor’s hair. He does not see this decision as an act of “intolerance.” In his mind, he believes that to cut her hair would be to co-operate with evil — a kind of sin, if not against God, then against his own reason and beliefs. He may fear that serving to the governor could be misconstrued as an affirmation of her views.
And no one in the press is arguing differently on the governor’s behalf. No one is suggesting that, by refusing to cut the hair of a person whose position is in alignment with the law, Mr. Darden is denying her a basic civil-right. Quite the opposite; many on social media are saying he is within his rights to refuse her.
I concur. If he is, though, then so are the Christians refusing to serve gay weddings. You can’t have it both ways.
But sadly, you can. That’s the beauty of adopting anti-foundationalism as your go-to philosophical stance: you are undaunted by accusations of inconsistency or hypocrisy; you reject the logical rigor reinforced by outmoded Enlightenment ideas that assume a kind of symmetry in thought; and you are allowed — as part of your philosophical and intellectual model — to just pick and choose your arguments based on the individual context.
Or, to put it another way, you grant yourself permission to change every intellectual rule on the fly, and advance sophistry as a kind of elevated, legitimate art form.
What we, as classical liberals, must do to combat such nonsense is not merely point out the hypocrisy, or the inconsistencies in logic, that make up the progressive’s self-serving form of “pragmatism.” Instead, we must simply refuse to comply — to engage in civil disobedience, and to bring our case to the American people when the government tries to run us out of business for insisting on our first amendment protections, even and especially if the courts, which have moved increasingly in the direction of activist superlegislatures granting themselves leave to act as philosopher kings and social engineers, rule against us.
Which brings us back to the states and the Article 5 conventions of the states process. The power of the government comes from our willingness to comply with its edicts. But once it rejects the rule of law in favor of selective enforcement and creating its own police state, in which the law is used as a weapon to beat back legitimate policy opposition, then what you have is tyranny, plain and simple.
I reject the lie of anti-foundationalism just as vehemently as I reject the institutionalization of a form of “interpretation” that is nothing of the sort, but rather is a will to power, a rule by consensus, a rejection of individual autonomy reinforced by an incoherent set of linguistic rules many on the right have been too blind to reject and too eager to internalize — creating the conditions for a steady movement leftward.
This movement is not accidental, nor is it incidental. It was planned and, under the current epistemological assumptions coming from the left we’ve allowed to take root, it is also inevitable, as I’ve been at pains to explain over the years here.
The time is coming when we will not have many choices left should we wish to preserve a representative republic. That’s not hyperbole; it’s fact. If we don’t reject the left’s institutional assumptions and refuse to abide them, we will have to find other ways to save ourselves.
Either that, or we sink into the morass of humankind’s persistent lot, to be ruled over by those who assert a dominance over us, Eloi to their Morlocks, sheep to their wolves, Hillary to their Bills.
And that ain’t my style.