The very wide narrow ruling

Leftists are calling the Supreme Court's ruling "narrow" because it says it's illegal to force someone to go against his religious beliefs when the authority trying to do the forcing demonstrates hostility toward religion.

The Commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion[.]

But in all the cases where authorities have tried to force people to go against their faith, there have always been many bakers, photographers, etc. who were more than willing to provide services to the gay "wedding."

Demanding that the one person whose religious beliefs say he should not support a gay "wedding" do so when there are so many others to choose from is prima facie evidence that the authority is hostile to the person's religious belief.

A key aspect of modern law is that the state, businesses, and individuals must provide reasonable accommodations to people based on their religious beliefs – for example, allowing Muslims to pray during the work day.  Now, if the accommodation is too demanding, then it does not have to be provided – for example, allowing a Muslim cashier at a liquor store not to ring up liquor purchases.  But asserting that some other baker who doesn't object to baking a cake for a gay "wedding" provide a cake instead of forcing the one baker whose religious beliefs preclude his participation is a reasonable and non-intrusive accommodation.

After all, if an Orthodox Jew and a Catholic work at a business that is open on Saturday and Sunday, wouldn't it be a clear sign of hostility if the owner refused to let them switch work days so the Jew didn't have to work on Saturday and the Catholic didn't have to work on Sunday?

Hence, any authority that rejects the reasonable accommodation is clearly hostile to the person whom it refuses to accommodate and to the rationale that that person is using to ask for an accommodation.  In this case, the rationale is their religious beliefs.

To demand that everyone bow to the idol of gay greatness when that isn't necessary is an unambiguous declaration that the religious beliefs of Americans aren't as important as the beliefs of gays.  Declaring that 2% of Americans, the gays, have the right to impose their beliefs on 72% of Americans, Christians, is clearly hostile to Christians.

What the Supreme Court didn't say is that if there is no one willing to provide a service to a gay "wedding," someone couldn't be forced to do so despite his religious beliefs.  While the justices should have ruled that a person's religious liberty is not up for discussion, given the clear wording of the First Amendment, the reality is that in America today, even in the Bible Belt, there is no shortage of individuals willing to provide every imaginable service for gay "weddings."

Hence, the reality is that the "narrow" ruling is very wide, since the only exception would be when no one will provide services to gay weddings.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.

Leftists are calling the Supreme Court's ruling "narrow" because it says it's illegal to force someone to go against his religious beliefs when the authority trying to do the forcing demonstrates hostility toward religion.

The Commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion[.]

But in all the cases where authorities have tried to force people to go against their faith, there have always been many bakers, photographers, etc. who were more than willing to provide services to the gay "wedding."

Demanding that the one person whose religious beliefs say he should not support a gay "wedding" do so when there are so many others to choose from is prima facie evidence that the authority is hostile to the person's religious belief.

A key aspect of modern law is that the state, businesses, and individuals must provide reasonable accommodations to people based on their religious beliefs – for example, allowing Muslims to pray during the work day.  Now, if the accommodation is too demanding, then it does not have to be provided – for example, allowing a Muslim cashier at a liquor store not to ring up liquor purchases.  But asserting that some other baker who doesn't object to baking a cake for a gay "wedding" provide a cake instead of forcing the one baker whose religious beliefs preclude his participation is a reasonable and non-intrusive accommodation.

After all, if an Orthodox Jew and a Catholic work at a business that is open on Saturday and Sunday, wouldn't it be a clear sign of hostility if the owner refused to let them switch work days so the Jew didn't have to work on Saturday and the Catholic didn't have to work on Sunday?

Hence, any authority that rejects the reasonable accommodation is clearly hostile to the person whom it refuses to accommodate and to the rationale that that person is using to ask for an accommodation.  In this case, the rationale is their religious beliefs.

To demand that everyone bow to the idol of gay greatness when that isn't necessary is an unambiguous declaration that the religious beliefs of Americans aren't as important as the beliefs of gays.  Declaring that 2% of Americans, the gays, have the right to impose their beliefs on 72% of Americans, Christians, is clearly hostile to Christians.

What the Supreme Court didn't say is that if there is no one willing to provide a service to a gay "wedding," someone couldn't be forced to do so despite his religious beliefs.  While the justices should have ruled that a person's religious liberty is not up for discussion, given the clear wording of the First Amendment, the reality is that in America today, even in the Bible Belt, there is no shortage of individuals willing to provide every imaginable service for gay "weddings."

Hence, the reality is that the "narrow" ruling is very wide, since the only exception would be when no one will provide services to gay weddings.

You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious, and feel free to follow him on Twitter.