Replies

There’s definitely an all or nothing attitude on he Left. There are also “my way or the highway” types on the Right. But the article is making a good point, the genius of the United States is pluralism not fascist dictates.

I argued for years on FR the problem is in the confiscation of the term “marriage” by the State. Everyone with a “marriage license” is in a civil union. As an American, I have no issue with a two men or two women entering into a legal contract with all the rights and responsibilities to one another as in any heterosexual marriage. It’s not a zero sum game. Their marriage wouldn’t change mine and pairing off should have a positive stabilizing effect on society. I argued it’s an opportunity for that community to grow and begin to find stability rather than hedonistic promiscuity and self destructive coping mechanisms of alcoholism, drug addiction and rituals of abuse. It’s still early days.

I don’t believe in compelling speech that betrays someone’s strongly held religious beliefs any more than members of the gay community should be compelled to endorse only heteronormativity. There must be some compromise.

My experience with people tells me transgenderism is a disorder (an extreme self hate often reflecting a pattern of abuse) that should not be rewarded by mutilation of children. I am also consistent as I oppose circumcising infants. Absent medical intervention needed to restore normal function, let men decide when they are older.

I am compelled to use personal pronouns for people at work who have them and indulge their disconnection with reality. No one wants to help these people heal. Health professionals are afraid to go against the heterodoxy of the militant advocacy groups and be seen as uncaring. Homosexuals can’t seek reparative therapy because it’s seen as self-hatred (yet transagenda mutilation isn’t???) and medical professionals won’t touch it.

As long as she’s serving LGBT customers in general, her personal faith and creativity should be left to projects that bare out who she is. A free marketplace will decide if she can make a living or not. Calling for boycott or attempts to intimidate current or future clients is bigoted harassment and should be a civil rights violation and perhaps tortious interference. I am hoping this SCOTUS can find the right balance.