Schlafly, Eliason: Hagel a Muslim, Obama a Pacifist »« Indiana Senate: Only One Vaginal Ultrasound

Barber: Equality Criminalizes Christianity

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, who seems to specialize in making arguments that are particularly moronic even for a wingnut, told Instant Analysis, the American Family Association’s latest “news” site, that giving gay people equality will criminalize Christianity. I can’t seem to copy this, so here’s an image of it:

barberstatement

No Matt, you’re confusing not being allowed to impose your religious beliefs on others with not being allowed to have your religious beliefs. Those aren’t the same thing.

Comments

  1. says

    No Matt, you’re confusing not being allowed to impose your religious beliefs on others with not being allowed to have your religious beliefs.

    Oh, please! Everybody knows that faith without works is dead. It’s right there in The Constitution (above and to the left of where Herbie Hancock signed)!

  2. gshelley says

    Well, he has a point. After Loving v Virgina, it became illegal to be against mixed race marriage. Only last year there was the case, in Kentucky I think, where a church was raided by Federal officials after they refused to perform a marriage because the participants were different races.
    On the other hand, though the example about the church refusing to have the wedding is true, none of the rest of what I wrote was.

  3. says

    Hmmm … I had no trouble copying it. Here it is in case anyone want to cut ‘n paste it without exposing their brains directly to such massive stupidity:

    Barber contends that Obama has become emboldened after being re-elected and “the mask is off.” And he predicts if DOMA is repealed, the floodgates will be opened against Christianity.

    “If people are given special, suspect minority status based on aberrant sexual feelings and behaviors, then the Christian view that says homosexual behavior is both self-destructive and immoral … essentially becomes criminalized,” he warns.

    That has been the experience in Canada and the United Kingdom, where people have been penalized for preaching, teaching, and speaking out that homosexuality is sin. Barber says that “essentially pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and Christian sexual morality.”

    Of course, one needn’t remind such a crack[ed] legal scholar as Barber that Canada and Great Britain lack a little thing called the First Amendment.

  4. DaveL says

    If people are given special, suspect minority status based on aberrant sexual feelings and behaviors

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think “suspect classes” work that way. A suspect class is some axis of distinction, such as race, sex, or sexual orientation. It is not some particular classification within that axis, such as black, white, male, female, straight, or gay.

    Courts do not, for instance, ban discrimination against black people, they ban discrimination based on race. The only way white people can claim that amounts to special protection for blacks that white do not enjoy, is to admit that blacks are targeted for discrimination in a way that whites are not. A similar situation applies in the case of sexual orientation.

  5. Doug Little says

    Christian view that says homosexual behavior is both self-destructive and immoral … essentially becomes criminalized,”

    Yes just like all those other Christian views that are now criminalized. WTF.

  6. Synfandel says

    Of course, one needn’t remind such a crack[ed] legal scholar as Barber that Canada and Great Britain lack a little thing called the First Amendment.

    That’s because, lacking a little thing called the United States Constitution, the general consensus was that it would be silly to have the First Amendment.

  7. unbound says

    @#3 – It didn’t become illegal to be against mixed marriages after Loving v Virginia. It become illegal to act on those feelings.

  8. says

    “No Matt, you’re confusing not being allowed to impose your religious beliefs on others with not being allowed to have your religious beliefs. Those aren’t the same thing.”

    Not if my religious beliefs require me to impose my beliefs on everyone else. Checkmate atheists!

  9. Sastra says

    “If people are given special, suspect minority status based on aberrant sexual feelings and behaviors, then the Christian view that says homosexual behavior is both self-destructive and immoral … essentially becomes criminalized,” he warns.

    Ah, but that little word “essentially” is crucial here. “Essentially criminalized” is not the same as “criminalized.” The Christian view that says homosexual behavior is sinful is in grave danger of being looked down on by the general public. Just like with bigots, boors, bullies, brutes, and blackguards, people won’t want anything to do with you. This — even though you are only expressing your deeply-held religious convictions.

    No approval. No tacit approval. Not even a polite, fair-minded, tolerant “well, I don’t agree with that but I really respect your deeply-held religious convictions and fully support your right to believe whatever you want according to your conscience and your God.” No. None of that. Instead, you’ll get frowns, stares. fidgets, uncomfortable silence, looks of disapproval … maybe even an argument! With your faith!

    It’ll essentially be like you’re some kind of a criminal or something.

  10. thisisaturingtest says

    The usual- Barber is mistaking his individual right to believe what he wants without governmental interference for an institutional privilege to impose those beliefs on others with governmental sanction.

  11. Ichthyic says

    The usual- Barber is mistaking his individual right to believe what he wants without governmental interference for an institutional privilege to impose those beliefs on others with governmental sanction lies.

    fixed.

  12. cptdoom says

    where people have been penalized for preaching, teaching, and speaking out that homosexuality is sin

    And by “penalized” he means, in most cases, forced to serve gay and lesbian couples on an equal footing with every other couple. Oh, the horrors.

  13. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    Of course, one needn’t remind such a crack[ed] legal scholar as Barber that Canada and Great Britain lack a little thing called the First Amendment. – John Pieret

    One could however note that Barber’s a barefaced liar: there have been no such prosecutions in the UK, and I’d be very surprised if there have been any in Canada.

  14. says

    One could however note that Barber’s a barefaced liar: there have been no such prosecutions in the UK, and I’d be very surprised if there have been any in Canada.

    Yeah, I didn’t really think there had been. I believe there was some attempt (by private citizens) to bring hate speech charges against a Canadian preacher for railing against homosexuality but, IIRC, it was pretty quickly quashed. I was only pointing out that using non-American legal systems as a supposed precedent for what will happen here fails to take into account the differences between them.

  15. Crip Dyke, MQ, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Y’know, this exact argument was used pro-racism and pro-segregation during the 1940s, 50s, & 60s. (Heck, probably still is used in some cases, but I haven’t seen any examples lately.)

    This is another of those arguments refuted a thousand times, just with “gay” splatted over the racialized language of the Civil Rights Era.

    @Modus Operandi, #2:

    Nice reference! I love Herbie Hancock. He’s like Daft Punk, but he writes music, too!

  16. Ichthyic says

    This is another of those arguments refuted a thousand times, just with “gay” splatted over the racialized language of the Civil Rights Era.

    …and women’s suffrage before that.

    and likely goes back centuries.

  17. Michael Heath says

    DaveL @ 7 writes:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think “suspect classes” work that way. A suspect class is some axis of distinction, such as race, sex, or sexual orientation. It is not some particular classification within that axis, such as black, white, male, female, straight, or gay.

    Courts do not, for instance, ban discrimination against black people, they ban discrimination based on race. The only way white people can claim that amounts to special protection for blacks that white do not enjoy, is to admit that blacks are targeted for discrimination in a way that whites are not. A similar situation applies in the case of sexual orientation.

    This is great example on why I read the comments at Ed’s blog.

  18. says

    This is another of those arguments refuted a thousand times, just with “gay” splatted over the racialized language of the Civil Rights Era.

    …and women’s suffrage before that.

    and likely goes back centuries.

    … and “heathens” before that and “barbarians” before that …

    Marginalizing and discriminating against “the other” is perhaps the oldest social impulse of Homo (not so) sapiens there is.

  19. says

    Synfandel @ 10:

    That’s because, lacking a little thing called the United States Constitution, the general consensus was that it would be silly to have the First Amendment.

    Well, there’s your problem! Dontcha know that ‘Merca is the most exceptional country in the world? It’s your own damn fault that yuz don’t have our Constitution!

  20. janiceintoronto says

    OK then. Gee whiz, they figured it out.

    I live in Canada. My wife lives in Canada.

    Our hobby is destroying heterosexual marriages, recruiting young people, and generally wreaking havoc with those pesky, illegal christians.

    Oh yeah, you betcha.

    /snark

  21. xmaseveeve says

    When you said, ‘I can’t seem to copy this, so here’s an image of it’, I expected a picture of a steaming turd. But then, you wouldn’t want to flatter it.

  22. Rick Pikul says

    @John Pieret

    I believe there was some attempt (by private citizens) to bring hate speech charges against a Canadian preacher for railing against homosexuality but, IIRC, it was pretty quickly quashed.

    It wasn’t just quashed, part of the provincial law involved was struck down.

Leave a Reply