A lawsuit I'd been waiting for

After scores of lawsuits and legislation claiming persecution because gays were being allowed to marry, businesses were penalized for not honoring public accommodation, some denied their right to selectively remember that they should discriminate against contraception coverage, watching Prop 8 pass, become law, get challenged and finally dismissed by the SCOTUS, it was time.


It was time for a religious institution to claim persecution because of a law pertaining to same-sex marriage. Only this time, it was a church suing the state of North Carolina for violating their religious freedom of not being able marry homosexuals.

Religion clause has the links.


Naturally, this has raised the ire of some hypocrites Christians. Here is one Tami Fitzgerald, screeching:

Moreover, it’s both ironic and sad that an entire religious denomination and its clergy who purport holding to Christian teachings on marriage would look to the courts to justify their errant beliefs. These individuals are simply revisionists that distort the teaching of Scripture to justify sexual revolution, not marital sanctity.

The tone-deafness should be apparent. No, in the laughable double-standards, but in the candid admission that the opposition to same-sex marriage, is [ding, ding, ding] rooted in religion.

It'll be fun to watch this unfold. Will these people of religion be asked to provide evidence that their religious freedom is being violated? How would they be treated as opposed to the religious plaintiffs who invest their company's 401K in businesses selling abortifacients, yet feign persecution at the thought of paying for insurance plans that cover contraceptives for their employees.

Note that this is not at all similar to the Catholic Church who in a recent lawsuit argued that a fetus is not a person. That was just hypocrisy good legal defense.

While I still consider religion to be silly and often harmful, I applaud the efforts of these religionists to do the right thing and rather unwittingly expose the flimsy veneer of beliefs and rights grounded in religion. Flimsy, of course, is an exaggeration.

I hope this produces a Noah-style flood of lawsuits where more people try to carve out rights, or exemption from the law for themselves based on their religion. Odds are high that some bigoted Christophile will die of a stroke over it while on TV.

That cannot be a Sad Thing, even if it makes me callous for entertaining that vicariously.