This Court doesn’t take seriously worries that Social Security numbers harm spirits or that the Bible endorses racism. By contrast, it (or at least the majority) does take seriously the notion that a religious person—or for that matter any morally serious person—might be pro-life, the essential moral issue at stake in the Hobby Lobby case.Reading this, our underground correspondent, Guy Noir - Private Eye, comments:
So, when I look into my crystal ball to see the future of our legal culture, at least when it comes to the clash between gay rights and religious liberty, I see the finer points of the law turning on similar assumptions about legitimate grievance.
Will the Justices allow that censure of homosexual acts and opposition to gay marriage are reasonable? Will they see that allowing photographers and wedding cake makers to opt out of a compulsory regime of gay affirmation is neither disruptive nor burdensome to those who think otherwise?
Put simply, will the Justices regard opposition to gay marriage and other aspects of gay rights as nothing more than bigotry dressed up in religious disguise?
Why are these even 'questions' now? In no case has a judge yet so decided. Meanwhile, the Church lacks either courage or the conviction, or both, to speak to these issues with any volume or force, but is likewise apologizing as it stutters its truth, stepping backward to avoid a jab like the faltering playground coward. Tis not going to be much fun!And, as he declared at the beginning of his telegram: "AS GLAD AS I AM THE HOBBY LOBBY GOT A PASS, THAT T-H-I-S IS CONSIDERED A VICTORY SHOWS HOW FAR BACK BEHIND OUR OWN LINES WE HAVE BEEN FORCED TO RETREAT."