Thursday, April 9, 2015
Erwin Chemerinksy Uses Selective Arguments on the Indiana Law
Here is the latest example of how UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky uses selective arguments to fashion his legal opinions according to his liberal views.
According to Chemerinsky, since the majority of Americans support same sex marriage (I will assume for the sake of argument that he is correct on this.) that is enough to make the legal case. OK. If they vote on such a law, I will go along with that.
However, the learned professor over-simplifies his legal case on a rather complicated manner and conveniently leaves out certain facts.
This case involves the question in Indiana not whether gays may marry, but whether businesses be compelled to say, make wedding cakes or cater gay marriages if the owners of those businesses have religious objections to such marriages. Keep in mind those business owners are not stopping anyone from marrying in the first place. The couples have the ability to walk down the street to the next cake shop or food catering business. If legal in the state, the marriage will take place and be catered or receive any other service it requires. The issue is whether we want to see people lose their businesses, their homes, and everything they have because they decline to provide services for a ceremony with which they have religious objections. I think that is the issue that the Indiana law is attempting to address.
And what about a church pastor, rabbi or imam who declines to officiate at a same sex ceremony out of religious grounds? Do we sue him and put his place of worship out of business to? Again, the couple will always find a pastor willing to do the service.
Another problem that Chemerinsky neglects to address is the thuggish tactics that the gay rights lobby has been using to retaliate against a pizza business in Indiana, where an employee answered a reporter's hypothetical question over whether they would have a religious problem catering a same sex marriage. It is disgraceful the treatment that these people have been subjected to. Not a word about that in Chemerinsky's op-ed. Is that "the First Amendment at its best", Dean Chemerinsky?
I am not a proponent of same-sex marriage, but I pretty much concede at this point that it is inevitable. I think there are bigger issues to fight over. Nor do I want to see gays discriminated against. That's why the Indiana law is a sticky issue. I see two competing rights here. Again, I point out that same sex couples will always find their bakery, catering service, or pastor willing to accommodate them. Why single out those who have a religious objection to doing so?
Chemerinsky could have addressed the above concerns, but that would go against his liberal bent. Once again, he takes his liberal position and makes it law.
"You're killing me, Erwin."