So says Richard C. Bosson, one of the justices of the New Mexico Supreme Court. Oh, he didn’t use exactly those words? True, but pretty close, to be sure, as we will see below.
I will have much more to say about this on Tuesday on the Dividing Line, and maybe even before then, if time allows for more writing. But for now, I must help put the word out, as it does not seem this story is getting a whole lot of coverage.
We live in post revolutionary America. Not that revolution, the one that we slept through. Well, most of us anyway. Francis Schaeffer didn’t. A few others. But most of us did. Unquestionable evidence of this reality was offered by Richard C. Bosson of the New Mexico Supreme Court. His words should send chills down the spine of anyone who thinks the Constitution is a protection for Christians in the United States.
Let me summarize for now, and expand upon this on the Dividing Line (or, if time allows, follow up articles here on the blog).
The primary problem with the New Mexico case (where Christian photographers have now been forced to photograph the profaning of a Christian ordinance, marriage itself, or face massive financial penalties) is the law of New Mexico itself, an immoral law. Yes, immoral. That is, not only does it violate Christian morality, it removes moral issues from the realm of morality itself. It says you cannot engage in “discrimination” regarding sexual orientation—and, of course, that is why it is immoral. We all must engage in “discrimination” in such areas. We all do! We discriminate against pedophiles and all sorts of people who engage in sexual perversity. Discrimination simply means making decisions, choosing one behavior over another. But in post-revolutionary America, homosexuality is morally good, unquestionable. No discussion, and if you even ask to have the discussion, even ask to talk about nature, what is life-producing, etc., you are dismissed as a bigot immediately. This is the new moral reality of post-revolutionary America.
Second, in this new immoral land, thought and action are now distinct. You can think what you want, but you cannot act upon your moral convictions. Well, this only goes one direction. It is for Christians, for people of morality. For those on the left, the sky is the limit. They can act on anything they can think of, and we are all simply to give them the space to act out their desires.
Religious liberties have been officially subjugated to homosexual liberties. You can be forced to violate your conscience so as to have to photograph the profaning of marriage, or face the consequences.
I have much more to say about this, but time is limited. Please, take the time to read the following material, drawn directly from the PDF of the New Mexico Supreme Court decision itself. Bold are mine.
{86} There is a lesson here. In a constitutional form of government, personal, religious, and moral beliefs, when acted upon to the detriment of someone else’s rights, have constitutional limits. One is free to believe, think and speak as one’s conscience, or God, dictates. But when actions, even religiously inspired, conflict with other constitutionally protected rights—in Loving the right to be free from invidious racial discrimination—then there must be some accommodation. Recall that Barnette was all about the students; their exercise of First Amendment rights did not infringe upon anyone else. The Huguenins cannot make that claim. Their refusal to do business with the same-sex couple in this case, no matter how religiously inspired, was an affront to the legal rights of that couple, the right granted them under New Mexico law to engage in the commercial marketplace free from discrimination. [Please note: these homosexuals not only easily found someone to photograph their event, they did so at a lower price. There was no denial to them of the ability to accomplish what they desired: they did this as activists, not victims, specifically seeking to damage Christians for refusing to celebrate their profaning of a Christian ordinance].
89 The New Mexico Legislature has made it clear that to discriminate in business on the basis of sexual orientation is just as intolerable as discrimination directed toward race, color, national origin or religion. See NMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(F) (2004). The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of sexual orientation—photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony—than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims. [Here is the full acceptance of the utterly bogus argument that homosexual activity and practice is a civil rights issue, and that homosexuality is as innate as race or color. There is no argument here any longer—the society has closed its mind to reason.]
{90} All of which, I assume, is little comfort to the Huguenins, who now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.
{91} On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life. [Note the severing of thought and action, the demand that Christians, and Christians only, I add, separate themselves from the mainstream of social life if they dare to demand to live out their faith.]
{92} In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.
In other words, the cost of citizenship in post-revolutionary, post-Christian, post-constitutional America? Bow to Caesar. Say Caesar is Lord rather than Jesus is Lord. Celebrate evil with us, or pay the price.
We’ve been here before. But only Christians who know their past even realize it. Wake up, believers. These words are were written long, long ago:
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. (John 15:18–21)
And just a little later, in the presence of Pilate, Jesus said,
For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:37)
