We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Are American Christians in the Midst of a ‘Social Secession?’
As a Christian lawyer — even when I was engaged in the “commercial” practice of law rather than the nonprofit, constitutional work I do now — I always drew moral lines around my representations decisions.
this is his first sentence, and after reading it I immediately discounted everything that follows.
why does he need to brand himself as "nonprofit" and "constitutional" vs. "'commercial'"? is there a moral distinction here that I'm missing because there isn't. every time I move to suppress evidence that I know incriminates my always guilty clients I'm doing "constitutional" work and too often enough its also "nonprofit" as well. whatever kind of law he practices, it is a stone cold fact that both sides will lie about something, so he's ignoring that inconvenient truth in his moral crusade.
dumbass literary trick: he doesn't do divorce work, so he can also boast about withholding his probably certainly never asked for his non-existent family law expertise when others took down DOMA.
he conflates social pressure with legal compulsion, and aggravates this with a passive aggression.
he won't represent you in a divorce or support an attempt to expand divorce rights but he accepts dissolution of marriage as a given: has he challenged that in court?
he's accept a form of social compulsion that he calls private but in the examples he uses (forcing Christian leadership to step down) are in fact very public and then bemoans that the government is doing essentially the same thing. why does he assume that private compulsion is always moral or applied correctly? why does he assume that government compulsion isn't (civil rights law that redresses actual civil rights violations deal with private and government-spawned social evils).
we may disagree with the Cake case, but at least the fight is being thrashed out in a public forum, with known rules and laws, and one way or the other, there will be due process given that's denied when private pressure is applied.
ProTip 1: Christians (at least orthodox Christians) live in this world but are not of this world, and that includes cake baking. so when all appeals to Caesar are exhausted and you've lost them all, your recourse is, face the civil consequences of your moral decision (orthodox Christians have been killed for less reason), or bake gay wedding cakes, or stop doing business.
ProTip 2: the author, who is a complete narcissist, will never have to worry about being forced to represent gays. the lawyer-client relationship is, apart from being consensual, primarily to benefit the client, not the attorney, and what kind of client would want that attorney to represent him or her in a gay rights case?