DON VINCENZO writes:

In a unanimous decision, the five judges of the New Mexico Supreme Court last week upheld the State Appeals Court’s ruling that it is illegal for even a small photography business owned by practicing Christians to refuse to photograph a homosexual “commitment ceremony” on the basis of their religious beliefs. What makes this ruling bizarre, as well as another step in the continuing loss of religious liberty, is that the State of New Mexico does NOT permit homosexual marriage. That detail seemed to not to matter to the legal solons who sit on New Mexico’s highest tribunal.

For those of a certain age – mine – the case of West Virginia vs. Barnette (1943) may be recalled as a milestone decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Writing for the majority in a 6-3 decision, Justice Robert Jackson, who two years later would serve as the Chief U.S. Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, wrote in his majority decision based on First Amendment jurisprudence: If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. The Court and the nation have changed dramatically in the last seven decades.

The facts in this case are these: a commercial photography store in Albuquerque owned by Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin declined a request to photograph a homosexual “commitment ceremony.” They were sued by the lesbian couple and their ACLU enablers, and the Hugeunins lost at every level of judicial ruling, including the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, another of the newly minted extra-legal organizations, whose major job appears to be to discredit and eliminate any last shred of religious Christian belief.

After a brief and tepid appreciation of the plaintiff’s plight, Judge Richard Bosson, wrote: “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.”

Not all were moved by the Judge’s nostrums. Jordan Lorence, senior attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the Huguenins, was a bit more blunt: “The idea that free people can be compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives as “the price of citizenship” is a chilling and unprecedented attack on freedom.” Apparently, Lorence had read Justice Jackson’s comments, but Judge Bosson hadn’t.

The worst evil of all is to say that neither good nor evil is anything in itself, but that they are only matters of human opinion. St. Justin was right nearly two millennia ago when he wrote that, and he is right today.

Christians are in increasing legal jeopardy in the United States as the “soft tyranny” of government increasingly does precisely what Justice Jackson said that it could not. The homosexual lobby, whose influence increases each year, now has spread its tentacles into not only academia, but the churches and military as well. The current administration, which I consider the most virulently anti-Catholic in my lifetime, has decreed that Catholic chaplains must “marry” homosexual couples, and that Catholic hospitals must perform abortions, and dispense contraceptive devices, which include abortifacients, violations of sacred beliefs by practicing Catholics.  No matter. Unless or until there is a concerted effort on the part of the voting population to change our current moral direction, the assault on religious freedom will continue, and we will proceed even further along what Lawrence Auster called, “the path to national suicide.”

Laura writes:

Judge Bosson wrote:

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.

Obviously, he does not mean that everyone owes respect to others. The lesbian couple were not expected to respect the Huguenins’ beliefs. What he really means is that some beliefs are authoritative and must be followed in practice by all. His tolerance is a pose, a mere rhetorical flourish, not a logical argument.

This is the New Mexico Supreme Court. It’s tyranny with a grin.

— Comments —

James N. writes:

Judge Bosson wrote (regarding the forced work by the no-longer free photographers): “A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

“One of our nation’s strengths.” Is this false assertion now so uncontroversial that it forms a proper part of a judicial opinion? According to whom, Justice Bosson, is it a strength? All the evidence of history argues the opposite. Far from a strength, “diversity” has been a fatal weakness, over and over again, to many societies. It is a cause of war, of poverty, of constant bloodletting and strife.

Now, one could argue that America is somehow different. That’s not an argument that I agree with, but it does not violate any precept of rhetoric to utter it. Perhaps America will not drown in blood because of “diversity.”

But a strength? Prove it, Justice Bosson.

Buck writes:

I need to think about this more, and I may be ahead of myself, but right now I’m unsure about the Huguenin’s right to refuse to accommodate the homosexual couple’s request for their service. How would you and/or Don Vincenzo argue that Elaine and Jon Huguenin, who run a commercial photography store (or, for that matter the Ruskins in New Zealand, who also refused to accommodate two lesbians, pretending it’s the U.S.), should not be required to comply with Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

The Huguenin’s business is a public accommodation. It seems to me that homosexuals, who have secured every other “right” and privilege under the sun, can claim the full and equal enjoyment of the same goods and services as any other group. No one, not even our millions of illegal aliens can be refused an accommodation.

Justice Jackson, when he writes, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” is speaking specifically about forcing or compelling speech. The Huguenins can’t be forced to like it or to not say that they don’t, but under the law, it’s seems to me that they can not refuse to accommodate homosexuals and stay in business. I don’t see a principle to which they can turn to legally justify refusing to take photos of homosexuals, whether they believe that doing so is repugnant to their faith or not. Isn’t this our quandary, since we live in a secular state?

“The idea that free people can be compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives as “the price of citizenship” is a chilling and unprecedented attack on freedom.” It may well be chilling, though it’s not unprecedented under the law of man. Nor, will get less chilling.

The Barnette ruling prohibited the state from compelling speech, providing for enhanced autonomy, which, though the case was brought by Jehovah’s, had nothing to do with religion; religious beliefs, religious freedom or any state role in religion.

We, as I said of the Ruskins, are in a bind.

Laura writes:

If a Jewish butcher shop only sold Kosher meat, do you think any court in America would force it to sell non-Kosher meat? Would a Catholic store be forced to see Muslim prayer books? How about a photographer that specializes in bar mitzvahs? The Huguenins have a business that specifically serves people who are having normal weddings. Under this ruling, no business could legitimately serve any specific religious community.

Buck writes:

I am reading about the case now, something that I should have done before commenting, since my premise is that to me it remains a quandary. Here is a quote from Jon Huguenin, that makes a fair case that they are being compelled to speak, something that our courts don’t acknowledge.

“We wanted to make sure that everything we photographed — everything we used our artistic ability for, everything we told a story for or conveyed a message of — would be in line with our values and our beliefs,” he said.

The defendants’ attorney, Jordan Lorence at ADF, says that of course a Christian widget-maker cannot fire an employee because he’s gay. But it’s different when the company or a religious charity is being forced to endorse something they don’t believe, he says.

“It’s a very different situation when we’re talking about promoting a message,” Lorence says. “When it’s ‘We want to punish you for not helping us promote our message that same-sex marriage is OK,’ that for me is a very different deal. It’s compelled speech. You’re using the arm of the government for punishing people for disagreeing with you.”

I get that argument. I just don’t see how it can be upheld. I agree with your analogies; It would be absurd to force the Jewish butcher to sell non-kosher, the Catholic to sell the Koran, the bar mitzvah specialist to photograph in a mosque. I simply don’t think that our courts are going to make that argument in an effort against the homosexualization of our culture and country. I base that on everything that has happened, everything that we discuss, everything that is the ongoing and relentless “soft tyranny” about which Don Vincenzo speaks. I’m not arguing that the state should, or that I would compel the Huguenins to photograph homosexuals. I find that repugnant. But, what I would do and what the state is clearly doing because the modern liberal law of the land dictates it, is something all-together different. How ever strongly I or anyone else of a like-mind feels about what is right or wrong, good or evil, is irrelevant as a practical matter in a state that is determined to do what modern liberals dictate that it do.

We are in a bind that is getting tighter, not looser. We’re in an existential quandary in which I see no civil way out of. That is my point. I see no way around it.

Laura writes:

That is a good quote from Huguenin. This ruling is comparable to requiring someone who paints Christian images to paint something totally contrary to Christian morality, such as pornographic images.

Buck writes:

The examples you gave, though they are agreeable and sensible, aren’t fully analogous. The Jewish butcher can not refuse to sell his kosher meats to someone he disproves of. The Catholic can not refuse to sell a bible to a paying Muslim, and the bar mitzvah photographer can not refuse to photograph a transgendered thirteen year old. The Huguenins are going to have to submit or give up their business. There simply is no way that modern liberals are going to take accept that kind of defiance to their ruling authority.

Laura writes:

But those examples are analogous because what the Huguenins are selling is traditional wedding photography and they are being asked to sell something else and to  express something entirely different. It would be the same as requiring the Kosher butcher to sell non-Kosher meat.

Leo W. writes:

I have been in many businesses which have a placard on the wall stating: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”

Not only is there a compulsion on the part of the law to force people to assent to that which they abhor, there is evidently a stricture that constrains their freedom of association. For what freedom is there if one is prevented from associating with whom one wills and forced to associate with whom one would not. This is pretty much what happens in prison.

There are undoubtedly many photographers in Albuquerque that would be thrilled to photograph the ceremony. It is possible that this lesbian couple did not know at the outset that the Huguenins did not share their homosexual enthusiasm, though they certainly found out soon enough to select another photographer for their ceremony. Decent people would have dropped it right there. The fact they prosecuted (and continue to prosecute) the case tells me that these are gay bullies whose purpose is to compel assent to their ‘lifestyle,’ particularly from those who do not share it.

What this reminds me of is the persecution of the early Church where Christians were exposed by their refusal to offer libations to the gods. The gay agenda, which goes for all the idiocies of the Left, is to force everyone to either pour out the libation or be destroyed.

Bill R. writes:

I think Laura’s analogy is spot on. Buck writes that, “the Jewish butcher can not refuse to sell his kosher meats to someone he disproves of.” That is correct. But the proper analogy to that for the photographers in this case would be if they refused to photograph a traditional wedding because they disapproved of homosexuals and the man and woman getting married were avowed homosexuals. However bizarre that situation and whatever you think of the couple and their motives, it’s still a traditional wedding. But that’s not what the Huguenins did. They did not refuse to photograph a homosexual couple; what they refused to do is photograph a non-traditional wedding because that’s not their business. (Of course, the case was even further removed than that from the scope of their business because it wasn’t even a wedding.) Now, the New Mexico Supreme Court has come along and in its ruling taken an entirely different and novel approach, even within the terms of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. What they’ve said in effect is that the public accommodation in this case has to actually change the very nature of the goods and services it provides — traditional wedding photography — not whom it provides it to. The ruling may have the effect of altering whom the photographers provide service to, that’s obviously its goal, but the court is achieving that goal by forcing the Huguenins to literally provide different goods and services, forcing them, in other words, to become a different business. That is precisely analogous to the Kosher shop being forced to provide non-Kosher meats.

I think one can even take the analogy beyond the domain of religion. For example, what about forcing a men’s clothing store to sell women’s apparel? Even under current liberal law (including The Civil Rights Act of 1964) I don’t think you could force the men’s clothing store to do that (except by an act of judicial fiat, which is exactly what we have in this case). Rather, where the clothing store would run afoul of the law is if it refused to sell its wares to a woman. To put it more generally, by the standards of the New Mexico Supreme Court, theoretically any business that caters to a particular clientele (which is about every conceivable business one can imagine) is discriminating against those to whom it does not cater, not by virtue of refusing service to any particular customers, but rather by not providing the kinds of goods and services preferred by different clienteles. Obviously, such an argument taken to its logical conclusion would turn the economy into pure chaos and make business impossible. Therefore, like Roe v. Wade’s reliance on a made-up principle of a general and undefined “right of privacy,” this is another decision whose “legal reasoning” (if they even bothered with their mockery of it this time) will probably never be applied more broadly and in the end represents nothing of course except the personal political preferences of the court’s members, least of all justice.

Of course, it should be added that the The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as with similar legislation from that enlightened decade, is an abomination and a mockery of justice and a free society; a business owner should have the absolute right to refuse to make his private property available to anyone at any time for any reason (or no reason). If his behavior is truly indecent, then let the good will of good people punish him by taking their business elsewhere and thereby ending his.

Laura writes, “Obviously, he does not mean that everyone owes respect to others. The lesbian couple were not expected to respect the Huguenins’ beliefs.” As Orwell put it in Animal Farm, “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”

“Tyranny with a grin.” Spot on there too.

Laura writes:

Bill wrote:

Therefore, like Roe v. Wade’s reliance on a made-up principle of a general and undefined “right of privacy,” this is another decision whose “legal reasoning” (if they even bothered with their mockery of it this time) will probably never be applied more broadly and in the end represents nothing of course except the personal political preferences of the court’s members, least of all justice.

That’s right. It’s a nonsensical ruling. It has no basis in the Constitution, in any acts of Congress or in American business traditions. It is a principle that will not be widely applied because it couldn’t be widely applied without wreaking havoc. It has been pulled out of hat by these judicial magicians to get the desired result. And I wouldn’t put it past the U.S. Supreme Court, which has already ruled with Obamacare that Americans must buy a specific product, to uphold this too.

James N. writes:

Your commenters have further developed my thinking about this.

First, to Buck: Title II of the Civil Rights Act is almost certainly unconstitutional. That aside, nowhere in the text of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a predilection for perverse intercourse listed as a protected category.

Second, with regard to the “message” the Huguenins are creating: I have, so far, been able to avoid recognizing in speech or writing these “marriages,” which my State calls by that name. This situation cannot last, however. My work requires the creation of records in which the fact of marriage is often a part. I am introduced by men to their “husbands,” and by women to their “wives.”

I have not yet been put in the position of AGREEING with this false nomenclature, but the implications of the New Mexico court decision are that this, too, will soon be required of those who deal with the public.

It’s one thing for the State, in the grip of a delusion, to pretend that these individuals are married. It’s quite another for the State to force others to pretend, as well.

 Bill R. writes:

A follow-up note about The Civil Act of 1964: I’ve been reviewing portions of Title II. I don’t know if it was used as the basis of the decision against the Huguenins but it would appear that it would not apply to their case since in the Act a “public accommodation” seems to be limited to places that actually physically accommodate the public, such as hotels, restaurants, or theaters. I don’t see how a photography business becomes a public accommodation although that certainly does not preclude a creative interpretation to that effect having been rendered by our ever-very-reliably-creative Supreme Court, and I’m certainly not up on all my Supreme Court precedents. Also, the Act does not bar discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or even sex, but on the grounds of “race, color, religion, or national origin.” It is interesting to reflect that even with regard to a public accommodation that is clearly included in the Act — restaurants — has there ever been a case where a restaurant, for example, has been forced to do what the New Mexico Supreme Court has determined the Huguenins must do and alter their business so that it caters to an additional clientele? Has there ever been a case where, for example, a Chinese restaurant has been forced to start serving enchiladas on the grounds that not doing so discriminates against Mexicans? And, furthermore, unlike homosexuals, Mexicans clearly do represent a category (three of the four, in fact) the Act explicity forbids discimination against. As you said, it was a nonsensical ruling. But what do they care? They have no regard for the law except to the extent that they can use it to serve their own sanctimonious conviction that they know what is best for the rest of us.

James N. writes, “It’s one thing for the State, in the grip of a delusion, to pretend that these individuals are married. It’s quite another for the State to force others to pretend, as well.” But it is absolutely essential to the State that those others do so pretend. That, in fact, I would submit, is the whole point. That is the irony of same-sex marriage; it is not intended primarily for same-sex couples and never was and never will be. For centuries upon centuries perverts have managed to get whatever pleasure they’re going to get out of their various perversions without needing or even wanting to partake of a time-honored institution that has absolutely no relevance to them whatsoever and which, indeed, from their perspective, they have every reason to disdain since it has (of course rightfully) seen fit to totally ignored them for its entire five-thousand-year history. Make no mistake; same-sex marriage is intended primarily for the rest of us who oppose the grotesque notion on principle, so that we may be forced to watch as the practice of that principle is shattered before our very eyes (along with every other traditional principle the liberal elites who control the State can get their hands on — and that’s a lot.) But let us remember; they can never shatter the principle itself; only the practice of it. And let us prepare; the more they realize the principle itself is impervious to their assaults, the more ferocious their fanatacal determination to eradicate every vestige of its practice will become.

Alex writes:

“In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect a veiled threat: it is the price of citizenship.” – Judge Richard Bosson

Or, rather, citizenship may become the price of dissent. They did it to Edward Snowden and nobody objected. We may see in due time whether this was a trial run.

It would be the ultimate weapon against dissent. You are forced to quit your job, sell your home and find a new country for your family. You can even lose your family if your wife decides she doesn’t need all this. And no Western country will give you asylum or even let you in. Your only choice is to go to a country the U.S. government paints as an enemy of America, so the public will see you as a traitor. Your life is ruined, and no Gulag or psychiatric prison was involved. That would make people think before doing something the government would not like. It would be similar to how the Soviets prevented dissent without using violence unless they had to: you were fired from your job, and since the government was the only employer in the land, you became unemployable and lost everything. Worked very well to keep people from acting on their discontent.

Buck writes:

I asked this question: “How would you and/or Don Vincenzo argue that Elaine and Jon Huguenin, who run a commercial photography store (or, for that matter the Ruskins in New Zealand, who also refused to accommodate two lesbians, pretending it’s the U.S.), should not be required to comply with Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?”

The New Mexico courts didn’t turn to the 1964 Civil Rights Act to make their ruling. That was not on the table. They have their own law, and it’s even more specific. It specifically protects “sexual orientation”. The Huguenins knew that they had no legal leg to stand on there, so they relied on their “compelled speech” argument. They relied on the 1st Ammendment’s protection of what to say, and of what not to say. But, even if we somehow got around that ruling, how do we ever get around the accommodation article of the Rights Act, the one that they knew to avoid. The Huguenins threw a Hail Mary. They made desperate arguments against an irresistible force. They publicly organized as an LLC, then opened their doors to the public. That’s it.

I don’t want the Huguenins to have to photograph homosexual couples, “marrying” or not, if they don’t want to. It’s repugnant to their faith and as far as I’m concerned, it’s repugnant to civilization. Doesn’t matter what I think, or what any of us think. That’s the point.

We have no say in this matter, as we also have no say in many matters that are decided by a modern liberal government; executive, legislative and judicial.

I don’t care which analogies work.They may help us if we can get them right, but they are meaningless to ruling modern liberal apparatchiks.

We’re distracted from the problem. The problem is overwhelming. I keep saying that everything, and I mean everything, is a direct result of the overwhelming power of modern liberalism.

Modern liberalism, as I continue to argue, has it’s foot on our necks, all of our necks, every single live one. We either act together in some sort of political explosion or we will simply be filling the cloud with growing archives of discussions.

The ADF Senior Counsel offered his analogy. Dueling analogies is not what I intended. They can be relevant and useful only if we can agree on what is analogous. I’ll stand down on that. My question stands: how do we, as a country, as a people, as a wannabee traditionalist society and culture get past Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, much less the compelled speech argument? The public accommodation language is clear and decisive. It’s the law.

The Huguenins, like the Ruskins are fighting uphill against huge odds, and I would say, against a certain crushing defeat. They can make our arguments until they are blue in the face. They can use every fashion of analogy and claims to religious freedom and speech. They will get no where. How and when is the 1964 Civil Rights Act going to be ruled unconstitutional?

Bill R writes that “They did not refuse to photograph a homosexual couple; what they refused to do is photograph a non-traditional wedding because that’s not their business.” That’s incorrect. They specifically refused to photograph a homosexual couple.

It is their business, based on their own testimony under oath to photograph “significant life events” of all kinds, clearly not limited to traditional weddings or weddings period, and not specifically limited to non-homosexual life events. Just like the Ruskin’s in New Zealand couldn’t and didn’t say up front: “No homosexuals shall share a bed in our home”, Elane Photography did not say up front that they will not photograph homosexuals. This is the problem. This is a huge element of the modern liberal bind that I keep referring to. You can not legally discriminate in your advertising, and you can not legally discriminate upon an acceptance of your offer in which you did not specifically qualify.

Elane Photography was a commercial business which sold its photographic services of
providing photographs to document other people’s expressions and events, such as weddings,
engagements and various other events. Elane Photography offered its photographic services to
customers and sought to assist its customers in commemorating significant life events.
[Testimony of Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin; Exhibit 4 at 3, “iI3.]

Then there is this:

Elane Photography also had an unwritten company policy, which was shared between its
co-owners, Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin, that Elane Photography would not
photograph any image or event which was contrary to the religious beliefs of its co-owners.
[Testimony of Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin]

Elaine Huguenin actually pursued the business of one of the offended homosexual females via email exchanges, as a follow-up to and unanswered response to an inquiry. Elane did not know that the female was a homosexual and she did not ask. How do we get around this?

I’m going to repeat what I said: I’m all for the Huguenin’s right to be able to refuse to photograph homosexuals and to associate with them except on their own terms. Again, as I said; it does not matter what I think or want, or what we think or want. We have only our say. We have no authority. The only way we will regain authority is by taking it.

Discussing, arguing and debating is like breathing. We’ll do it until we’re dead. But, action is what is needed. Until we decide how to act and to act, we’re simply sharpening our differences.

Bill R writes: “…a business owner should have the absolute right to refuse to make his private property available to anyone at any time for any reason (or no reason).” How can any mixed economy, in any pluralistic society function – say like any existing in the Western world – under that kind of public policy? Perhaps that is Bill R.’s point.

As to the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or New Mexico’s Act, or Roe v. Wade or any of a long list of statutes which are horribly bad law and devoid of any kind of good sense, they can be argued to be unconstitutional. But, until man acts formally to make them unconstitutional we’re just talking in circles.

Laura writes:

A couples of points only:

You have not at all convinced me that the Huguenins weren’t required to change the product they were selling. Again, they were selling wedding photography in a state where same-sex “marriage” is not legal. Therefore they were selling traditional wedding photography. They were asked to photograph a “commitment ceremony” for lesbians, which is not encompassed in their list of services.

I cannot tell you often enough that I disagree with you that discussion is useless. I don’t care whether we have a chance of overturning these decisions. That is not the point of discussion here. The point is to articulate the truth, which in itself is an act of resistance. I realize you think that is worthless. But societies are always founded on principles and a society does not move from Point A to Point B except by changing its principles. And these cannot be changed unless people think and discuss,  which is not to say that I believe there will be some remarkable turnaround once more people understand the lies. But individual lives are changed by the truth even when those individuals are surrounded by lies because they can at the very least withdraw their assent and complicity. The purpose here is to vaccinate individuals.

James N. writes:

Buck said: “As to the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or New Mexico’s Act, or Roe v. Wade or any of a long list of statutes which are horribly bad law and devoid of any kind of good sense, they can be argued to be unconstitutional. But, until man acts to formally make them unconstitutional we’re just talking in circles.”

Man does not have to act to “make them unconstitutional.” They either are, or they are not. And discussions of this nature are vitally important. People will not, cannot, act until they are convinced that it is right.

Buck writes:

James N., this is getting silly. Obviously I mean that the statutes must be struck down by the courts and formally “made” unconstitutional as a matter of law. Yes, Roe vs. Wade and others are unconstitutional as far as you and I are concerned. That though, is worthless.

Laura writes:

James N.’s point is that these actions are unconstitutional and that fact is meaningful regardless of what comes of these rulings. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what you or I think. If a group of people overturns the legal framework of a government, it is gone. They have lost their foundations. They have dissolved the coherence upon which the government was based. Sooner or later, they lose the ability to maintain order without a more open show of force, in which case they lose the consent of the governed.

Bill R. writes:

Buck has obviously taken the time to familiarize himself with the details of the Huguenins’ case, for which he is to be commended, but it was an effort I decided to forgo in the interests of exploring and commenting on the case from a broader standpoint (e.g., Constitutional, statutory) of justice and legality. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. When I said, “They did not refuse to photograph a homosexual couple; what they refused to do is photograph a non-traditional wedding because that’s not their business,” I did not intend that as a restatement of the Huguenins’ position, but as a statement of mine, a statement of principle in their defense.

I have no doubt that New Mexico, like my own state of California, is a veritable minefield of liberal laws all the way up to the state constitution, together with liberal lawyers with judgeships throughout the state court system to do the dirty work for the elected officials all the way up to the state supreme court, all working in concert toward the goal of achieving the Left’s mythical racial and sexual egalitarian utopia, with the first order of business in that effort being the subjugation and eventual extermination of whites in general but most especially those whites, like the Huguenins, who are still holding on bravely — and at huge cost to themselves, I’m sure, financially and otherwise — to traditional Christian values.

Buck writes, “‘Bill R writes: “…a business owner should have the absolute right to refuse to make his private property available to anyone at any time for any reason (or no reason).”‘ How can any mixed economy, in any pluralistic society function – say like any existing in the Western world – under that kind of public policy? Perhaps that is Bill R.’s point.” I’m not sure I understand that. The question would seem to suggest that our economy is now so varied and complex and the ethnic composition of our country so mixed that we could no longer function without the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If that’s what he’s suggesting let me hasten to clarify that, no, that is not my point at all. I meant exactly what I said about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, word for word. Nor, for that matter, do I have any doubt that our economy would function just fine if the 1964 Civil Rights Act vanished tomorrow, and with far more justice, and, for that matter, with less racial tension as well.

Buck writes, “1964 Civil Rights Act, or New Mexico’s Act, or Roe v. Wade [etc.,] they can be argued to be unconstitutional. But, until man acts formally to make them unconstitutional we’re just talking in circles.” What I’m hearing there is a frustrated battle cry for action, action, action! I can appreciate that and also appreciate the frustration. I don’t think any one of us on the traditional right is a stranger to that frustration. But new action ultimately comes in much the same way as new knowledge. We use an inductive approach. Hypotheses are formulated which then provide structure and direction to the further collection of data (action eventually taken), rather than collecting data randomly in hopes that some of it will suggest an hypothesis or new idea. That is why Laura is so absolutely right to say, “I don’t care whether we have a chance of overturning these decisions. That is not the point of discussion here. The point is to articulate the truth.” That has to be the beginning, where action is ultimately born; in the argument. Before the deed was the word. One does not drop their words in exasperation and peevishly fold their arms determined to say no more until action magically appears on the horizon, because it never does magically appear on the horizon. However long it may take for action to appear, if it does appear, it will not do so in a vacuum but ultimately as a result of words that preceded it and guided it and finally ignited the cause behind it.

Furthermore, as Laura points out, giving voice to the truth is itself a form of deed, of action, and a very powerful one. If it were all a matter of “talking in circles” tyrannies throughout history would have not have been as concerned as they always have been with not only making sure dissent is silenced but severely punishing the slightest breach in that silence (Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag). Tyrannies have proved at least as concerned with that as they have with physically disarming their citizenry.

When Buck says “They made desperate arguments against an irresistible force” he is describing what is often an optical illusion; all forces are liable to appear irresistible until they are successfully resisted. The Soviet Union was once such an optical illusion. For one to be certain that such a statement is not an optical illusion one would have to know and account for and be able to measure the strength of all the forces there are that have not yet been brought to bear against this “irresistible force,” as well as the “irresistible force” itself, or be able to provide convincing evidence that all such forces have been brought to bear and failed to overcome it. I suggest that Buck himself does not really believe this to be the case, or else why add himself to a mere merry-go-round of talk?

The fact is, it is not possible to speak truth and be talking in circles unless truth itself is a pointless repetition. And if it is then its author is one as well, in which case we might as well relax because our cause is an illusion and waste of time, anyway, as indeed are all causes, and that action whose absence we’ve been lamenting far better spent enjoying the good times to be had for the brief while they last.

A great poet once was tempted to lament to God that God had asked him to labor with his gift with words “to justify the ways of God to men” and yet had, through this poet’s blindness, denied him the light by which to do that labor. But the poet caught himself in this temptation with a “Patience, to prevent / That murmur” that soon replied, “God doth not need / Either man’s works nor his own gifts: who best / Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best.” So let us remember in our temptation to despair over the lack of action in furtherance of our cause, first, the humility that puts all our mere human words and actions into context, second, that words are actions just as prayer is action, perhaps often closer to God’s heart than what some are pleased to call “real action,” and, finally, that apparent inaction does not always mean true inaction, for as the poet I’ve been referring to — Milton — finally concluded in his sonnet On His Blindness, “They also serve who only stand and wait.”

Buck replies to Laura’s earlier comment that began “A couple of points only:”

Your two points don’t address my question.

I didn’t wish to get under you skin, but apparently I have.

I have not been trying to convince that the Huguenins  weren’t required to change the product they were selling. I said nothing of the sort. You’re missing my point completely. The Huguenins have to make a choice. That’s up to them. They aren’t at odds with me. They’re at odds with the modern liberal state. They submit or they’re punished. That has nothing to do with our discussion. I’d like to be able to help them. I’m frustrated by not knowing how.

I never said that these discussions are “worthless” because I don’t think they are. Why would I so earnestly and often participate in such a worthless exercise? I’ve said repeatedly, and obviously ad nauseam, that we need to act, that just discussing and just endlessly analyzing these issues is getting us nowhere. At some point we have to do something decisive. As I said, and as this seems to be doing, it sharpens our differences the closer we get to the bone.

I assume that we are all seeking the truth.

Laura writes:

Perhaps I misunderstood you. In any event, if the Huguenins lose on appeal, the principles established in this ruling will  blow up in the hands of the judicial establishment. Sooner or later, force ill have to be used because people simply won’t comply and that lack of compliance eventually will do much to expose this tyrannical overreach for what it is.

No, you are not getting under my skin, but you are indeed saying that discussion is pointless. I am not annoyed at you, only disagreeing. Look at these sentences of yours:

I never said that these discussions are “worthless” because I don’t think they are. Why would I so earnestly and often participate in such a worthless exercise? I’ve said repeatedly, and obviously ad nauseam, that we need to act, that just discussing and just endlessly analyzing these issues is getting us nowhere.

If discussion is “getting us nowhere” then it is indeed worthless.

Buck writes:

You write: If discussion is “getting us nowhere” then it is indeed worthless.

I concede your point. That language is confusing. It does sound contradictory if not given a wide context. However, if I’m saying these kinds of things for years, as I’ve engaged here and elsewhere in many wide ranging discussions, then that alone should suggest that I necessarily place value on it, for why else would I bother? I’d be declaring that everything that I think and say is worthless and that everything that anyone else says is worthless. I hope that you don’t believe that. It’s simply not true.

I’ve said repeatedly how invaluable VFR and The Thinking Housewife has been to me.

So, when I say that just talking and analyzing is getting us nowhere, I must mean, and I assumed that it was understood, that little of importance is heading in the right direction, in fact, most things are deteriorating ever more rapidly. Am I wrong? Is our civilization improving? Is society, culture, government, religion, public policy, education, etc.; are any of these elements of our civilization improving? That is what I mean by getting us nowhere. Not that it doesn’t matter to those of us who care.

I accept that I have not make myself sufficiently clear. I routinely assume that I am, but clearly I’m not. I need to do better. But, I’m not the only one.

Laura writes:

Okay, I understand.

All I can say is, the light of truth requires darkness in order to be seen. As St. John of the Cross said, “The Lord has always revealed to mortals the treasures of his wisdom and his spirit, but now that the face of evil bares itself more and more, so does the Lord bare his treasures more.” In other words, what good there is seems all the more precious and beautiful. Or at least it does to me. We cannot reverse the general trend of things because it is caused by a worsening spiritual night. But we can rejoice in the truth and have confidence that it will outlive us all.

Also, God loves it when wisdom is loved for its own sake, when there is no earthly reward.