Now we see, don't we? Difference of belief is for "others," not for those who famously cling to God and guns. What's wrong with these people? Don't they see "(t)hat 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"? Justice Bosson laid floral offerings upon what he called "(t)hat sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do." To the Huguenins, he said in effect, come on, get with the program, pay "the price of citizenship."
The matter before the New Mexico court is in one sense about "gay rights." It is in a larger and darker sense about freedom -- freedom of the sort Americans at the founding of the republic thought they were enshrining forever.
The loud squeak-squawk you hear from the general direction of New Mexico is the cell door closing on the right not just to believe -- as do the Huguenins -- but to (ital)act(ital) on your beliefs, to put money wherever mouths may be.
The argument transposes to other contemporary spheres: For instance, to the argument over whether, under Obamacare, Americans opposed to birth control enjoy the right not to subsidize its provision under an insurance program Suits are stacking up in federal court over this very point.
Our overwhelmingly liberal media would have us believe that only ... let's call them non-liberals favor the curtailment of others' right to act on internal beliefs. Experience shows us otherwise. To dissent from enforcement of the new equality principle -- everybody equal except those suspected of voting for Mitt Romney -- is to fall out with our new moral leaders. You know -- the ones fond of shouting, "Liberty," meaning it for themselves alone.