New Hampshire is set to legalize gay marriage, but only if language is added to the bill insuring that religious organizations and florists, caterers and the like are not required to participate in gay marriages if they don't want to. I must admit I don't understand the point of this language. Is there a law somewhere saying that florists are required to work any wedding they're offered? I thought that those signs that some places have about how they have the right to refuse service to anyone were based on some sort of ordinance, right? And aren't religious institutions protected by, you know, the First Amendment? I don't really care if such language is added to these bills--especially if they make it easier for them to pass--but I don't understand the motive if none of this is in question.
This is something I find quite odd about some conservatives--they tend to seek out laws for things that haven't happened--indeed, that haven't even been discussed, like bringing back the fairness doctrine--and yet they don't believe that the commander-in-chief should be bound by any law at all ever. And some of them believe in black helicopters. I just find it baffling that they are insistent on evenhanded application of the law in some situations but indifferent at others. Developing a consistent pro-law stance could help your credibility in the future, methinks.
