Re­mem­ber the Chris­tian bak­ers

Lib­eral dancers who scoff at oth­ers’ be­liefs, sud­denly find their con­science

The Washington Times Daily - - COMMENTARY - By Tammy Bruce

Afunny thing hap­pened on the way to the Don­ald Trump in­au­gu­ra­tion — lib­er­als sud­denly be­came cham­pi­ons of peo­ple be­ing al­lowed to de­cline par­tic­i­pat­ing in some­thing if it vi­o­lated their con­science.

Sur­pris­ing, in­deed, af­ter years of Chris­tian bak­ers and pizza par­lors be­ing tar­geted for destruction by the gay left for re­fus­ing to par­tic­i­pate in some­thing be­cause it op­posed their con­science and faith.

Then came the Ra­dio City Rock­ettes, the world-fa­mous dancers who with one swift move, seem to have il­lu­mi­nated the hypocrisy of some lib­er­als, al­beit rather un­in­ten­tion­ally. It had been an­nounced the Ra­dio City Rock­ettes, you see, would be per­form­ing at the Don­ald Trump In­au­gu­ral. One Rock­ette vented her dis­tress on In­sta­gram, writ­ing that she was “em­bar­rassed and dis­ap­pointed,” and that Mr. Trump “stands for ev­ery­thing we’re against.”

That post was quickly deleted, but

ul­ti­mately, a me­dia frenzy en­sued over an al­le­ga­tion that the dancers would have to per­form at the in­au­gu­ra­tion, whether they liked it or not, or lose their jobs.

That ended up be­ing fake news pro­moted by one woman on Face­book, not associated with any­one in­volved, and un­aware of the fact that Rock­ette par­tic­i­pa­tion in the in­au­gu­ral event is com­pletely vol­un­tary. More­over, they had more dancers vol­un­teer­ing than avail­able slots for the In­au­gu­ral gig, so no one will be danc­ing “with tears in their eyes,” as the one gloomy Rock­ette dra­mat­i­cally pre­dicted on her In­sta­gram.

Dur­ing the brief hub­bub, ac­tors and other per­form­ers un­der­stand­ably came out in sup­port of the dancers’ right to refuse to per­form if an event vi­o­lated their con­science. I also be­lieve there should be an es­cape clause in cases such as this al­low­ing a per­former flex­i­bil­ity. Af­ter all, who wants any­one to be forced to do some­thing against their con­science?

Yet it’s fair to say the same lib­er­als who sup­port the Rock­ettes’ right to not per­form are the same peo­ple who have no prob­lem with Chris­tian busi­nesses be­ing at­tacked for de­clin­ing to par­tic­i­pate in some­thing that vi­o­lates their con­science and faith. In their cases, the re­fusal to cater or bake a cake for a gay wed­ding.

While the en­vi­ron­ments may be com­pletely dif­fer­ent, the larger prin­ci­ple is ex­actly the same: Why should one type of per­son be sup­ported for re­fus­ing to par­tic­i­pate in some­thing an­ti­thet­i­cal to her val­ues while another is not and even or­ga­nized and leg­is­lated against?

This is the co­nun­drum lib­er­als have cre­ated by set­ting a stan­dard that says Chris­tians should not al­lowed to de­cline work due to their val­ues but a lib­eral dancer should be. The ques­tion for lib­er­als now is: Do we want Amer­i­cans to ac­cept the no­tion that some peo­ple are more equal than oth­ers, and de­serve more pro­tec­tion and sup­port than those who refuse to con­form?

Con­sid­er­ing the gay, black and women’s civil rights move­ments were founded on re­ject­ing that very idea, we should be ashamed it’s even an is­sue, and cer­tainly shouldn’t be strug­gling with the an­swer.

Per­haps now with Mr. Trump’s elec­tion, some are view­ing an all-pow­er­ful gov­ern­ment a bit less ro­man­ti­cally.

Ar­guably, Don­ald Trump’s as­cen­dancy is the re­sult of eight years of lib­er­als pun­ish­ing those who are not pro­tected groups of the left or who do not pay al­le­giance to that point of view. It’s un­der­stand­able lib­er­als pre­sumed the Rock­ettes were go­ing to be forced to do some­thing with which they were op­posed, be­cause that’s what the lib­eral es­tab­lish­ment has been do­ing to ev­ery­one else. I’m glad they were wrong, and many con­ser­va­tives would have come to the de­fense of the per­form­ers had it been a gen­uine is­sue.

In the Twit­ter de­bate, I no­ticed some con­ser­va­tives ar­gu­ing that the Rock­ettes should be forced to per­form; af­ter all, they’re ‘just’ em­ploy­ees and if they don’t want to do the job they should quit.

If that’s the an­swer, what if Oba­macare had suc­cess­fully moved us into the scourge of na­tion­al­ized health­care where ar­guably ev­ery doc­tor and nurse would be a fed­eral em­ployee and in­evitably have to per­form abor­tions, as an ex­am­ple, re­gard­less of their own con­sci­en­tious ob­jec­tion?

What about the Lit­tle Sis­ters of the Poor nuns, who were be­ing forced by the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion to vi­o­late their con­science via Oba­macare un­til the U.S. Supreme Court saved them from that un­con­sti­tu­tional fate?

All of this is the re­sult of so­cial engi­neer­ing dis­plac­ing the Amer­i­can sen­si­bil­ity of ‘live and let live.’ For far too long, fa­cil­i­tated by hate crimes leg­is­la­tion, po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness and a big stupid bully gov­ern­ment, we are liv­ing in a world where, as Ge­orge Or­well would note, some peo­ple are work­ing very, very hard to be more equal than oth­ers.

We know the Rock­ettes and the Mor­mon Taber­na­cle Choir will be per­form­ing at the In­au­gu­ral. More en­ter­tain­ers will join the ros­ter, but oth­ers have de­clined. Broad­way star Id­ina Men­zel mused to Van­ity Fair that the dif­fi­culty get­ting mega-stars for the event was “karma,” adding, “I mean, look: All the artists in the world got up and tried to get our girl [Hil­lary Clin­ton] elected, and it still didn’t hap­pen, so we’re all still try­ing to re­cover from that.”

It’s not karma, it’s per­form­ers choos­ing to not par­tic­i­pate in an event be­cause it ei­ther hurts their feel­ings, vi­o­lates their val­ues or is pun­ish­ment for the guy who de­feated their “girl.” And they have ev­ery right to refuse to be a part of some­thing with which they dis­agree.

Isn’t that nice for them?

IL­LUS­TRA­TION BY HUNTER

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.