O'Doherty: Using a sledgehammer to smash a nutcase
Published 13/09/2015 | 02:30
When is a prisoner of conscience an actual prisoner of conscience and not just, well, a bit of a cranky weirdo? When the strange story of Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licences to gay people, first broke, it looked rather similar to the recent case involving Ashers Bakery in Northern Ireland.
In that instance, the insanity of identity politics took a sinister turn when the Christian owners refused to emblazon a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan. They were prosecuted for discrimination and lost. They plan to appeal and I hope they win. After all, no private business should be compelled to endorse a message that they simply think is morally wrong.
So, having scored a rather Pyrrhic victory - for all their frenzied squeals of victimisation, the people who brought the case were the bullies in that instance - it then looked like the suffocating rainbow blanket had just claimed another victim in the shape of Davis.
A born-again Apostolic Christian who didn't allow her previous divorces to hinder her religious zeal, she became a rather willing jail bird when she refused to obey the recent change in federal law which made gay marriage legal in the US.
So is this another case to be lumped in with Ashers Bakery? Is this another example of sincerely held individual beliefs being squashed by manic activism? Is this, in other words, further proof that dem gay lads are determined to ruin everything for everyone?
Not a bit of it. Davis is a show-boating bigot who deserved to lose her job when she refused to fulfil her duties, even if the jail time seemed wildly disproportionate.
It's crucial to note the difference between Davis the reluctant county clerk and Ashers the reluctant bakery because this is exactly the kind of case we can expect to see in this country in the next few years, maybe even the next few months.
Unlike Ashers, Davis wasn't operating in a private capacity, she was a state employee whose job involves obeying the law, even those laws she doesn't like.
But if anything else, it also reminded us that the faithful provide just as many loopers as the social-justice warriors. In the last few years, it's been impossible not to feel sympathy for Christians. The only religion it is okay to mock and belittle, they have been attacked in ways that would never happen if, say, a Muslim bakery refused to make an 'offensive' cake.
But a case like this helps to remind us that there are still plenty of God-bothering wing nuts out there who think their faith gives them carte blanch to impose their beliefs on everybody else.
I voted Yes in the referendum for a simple reason. I don't really care one way or the other, but a lot of my mates are gay and it means a lot to them. In other words, it's none of my business and I don't have the right to interfere with how people live their lives.
That's why the idea of some Christian registrar refusing to issue marriage licences to people who are legally entitled to avail of them is another form of soft tyranny.
The thing is, you just know that there are plenty of Irish Christians who, having been battered and bruised and treated with open contempt by their opponents in the gay marriage referendum, will be looking at the Davis case with eager interest.
She has been portrayed as the Rosa Parks of the evangelical movement and I'm sure there will be an almost unseemly queue of Irish religious types who quite fancy a bit of martyrdom.
But a quick look at Davis, and her mad swivelling eyes as she talks about how God is her real boss, brings up one question - does God sign her pay cheque?
Until then, she and others like her should just do their job or quit in protest. Now that would be real commitment.
This is a debate coming to a registry office near you, and it's gonna be as ugly and stupid as this Kentucky case.
I can't wait.
What a lovely gesture! It would be rude to decline
Amidst the usual liberal guilt and open hatred of America, nothing was mentioned about the failure of the Gulf states to take a single refugee.
I did one of those telly debates the other day about the migrant crisis. You know the drill, a few talking heads turn up and give their opinion and then they are either slated or applauded by the audience members.
As is often the case, a few audience members decided to hang back and shower me with compliments, most of them along the lines that I am, apparently, the "face of the far-right".
Well, I had been hoping to be become the face of L'Oreal, but I suppose you take the work where you can find it.
Saudi, Qatar, Kuwait and all those lovely oases of tolerance refuse to take any in because... they are afraid of letting terrorists into their territory.
That must be an odd one for Saudi.
After all, they're the single-largest sponsors of global terrorism. But it would be wrong to say the rulers of that desert kip are doing nothing in the face of the crisis.
No, they have instead offered to build 200 mosques in Germany for Syrian refugees.
What a wonderful, egalitarian gesture towards their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters - they don't want them near their borders, but they are happy to fund the further Islamification of Europe.
This is the sort of stuff the usual useless idiots of the Left tend to ignore. Instead, they prefer to lob fatuous insults and wallow in their own smugness. Meanwhile, the House of Saud praises Allah for the stupidity of weak Europeans.
Well done, lads.
Doing absolutely nothing to improve the reputation of the legal profession, an English lawyer, the rather inappropriately named Charlotte Proudman, has managed to secure her 15 minutes of fame when she bravely exposed the disgusting, misogynistic excesses of her profession.
When a senior lawyer contacted her on LinkedIn and complimented her on her "stunning" profile pic, our intrepid heroine and self-proclaimed "fearless feminist" did what every strong, independent feminist does when they're offended - she started to whinge and bitch.
Apparently, the message was: "Offensive... misogynistic... sexist" and she further bleated: "The eroticisation of women's physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women's bodies."
Jesus Christ, luv, give it a rest, will you?
At what point did Third Wave feminism turn women from strong, assertive equals into a bunch of whiny, mewling, delicate little snowflakes?
She thinks her prospects have been harmed because she's a woman, but more likely it's because nobody wants to work alongside a sour-faced bint who sees offence where none is intended and shames people on social media whenever she is "offended".