NOM's Brown: Anti-Discrimination Protections Are "Totalitarian"
April 16, 2014 9:41 am ET by Luke Brinker
National Organization for Marriage (NOM) President Brian Brown alleged that the U.S. Supreme Court "endorsed the totalitarians" in the fight over marriage equality by declining to reconsider a New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that a photographer violated the state's non-discrimination law by refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.
In an op-ed for the Daily Caller on April 15, Brown cited "[t]wo related important and disappointing things" that purportedly indicate a growing trend toward "totalitarian actions." Brown highlighted the New Mexico case and the recent resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who faced fierce criticism for donating $1,000 to the virulently anti-gay Proposition 8 ballot initiative in 2008.
Brown also pointed to private boycotts of businesses whose owners oppose marriage equality as evidence of pro-equality forces' willingness to go to "totalitarian lengths" - betraying an embarrassing ignorance of what totalitarianism actually is.
The New Mexico case was the one example of state action Brown cited as evidence of this creeping gay totalitarianism (emphasis added):
With Brendan Eich's head on a stick and support for traditional marriage an invitation to be boycotted, you can bet totalitarians in the gay 'marriage' movement are emboldened. Which brings me to the second development in the marriage debate — the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court not to grant review of the New Mexico case where a Christian photographer declined to deploy her talents to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony because it violated her deeply held beliefs.
There were plenty of other talented photographers with no such objections, and the lesbian couple had no difficulty finding an alternative. No matter. The lesbian couple filed a complaint and the New Mexico Supreme Court eventually ruled that the photographer must agree to participate in a gay union ceremony regardless of her beliefs. One judge even said doing so was a "price of citizenship."
By declining to hear this important case, the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively endorsed the totalitarians who demand complete fealty to the gay marriage cause. The new reality is that no dissent will be tolerated and no exceptions will be considered. You will accept gay marriage or you will be punished. And if by words or actions you dare to publicly express your disagreement with the new order like Brendan Eich or Chauncy Childs, then you have forfeited your right even to make a living and will be banished to the shadows of society.
Gay activists used to say that allowing gay marriage would never hurt anyone. They can't say that anymore, and it will only get worse if the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately decides to redefine marriage for the entire country.
Brown's entire argument rests on the premise that, in the totalitarian world of malicious gay activists, "[y]ou will accept gay marriage or you will be punished." It's unclear, then, how the New Mexico case is relevant. As Brown himself noted, photographer Elane Huguenin refused to photograph a commitment ceremony - not a wedding.
Moreover, non-discrimination laws like New Mexico's don't police personal thoughts. They simply prohibit businesses participating in the public marketplace from discriminating against people based on arbitrary characteristics. In jurisdictions with such laws, the government isn't making support for marriage equality a prerequisite for citizenship or business ownership.
Brown's disappointment with the "totalitarian"-friendly Supreme Court marks a sharp departure from just three months ago. After the Court stayed, pending appeal, a ruling allowing same-sex marriage in Utah, Brown triumphantly - and falsely - claimed that the Court had effectively reaffirmed that state's 2004 ban on marriage equality. Brown hailed the stay as "great, great news" and a sign that "the U.S. Supreme Court will not force same-sex marriage on the entire country."