Well, today we’re going to look at two stories. Now, these things don’t seem to have much to do with eachother, and so, I’m going to have to ask you to be patient with me in developing my thesis here. But Let’s just get to the stories and then we’ll talk about it.
So, the first little bit of news I want us to talk about today comes from the 303 Creative LLC v Elenis case where Oral arguments were heard this week. During the arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett posed a question to Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher. What Justice Barrett asked was simply this. She asked a tables-turned question. She asked Mr. Fletcher. Ok, let’s say there’s a homosexual couple who makes websites and then a Christian organization whose sole purpose is the defense of traditional marriage [or as Lukey likes to call it, ACTUAL marriage]. Can they refuse to make a website for this Christian group?
Now, I’ll give you 2 guesses as to what he said? Can you guess? I’ll give you a hint. It rhymes with “No.”
Hey, yep, you guessed it. No, the homosexual owned businessmen cannot have their speech compelled by Christians. And after the Principal Deputy Solicitor told Justice Barrett that the Christians could not compel the speech of homosexuals even though the Solicitor thinks that homosexuals can compel the speech of Christians, Justice Barrett asked the question I think all rational people would ask: “why?”
Well, fear not, our intrepid Biden White House Lawyer has an answer. Because it’s not a rejection based on status. K. I mean, even if we accept that that’s a legitimate legal foundation—which I don’t—but that’s another story…even if we accept that premise, we still have to ask why being a Christian organization whose purpose is to defend marriage isn’t a “status.” So, Justice Barrett asks the logical follow-up. She says that in her hypothetical the status of the club is inextricably intertwined with the message they want to speak, so why is it different? Indeed. Why is it different?
Well, the lawyer has a an answer: because the Supreme Court has found that the status of being homosexual is inextricably linked to conduct. Which, by the way doesn’t answer her question, and also seems to be foolish reasoning. The English language works by saying that status is always inextricably linked to conduct. A fisher is someone whose conduct is fishing. A baker is someone whose conduct is baking. Gardeners garden; welders weld; farmers farm; carpenters carpent. And he seems to realize that this is a fundamentally empty statement and he has to back away from the bad logic and try to protect his argument so he says HOWEVER. Yes homosexuals can compel the speech of Christians HOWEVER the Court’s decisions and public accommodation laws are not universal, the don’t apply in most situations.
So, Justice Barrett simply says, “so this is a special carveout.” And Mr. Fletcher can’t deny it he just states that there are other carveouts. But that’s not really the point is it, Mr. Fletcher?
And what Justice Barrett pointed out with a very insightful question is that the Legislatures and the Courts have created a group with legal super-powers. There is a group who gets extra rights denied to the rest of us. This group can compel your speech and behavior but you can’t compel theirs.
Now, you might say that this is rank hypocrisy. You might say that this is unfair. You might say that this is unconstitutional. You might say all these things and say them rightly. But that doesn’t mean that homosexuals do not have special legal super-status.
They are a protected group. What’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander. But we’ll come back to this, right now we need to look at the second story for this week.
Story number two didn’t start this week, it started in 2008 in Thailand. Way back then there was a team of law enforcement personnel from the US, Interpol, and the Royal Thai Police. They were involved in a sting operation, posing as rebels from Colombia’s FARC, planning to buy weapons to continue their war against the Government. The arms dealer these cops met with was Viktor Bout, a Russian weapons smuggler known as the Merchant of Death. Bout was extradited to the US and was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2011. Which means his sentence would be over in 2036. Let’s fast-forward to February 2022, when Brittney Griner a WNBA player, who also played in the Russian Premier League, was arrested at a Moscow airport carrying vape cartridges containing hash oil which is illegal in Russia.
Now, these two stories have nothing to do with eachother, you might be saying. Ahh, but they do. Because you see, the Russians want Bout out and the Biden administration wants Griner out. Bout is an international arms dealer. Griner is a basketball player. Both of them are guilty of the crimes they committed. Both of them are considered political prisoners in their home countries. And, frankly, while I am not opposed to the arrest and conviction of Bout, the reality is that jurisdictionally, his extradition to the US was always a bit tenuous.
Similarly, Griner’s 9-year sentence for a very small amount of drugs might seem excessive—and I would agree that it is. At the same time, nobody ever accused the Russian criminal justice system of being fair and reasonable.
Now, here’s where these stories intersect. Ever since Griner’s arrest, the media have been making her cause the singular cause of justice. For nearly a year we’ve been told how we have to care and care deeply that mean old Russia took one of our lesbians, and frankly we don’t have any to spare. And if you think I’m being facetious I’m not. Search the archives of the interwebs and you will find that all kinds of people, many of them lesbians, were saying that Russia’s arrest and conviction was motivated by animus towards lesbians, and especially a black lesbian. So the rainbow warriors started making noise and trying to convince all of us that getting Brittney back was US State Department priority one.
And the Biden administration agreed. Getting Brittney back was important to the Biden admin. It really mattered to Uncle Joe that we get Griner. I mean, the fact that she’s an obnoxious, entitled, whinging, self-important, cry-bully who openly insulted her country, actually didn’t matter. And frankly, I don’t think it should. A citizen is a citizen. If a citizen is being held unjustly then whether you like that citizen or not, we have an obligation to make REASONABLE efforts to effect her release. And the Biden administration, according to the President, worked tirelessly for months to get her released. Which is ODD. I mean, it’s really strange that someone has to work tirelessly to end up giving your opponent what he wants. Russia was demanding Bout for Griner all the way back in July, if not earlier.
So, I’m not a mathematician, but by my calculation that’s over 4 months ago. What was happening in that 4 months? Like, how did you dicker for 4 months and then just give in? That doesn’t sound like white-knuckle negotiations, it sounds like knuckling under. So, we get Griner back and Russia gets back one of the most dangerous men in the world.
And we know why the Biden administration was willing to make such an embarrassingly bad deal. Because Griner is a woke, black lesbian. If she were, I don’t know, let me pick a random, non-specific example, a white guy who many claim had been wrongfully arrested would the US trade Bout for him? I don’t think so. And the answer is no. They would not because they did not. Because Paul Whelan is still in Russian prison.
Now, based on his records, I don’t think Paul Whelan is a little ball of sunshine. He seems like a bit of a sleazy dude. But most Americans working for security firms who are arrested in Russia are sleazy dudes. But he IS a US citizen. So, why didn’t we get him back? Is the Biden administration working tirelessly to effect his release? I sincerely doubt it.
No, the fact is that Griner was traded for Bout because she’s a woke, black Lesbian. She’s in a protected class. A class with super-legal status.
You see Governments do these sorts of things. They create special protected classes. They create classes that have special rights and privileges. They create groups that have legal powers that other groups don’t have. And this isn’t bad.
In fact, it’s good that we have people who have special legal powers.
Let me give you an example. Imagine living in a society where the enforcement of law and morality depends solely upon people taking justice into their own hands. This is obviously not an ideal social situation. Most societies have determined that giving certain people the power to have legal powers that the rest of society doesn’t have tends towards the good. In America a police officer has powers you don’t have. They can legally detain someone, they can use force, and deadly force in carrying out their social duties. You can’t do that—or at least only in very limited circumstances. You can’t pull someone over for speeding. You can’t demand someone’s ID if they didn’t use their turn-signal. You can’t arrest someone for tax fraud.
We give judges super-legal powers. They can do things that the rest of us can’t. We give lawyers super-legal powers. You can’t go defend your friend in court. Doctors have super-legal powers. You can’t practice medicine. In fact, anyone who is licensed by the state has a super-legal power. They are doing something that is illegal UNLESS you’re part of this special class of people. I have a super-legal power. I have the power to solemnize marriages. If you get your cousin Fred to officiate your wedding and he doesn’t have a license, your marriage is invalid.
Children are a protected class. We protect children. And we should. There are all kinds of laws that protect children from abuse, neglect, exploitation, and molestation. And these are good laws. We also have laws like this to protect senior citizens and the mentally and physically handicapped. And these are good things. I’m not suggesting that there is no time to have protected classes.
Homosexuals now constitute a protected class in our legal system. They have rights that others don’t. They have legal powers that others don’t. They can compel speech, which is a violation of your first amendment rights, because their status as a protected class outweighs your status as a citizen. Due process is built into their identity. They are walking, talking, due-process negations of your first amendment rights.
Make no mistake about it, we are seeing a gigantic shift in the legal and judicial systems in this country. However SCOTUS rules on this case the trend in cities, states, and the Federal system will continue to increase the specialness of the special status of homosexuals.
Again, I’m not saying that the government doesn’t have the right to create protected classes. And they’re a-gonna whether I agree or not because all governments do! The question is not WHETHER there will be protected classes but WHICH classes will be protected. Aye and there’s the rub, because yet again, morality comes into play. Once again we see that the moral vision of a nation determines its laws. And its laws determine its moral vision.
The Law of Moses created protected classes. Levites for example were the only people who could handle the tabernacle and sons of Aaron were the only people who could serve as priests. This is just one small example, but it demonstrates the point that special classes aren’t new. And the Bible does not oppose them. I for one believe that women cannot hold the role of elder in the Church. That doesn’t mean that women can’t be intelligent, competent, godly, and spiritually gifted. It simply means that, as a class, they do not have the legal-power to serve in a specific role.
Every society, every legal system has protected classes. Every society has people with super-legal powers. But who has those powers and what those powers are are indicative of the moral-vision of that society.
In America, we’ve chosen to make homosexuals a protected class. We have determined that they should have super-legal powers. America has taken a group of people whom God has said are violators of the moral order and we not only have eliminated the laws that illegalized sodomy, but we’ve given them the right to marriage, which God does not grant. And now we’re giving them the power to compel speech and demand that people celebrate their perversion.
The will of the government is for you to celebrate the degeneracy and perversion and immorality of people doing something that God hates. The Government of the United States, wants people who love God to rejoice in something God hates.
Why?
Because the State wants to be the only God. The State and the State alone will determine morality. The State and the State alone will have your loyalty, your fealty—the State will give you a moral vision. And it’s no accident that the moral vision of the State is one that encourages baby-murder and sodomy. The State doesn’t want to celebrate and inculcate family. Family creates loyalty. They don’t want strong civic organizations and churches because organizations and churches help you to not feel alone and to recognize that there are other people who see and hate the moral idiocy and insanity going on. The State doesn’t want you to have any other God before it. So it wants you living as an atomized individual, living in your 400 square foot apartment, eating bugs, watching Disney+, working 18 hours a day, not having children, not having friends. The State wants worker bees and drones. They want a hive full of isolated, ignorant, pliable, gullible, childish, narcotized, feminized, godless, phone-addicted, castrati who will do their bidding. The kind of drones who are always consuming new product to make the rich richer. The kind of drones who will give over their rights and privileges for safety. The kind of drones who will stand on the sidewalk and chant “Gay!” as though it were a compelling political argument.
These kinds of people are fools. Useful idiots. And while idiots are idiots, useful ones are useful. It’s a dangerous game, trying to be God. Nobody has won playing it so far. But there’s never been a lack of people willing to try.
We’re seeing that now. And we’re seeing the results to. Fortunately, we still have the Gospel and we can still try to call people out of their spiritual darkness and into His marvelous light. Let’s do so while we still have the chance.