Is Religion in the Crosshairs?

Don't confuse private pressure with repression by the state.


It's Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies, by Mary Eberstadt, HarperCollins, 192 pages, $25.99

Mary Eberstadt and It's Dangerous to Believe

In December 2015, the state of Oregon seized the contents of Melissa Klein's checking and savings accounts. A judge had ordered the bakery owner to pay $135,000 as punishment for declining, on the basis of her religious beliefs, to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. She objected, pledging to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court if necessary, so the state's labor commissioner took the money by force.

One month earlier, a black teacher named Madeline Kirksey lost her job at a Texas day care center, allegedly for refusing to call an anatomically female 6-year-old student by a boy's name.

Question: What do these two incidents have in common?

Answer: It depends entirely on your ideological persuasion.

For progressives, both are social justice victories. In each case, this view goes, a religious bigot attempted to impose her beliefs about morality on other people and the authorities slapped her down for it.

For conservatives, both show a heavy-handed secularism working to stamp out traditional mores. Descriptions of these incidents appear together, in fact, in the introduction of It's Dangerous to Believe, a new book by the Catholic writer Mary Eberstadt, as commensurate examples of the "soft persecution" that increasingly befalls Christians in the West.

For libertarians, the two are really not alike at all.

To follow the latter logic, you need to distinguish between public and private behaviors. Where the state can use coercion and compulsion, private actors must turn to persuasion and negotiation. Because private individuals operate in the realm of voluntary interactions, they have to accept that sometimes they won't get their way. (To the demand "Work for my company!" a person can say "No!" To the demand "Pay your taxes!" there is no legal right of refusal.) So what happened to Melissa Klein, who was punished by the state, and what happened to Madeline Kirksey, who was punished by her employer, are different not just in degree but in kind.

The core weakness of It's Dangerous to Believe is a failure to draw this conceptual distinction between governmental oppression and mere social stricture. Truly egregious violations of people's rights (a campus police officer shutting down a street preacher by falsely claiming it's illegal "to offend the students") are listed alongside nonviolent pressure (former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigning after the internet masses learned he supported an anti-gay marriage initiative). "Consider today's unprecedented legal and other attacks on Christian colleges, Christian associations and clubs on campuses and elsewhere, and Christian homeschooling," Eberstadt writes. Then, without a beat: "Or the range of tactics of intimidation, shunning, and smearing now deployed against religious traditionalists."

There is, to be sure, a case to be made even against the latter form of punishment. Most lists of libertarian virtues would include the acceptance of unpopular beliefs and lifestyles, after all. And Eberstadt compiles a damning catalog of evidence that the left has indeed abandoned its own "secular-progressive standards of tolerance, diversity, and freedom for all" in a single-minded drive to penalize cultural conservatives for their wrongthink.

She points, for example, to the pattern of "disinvitations," in which colleges revoke requests for politically radioactive figures to speak on campuses. Then there's the story that lawyer and National Review staff writer David French relayed from his time working admissions at Cornell Law School: "The committee almost rejected an extraordinarily qualified applicant because of his obvious Christian faith (he'd attended Christian college, a conservative seminary, and worked for religious conservative causes). In writing, committee members questioned whether they wanted his 'Bible-thumping' or 'God-squadding' on campus." French said he had to intervene to stop them from dismissing the candidate on those grounds alone.

Lefty groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center label pro-religious liberty groups like the Becket Fund and the Alliance Defending Freedom as "extremists," Eberstadt notes, and they compare conservative scholars and traditionalist organizations to neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan "using blood-red graphics and repeated blaring of the categories HATE & EXTREMISM and THE YEAR IN HATE." She argues all this is driving Christians into "a brand-new closet" for fear of "public ridicule, shaming, and professional setback."

None of this involves persecution by the state, yet there is something deeply illiberal about seeking to shout down unpopular ideas, even if the means for doing so are not governmental. In the end, Eberstadt is simply pleading for civility and open-mindedness from her secular foes—for an honest embrace of the pluralism that lefties so often claim to champion.

"Acknowledging that we all have 'the right to be wrong' is the only way out of the fundamental issues posed by the diversity of humanity itself," she writes. People living peacefully together despite their differences—what could be more libertarian than that?

Still, the public square is where such debates are supposed to happen, with all the messiness and vitriol that disagreements about fundamental values often entail. You have a right not to be forced to violate your beliefs, one might say—but you don't have the right not to be made to feel bad about them. However ugly and punitive the treatment of cultural conservatives may have gotten—and Eberstadt makes a convincing case that it has gotten very bad indeed—it's still preferable, and vastly so, to coercive government interference.

This is important to remember for two reasons. First, because the progressive state really is on the warpath. It's Dangerous to Believe offers a litany of ways government is impinging on conservative Christians' right to freely live out their faith. The Obama administration has insisted that an order of nuns who run homes for the elderly poor must facilitate contraception access for their employees. At least three states have forced Catholic adoption services to shutter because they refused to place children with same-sex couples. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit to compel religious hospitals to perform abortions. Nondiscrimination ordinances require wedding vendors like Melissa Klein to participate in services they find morally objectionable.

These actors want to make it illegal to exercise your religion in ways they don't like. That's a far more troubling development than someone not treating cultural conservatives with respect.

But there's a second reason not to wring your hands too much over nonviolent social pressure: That freedom goes both ways. It might seem intolerable to conservatives that progressives can choose to get people fired for professing traditional beliefs and that prestigious universities can choose to discriminate against Christian applicants. But it seems equally intolerable to many progressives that a florist or photographer should get to decline to work at a gay wedding, a sidewalk preacher should have the right to publicly proclaim the dangers of casual sex, and a conservative business owner should be able to decide not to provide contraception coverage to her employees.

If people of faith are allowed to make choices based on their values, the same has to go for their secular counterparts. As Eberstadt writes, "one's liberty isn't safe until everyone else's is protected." She's right—even when it leads to unpleasant outcomes.

NEXT: Brickbat: A Bunch of Clowns

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So a person can have free speech, just not have a job AND free speech.

    I get the libertarian case here employers and employees freely associate and can break that association anytime (until right to work gets eviscerated, but that’s another story).

    But, when the choice to exercise free speech become one where to exercise free speech leaves you jobless and homeless, there isn’t going to be much free speech out there.

    To me the societal forcing of people to say that they man is a woman is the modern equivalent of 2+2=5.

    1. You don’t have a right to a job. You have a right to protected speech and press.

      Freedom is not free nor free from consequences.

      1. My co-worker’s step-sister makes $97 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of work for six months but last month her paycheck was $14100 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go this website and click to tech tab to start your work…

        1. I take that back. I guess you do have a right to a job.

    2. To me the societal forcing of people to say that they man is a woman is the modern equivalent of 2+2=5.

      Of course, I don’t think anyone should be forced to call someone a man or a woman, but I don’t see the problem of calling a transgender woman a woman. A transgender woman obviously doesn’t have a uterus or ovaries and possibly had surgery to look more like a woman, which differentiates her from those who were born female (with a uterus, ovaries, etc. from birth). But I don’t see the problem with calling her a woman if she decides to live as such even though she wasn’t born that way.

      1. That’s exactly why I ask for an Apple when I mean I want a Banana, then sue the pants off the provider when they actually hand me an Apple.

        Heads I win, tails they lose.

        1. That being, by the way, the example above of a teacher losing their job for not using the kids (presumably) actual name is a terrible example without more facts. If the teachers going to throw a hissy fit over a kids legal name they probably shouldn’t be a teacher.

      2. You mean it’s ok to call someone a woman who is in no scientific way a woman?

    3. Mencken once said that “even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them…” Altruists are a bottomless pit of excuses for ordering the lives of others to be snuffed, crushed, mangled, caged and gelded of all happiness–invariably at gunpoint. I personally would not knowingly lift a finger to preserve any such creature from deserved and gleeful revenge at the hands of its intended victims. That Irish bookies are now laying 4 to 1 odds that The Antichoice gets its snout bloodied and beaten in the coming elections, and that the fertile womens’ candidate will win at 6 to 1 odds suggests that others are coming to similar realizations.

    4. “So a person can have free speech, just not have a job AND free speech.

      But, when the choice to exercise free speech become one where to exercise free speech leaves you jobless and homeless, there isn’t going to be much free speech out there.”

      Yeah, people should be able to say “Fuck you, you piece of shit, I ain’t gonna do what you want me to!!” to their bosses without consequence or repression. That’s what free speech means!!

      /where your logic leads

      1. *repercussion, damn autocorrect,

  2. I agree there is a technical difference between the two examples. But in practice the employer in Texas would surely have been attacked and sued by the Loretta Lynch (in)justice department, in effect removing any appearance of a private occurrence.

    1. The employee was fired because she *wouldn’t* treat a boy like a girl.

      1. It was a 6 year old girl who wanted to be called a boys name… The article doesn’t mention the possiblity that it may have even been her actual name.

        1. Google the ladys name.

          The little girl left on friday as a “Sally” and came back Monday wanting to be called “Johnny”. Apparently this teacher didn’t play along, and she was fired for it. If the daycare owner felt the way the teacher handled the situatiom was wrong they had every right to fire her. The employer has every right to modify and regulate client / employee interactions in thier business.

          The ladys lawyer claims that because she is black and religous she is protected. Under that same logic it could,be argued she would be protected for beat the child even if the daycare didn’t allow it. Why draw the line between physical violence and verbal disrespectfulness?

  3. Politics is downstream of culture. If the society doesn’t tolerate religious or ideological differences, the government won’t in short time. These issues are related, enough with this public/private divide rhetoric.

    1. “……enough with this public/private divide rhetoric.”

      Thank you, Josef Stalin.

  4. Is the line between religious freedom and violation of other rights like the Supremes definition of obscenity? They’ll know it when they see it. I do not find that comforting.

    What if my religion requires its members to consume raw milk? Would the state be able to block my relgion from distributing for a fee raw milk to its members?

    What if my religion required its members to cut the left pinky toe off of all children born to its members? If that is not allowable, why is the mutilation of baby genitals (specifically foreskin) allowed or even promoted.

    What if my religion requires I put to death all people who leave it? Obviously this crosses a line. But what if instead of death they are required to forefit all possessions to the religion? Would other followers be permitted to confiscate the apostates belongings?

    Somewhere there is a line. Whether the corporate state or the corporate baker or the corporate church crosses it and where they cross it is the question.

    1. Rule of thumb is that if your action and beliefs violate the rights of someone else then you cannot do it, without the Rule of Law having something to say.

      In your example about raw milk: the government should not be able to prohibit people from consuming raw milk.

      In you example about pinkies and circumcision: cutting pinkies is not medically or socially acceptable. Circumcision is medically and socially acceptable for millions of people. I get that parents should not be able to cut anything off a child and let adults gets circumcised, if they want.

      In you example of killing or forfeiture for quitters: murder is murder. Forfeiture is theft.

      1. Government already infringes on my right to consume raw dairy and illegal drugs, but they allow religious exemptions for mushrooms for religous purposes. Why would my raw milk cult be any different? Why does social acceptance play a role?

        Is circumcision not violence and permanent disfigurement? Why is it socially not acceptable for female genital mutilation, but yet somehow religiously permissible for males? Why does social acceptance of this matter?

        If forfeiture is a contractual obligation is it still theft?
        Does a group not have a right to enforce its own contracts? What about religously obliging one spouse to be subservient to another; is that not freedom of religion?

        I ask these questions because it is important to understand why the corporations that call themselves religions are allowed to operate differently from those who don’t.

        1. As I pointed out and mostly agree with you, raw milk consumption should not be illegal.

          Social acceptance is part of the reason why some things were written into our Constitution while other things were not. The problem with too much placing too much stock in current social trends is that they change. The Founding Fathers knew this which is why much of the Constitution stands the test of time. The including of principles of freedom, like right to free press, includes computers which the Founders did not imagine.

          I get your genital mutilation argument but I have never heard of circumcision being done for malicious harm to boys. Social acceptance makes parent’s circumcision legal and parent’s cutting of girl parts illegal.

          Its not termed forfeiture if there is a contract between parties. Its a transfer of property. It could be called that because forfeiture is defined as a penalty loss of property.

          Slavery and indentured servitude are illegal as stated in the XIII Amendment.

          The government rules that companies endure are currently excessive. These rules already violate religious freedoms, search and seizure protections, etc. The companies claiming religious exemptions are just trying to do something since the SCOTUS has long abandoned federalism and reigning in government power.

        2. “I ask these questions because it is important to understand why the corporations that call themselves religions are allowed to operate differently from those who don’t.”

          When it comes to questions like your Raw Milk Cult, I say who cares?? I personally don’t care what your excuse is to stop the State from preventing non-violent activities. Religious excuses to allow persons to do peyote or engage in harmless activity bring more liberty then the State would give us otherwise, and can stand as examples for why the harmless activity should be allowed for everyone regardless of faith. We can point to the Native American Church and say “THEY do peyote and THEY don’t have all the problems that drug prohibitionists claim would result from permitting peyote, why can’t we do this as well??” More liberty is always better then less. Skirt unjust laws with whatever excuse you can get away with, I say. Good luck with your Raw Milk Cult, and praise and blessing be to the Great Unpasteurized Teat.

          1. Your other examples involve force on another individual. They are also NOT religious “exceptions to the rules” issues, because American law doesn’t permit confiscation or murder of apostates, and American allowable of male genital mutilation is not a “religious exception”. They don’t let people who supposedly have a religious need for FEMALE genital mutilation get a pass, so the issue of male genital mutilation is less about religious exceptions to the rule of law, and more about the fact that it has disgustingly become socially acceptable to Americans of all religions to cut parts of babies’ penises off.

    2. Those are all bad analogies.
      Requiring your members to drink raw milk, cut off pinkies and kill apostates, have more in common with forcing people to cater gay weddings and play along with somebody else’s gendermorph fantasies, than they do with the refusal to participate.

      In all the aforementioned cases it’s the secularists that are compelling people to participate in their marriage rituals and identity mores, not the religious.

  5. “She argues all this is driving Christians into “a brand-new closet” for fear of “public ridicule, shaming, and professional setback.””

    HA. That is funny. Just try claiming that you are an atheist (especially in the backwards-ass state I live in–Georgia) and see what kind of “public ridicule, shaming, and professional setback.” that you receive. Why is that we have never had an atheist elected to high office? Their ostracism does not bother me in the least. I view it as an extra from the cast of “Deliverance” calling Stephan Hawking an idiot. But it is ironic that Christians try to claim that they are facing now what Atheists have always encountered.

    1. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    2. Have you considered leaving the backwards-ass state of Georgia? I know I would.

      1. And go where? There are a few states that are better for rights than Georgia but most are worse.

        1. Few > none.

          So you do have choices.

      2. The state itself is great, it’s just a lot of the backwards think that irks the shit out of me. I live in the largest and most populous county in the state, and we are technically STILL a dry county, 96 years after prohibition ended (we can buy liquor, but all liquor stores must be inside city-limits, with the exception of the county seat, which cannot have any liquor stores). Last year, they at least went as far as allowing us to buy beer on Sundays.

    3. Why is that we have never had an atheist elected to high office?

      Hey, yeah! Nothing wins people to your side like telling them they’re idiots for not supporting you or your candidates’ disbelief in nothing! Come to think of it, why haven’t we ever elected anyone named Mao to the high office of Chairman in this country? And why haven’t there been any atheist party leaders named Stalin?

      Seriously, if I were running for public office, supporting atheism, or both I wouldn’t juxtapose it *against* democracy.

      Just try claiming that you are an atheist (especially in the backwards-ass state I live in–Georgia) and see what kind of “public ridicule, shaming, and professional setback.” that you receive.

      I think if you also publicly decree that use a Mac, are gluten sensitive or vegan, fall somewhere on the autism spectrum, and do crossfit; you accumulate enough soapbox points to officially qualify as either black or gay.

    4. Just wondering, but are you the brand of atheist that knows there isn’t a god? If you are, you’re just as much of a believer as those wacky religion nuts.

      Also, France seems to believe in enforced secularism and it hasn’t really seemed to do them any favors thus far.

      Either way, trying to weigh yourself on the victim spectrum won’t get much traction here.

      1. are you the brand of atheist that knows there isn’t a god? If you are, you’re just as much of a believer as those wacky religion nuts.
        Pretty much this.
        Also, every single atheist I know believes in aliens and panspermia. Is this a coincidence?

        1. If by aliens you mean that it’s possible for there to be life other places than on Earth, then yes. If by panspermia you mean that some of the basic chemicals that enable biological processes are found in places where there is no life, then yes.

          However, if you mean aliens as in alien abductions and Area 51 and panspermia as in life is everywhere and just begging to be let free, then no.

          It is logically impossible to prove a negative, the classic black swan fallacy. That’s far different from not seeing any reason in fact or in logic to believe that there *is* a god such as described in most dominant western and middle eastern religions and plenty of reasons to believe that a acting on *any* set of beliefs based primarily on faith instead of fact and reason can, on balance, be more harmful than positive.

  6. What the FUCK does Madeline Kirksey’s skin color have to do with the issue at hand? To a non-racists it is as relevant as her shoe size.

    1. Exactly. But she is a protected class and therefore special.

      Kind of like the Florida Democratic Party suing for more days to register voters after Mathew even though they have had all year. And lets not forget the registration extension is reducing the early voting period, the very same period the Dems have constantly fought to increase. Yet to the Dems this is all the Republicans fault.

      What would the Dems do if Mathew came on Monday November 7th?

      1. And I’d have been fine with it being presented in a truly neutral fashion, e.g. “Madeline Kirksey, who claims her race should should protect her from her employer’s action…”

  7. The core problems are (1) State power, and (2) transparency. When the State intervenes in private matters, it forces its would-be victims to go underground, so to speak, which makes that particular behavior seem more unpopular than it really is, giving the statists that much more rationalization for proscribing the behavior.

    I once proposed, on a gun forum, that one of the problems gunnies had was that guns were invisible to the public; that if guns were as commonly visible as cars, there would be little rationale for banning them. IOW I was arguing that open carry had the benefit of demystifying such harmless behavior. (I made the mistake of throwing in the word “licensing” which was mistaken for saying that open carry should be licensed, and the shitstorm of intentional misunderstanding was an eye-opener for me.)

  8. The time has come for us to revisit the constitutionality of public accommodation and anti discrimination laws. Let the market drown out the bigots. You don’t have the right to someone else’s labor, that’s called slavery… Fining someone for refusing to serve someone is so antithetical to the constitution. But, Conservatives have been drunk on state power for some time now and can only see government religious liberty laws as a fix. At best it’s a bandaid over a bullet hole. A bullet to all our rights as Americans was fired in the early 20th century with the income tax and then the new deal. Wake up people. I was raised in a post racial America (80s and 90s) I’m willing to bet 99% of millennials haven’t a drop of racism in them. The same won’t be able to be said of gen z. We are allowing the narrative to be identity politics when it ought to be the ever increasing power of the state. Obama will have the red pill legacy of increasing the racial divide and bringing the executive office to the brink of unstoppable. The blue pill will be something along the lines of the bravest most handsomest most just president of all time past present or future. Anyway, just a thoughtcriminal rambling. No one has the right to someone’s else’s labor, that should be the argument, I think it a winning one.

    1. Unfortunately the first bullet was fired long before the turn of last century. It was only a matter of a few years after the Constitution and its first ten amendments were ratified that the Alien and Sedition laws were passed in direct and obvious contradiction to the 1st Amendment and pushed by some of the same people that urged the ratifications in the first place. People have always been people and politicians have always lusted after power. The rate at which they have been able to get away with it just keeps accelerating. We’ve replaced belief in the divine right of kings to belief in the divine right of philosopher kings when accompanied by the rites of emotionally manipulated mandate.

      I long ago gave up my fantasy that the breaking point had to come soon. It will have to, eventually, but it could be another 50 years or 200 years or another dark ages equivalent … or maybe just 10 or 20. It could be peaceful or it could require some sort of armed revolution in some other place on Earth to open eyes again. Or maybe not anywhere on Earth itself. (Yes, I do like science fiction – I can still hope, can’t I?)

  9. Ok, I’m just going to leave this here since it’s something I’ve taken issue with for a long, long time now:

    The very fact that the government decides which religions get tax exempt status and which one’s do not is automatically a state recognized religion in my opinion.

    The why is obvious: since the invention of the income tax and the resulting exemption of religious institutions, the government has an interest in controlling which religions are ‘real’ and which one’s are not because otherwise everyone could claim they are a religion and get out of taxation. It’s obvious it was to close the constitutional loophole to get out of taxes that they created. (At least in part.)

    So, yeah, it isn’t really that the government is forcing people to worship or forcing them not to. It always comes right back around to a taxation issue for me, even (or especially) as a former ‘religious’ person that no longer really cares for it beyond an intellectual exercise.

    No religion should be exempt from taxes based on what religion they are. Instead, they should be treated as a non-profit type entity like any other charity. Taxing one religion differently than another is unconstitutional, in my opinion, and trying to ‘prove’ which religion is a ‘right’ religion is a fools errand.

    /end rant

  10. The equivocation here is the meaning of religion. Mysticism necessarily dismisses verifiable evidence and thus has a bias toward coercion (having waived rational discourse and suasion). But it is not vegans or transcendental meditators who feel there is a war on their religion. Rather, it is Christian National Socialists, exactly as in 1933-1945. Anything they do, however coercive and deadly, is by definition the exercise of freedom. It therefore follows, as night follows day, that to disagree, disobey or criticize whatever torture and murders they elect to engage in is, ipso facto, an act of war. When innocent Henry Virkula was shot in the back by customs agents in front of his wife and children in 1929, the Methodist White Terror applauded the agents and President Hoover explained that they were soldiers trying to “help the Treasury in a systematic war that is being carried on by international criminals against the laws…”. Christianofascism and its Mohammedan twin, Sharia Law, are self-declared enemies of freedom from coercion. The First Amendment only protects the “free” exercise.

    1. Invoking Godwin’s Law here…

  11. If the allegedly private actor is using a legal regime designed to enable lawfare against the religious, is the actor really private?

  12. the progs have it wrong….. no, I’m not saying the need to accept the mroal values of folks who oppose sodomy, gender dysphoria, obesity, and other “libertine” behaviours.
    No, they need to let go of their position that it was the Kleins and their kind “forcing” their views on others. In that case, WHO imposed their moral standards on WHOM? Did the Kleins manage to inflict any harm or consequences on those two dykes who wanted to have their party the way THEY wanted to have it? Of course not. They had the party anyway. Did those two females manage to inflict harm on the Kleins? Absolutely. They engared the services of a corrupt government official (and the guns behind him) to force them to close their successful business, waste thousands in legal expenses, then steal $135,000 from a couple who had worked hard and honestly for years.

    So, once again, WHO is forcing their “beliefs’ onto WHOM?

    Clearly it is the new elites who have pledged to micromanage the values, moral standards, practices of everyone who does not agree with them. And these new elites are the ones out of step with the long chain of human history. In the end, their attempts to “normalise” behaviour held, for thousands of years, as “abnormal”, “perverted”, “abominable”, “objectionable”, “unhealthy”, “sinful”, “wrong” will fail. Let them shake their fists at the God who made us the way HE chose to make us. HE sits in the heavens and laugh. HE knows whose “system” will hold fast in the end.

  13. I agree that this is about the government forcing someone into labor. The idea that my religion/choices can force someone else to have to act in a certain way is the very antithesis of freedom.

    It doesn’t matter why the cake was refused to be made, that shouldn’t even be part of the argument.

    This is just another example of people using the government as a weapon. I imagine they’ll be really surprised when the weapon gets turned on them.

  14. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….


  15. Peyton . even though Billy `s report is cool… on monday I got a gorgeous Maserati after I been earnin $8985 thiss month and even more than ten k lass month . it’s certainly the easiest work Ive ever had . I started this 9-months ago and practically straight away started bringin home at least $78 per-hr . look at this now


  16. “But it seems equally intolerable to many progressives that a florist or photographer should get to decline to work at a gay wedding, a sidewalk preacher should have the right to publicly proclaim the dangers of casual sex, and a conservative business owner should be able to decide not to provide contraception coverage to her employees.”

    So what? Progs are offended by a lot of things that people should be free to do. Most importantly, these actions are by private actors, not the government. The author noted the distinction between public and private actors early in this column, but seemed to forget it at the end.

  17. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….


  18. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….


  19. Remember, to the desert dogmas, if you’re not ruling, you’re “oppressed”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.