The Right Explained

Jay Nordlinger over to the NRO's Corner waxes egalitarian:

Some of us believe that America should stand foursquare for equality under the law and equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome, of course, is a different thing altogether.

Except, of course, for the whole marriage of men and women whose sexual orientation Nordlinger and Co despise or perhaps envy, women's pay, access to healthcare, education, and related etc which, as we all know, is the proper property of those with money.

Just below the above bit of dishonesty we find another example of how right-wing notions of equal access and equality under the law falls prey to the righ-wings detestation of minorities. Deroy Murdock writes, his pixels shaking with outrage, of

[a]New Mexico appeals court ruled recently that one’s Christian faith is an insufficient reason to decline business that violates one’s religious views.

It seems that some bogus Christians wanted to not only the one who cast the first stone but also thought Christ's rejection of segregation by deeds was a typo refused to photograph a lesbian wedding.

The clincher to his "argument" is to

[s]uppose Bob and Steve, a gay couple, launch a photography service to take pictures at gay weddings. One day, Jack and Jill show up and ask if Bob and Steve will take photos at their straight wedding. Uh-oh! If Bob and Steve say no, then they will be guilty of sexual-orientation discrimination.

Yes that is right Deroy the implication of a state under law with a commitment to the notion that laws are for all would, in fact, make it illegal to violate the law regardless of the idiocy or legitimacy of the motivation to violate the law.`

The right is the way it is because it, or rather its denizens, have no idea what words, phrase, ideas, and intellectual movements, mean or meant.