Fortunately, we researched the text of the Mississippi law, as we are cautious regarding the veracity of non-primary sources and the opinions that inevitably follow. We were surprised to learn that the wording is: “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions”, as we did not expect the legislature, unlike philologists or self proclaimed Great Occultists, to distinguish between religion and morality, indicating either clear understanding of the issues or access to a law dictionary. The suggestion that hiring employees, renting apartments and hosting banquets is religious in nature sounds bizarre, although we concede that such a religion founded upon these actions is possible. “All religious views are bizarre, but some are more bizarre than others” may become reality, if the accepted credo of subjective feelings are allowed free reign in the corridors of power.
We find the wording of “sincerely held religious beliefs” to be vague, and not only in a legal sense, as people may believe, or claim to believe, that slavery is acceptable, that woman should not vote and interracial marriages are objectionable. Of course, no one can reasonably state that voting, slavery and the validity other people's marriages are religious in nature. We have serious reservations that these topics are being adequately addressed on the “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior”, as distinguished from “the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic”.
Under the Mississippi law, people can make a distinction among individuals based on certain criteria that are not addressed by federal laws, for example, they can refuse service to individuals based on “religious beliefs” or “moral considerations”, so long as these criteria do not conflict with any federally recognized standard, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. “Moral considerations” cannot be condoned for refusing service based on race, but denial of services based on “moral considerations” to unprotected classes remain legal. Therefore, the “recognition of the difference between one thing and another” creates two legal standards: Certain behavior based on “moral considerations” is lawful, yet the same behavior based on “moral considerations” can also be illegal in a different situation. We look forward to future rulings from objective courts [to assist those of us with lesser legal minds] the demonstrable criteria that will be used to determine whether terminations, denial of housing and denial of services in Mississippi were the result of either racial discrimination or “moral considerations”.
In conclusion to this part, we offer the following considerations for the Gentle Reader to ponder: Applications for employment and housing are not inquiring of the applicant a scientific and objective acknowledgment regarding the applicant's race. Since these inquires can be understood as asking to which ethnic group the applicant subjectively identifies with, these questions are ambiguous. For example, historically speaking, Great Occultists tend to Caucasian males, however this reality would not prevent them from identifying with another race. Therefore, since race is subjective legal construct, we should not be surprised that certain people identify with a gender that also has no basis in reality.
In the spirit of Modernism we offer a personal insight to the Gentle Reader: Yours Truly has only one religious belief or conviction, to wit, the services of the Roman Rite should, with the exception of the Kyrie, be in the Latin language; alas, this completely reasonable opinion is not shared by many people today. Even after so many years, we can still recall the disappointment of attending our first service at a Roman Catholic church, the Easter vigil at Sacred Heart church, and the anguish of hearing vulgar English spew from the choir loft.
We will not wade into the quagmire that is the law and the applications of legal concepts, as they are always fluid, never fixed, however, it seems that except for isolated bastions of “moral convictions”, we can confidently suggest that we are at the end of the age, that is, the Christian age is giving way the post Christian age or the Age of Aquarius.
In conclusion, we offer the following insight for the Gentle Reader to ponder: The thoughtless acceptance of equality by so many and for so long has resulted in the backlash we are witnessing. We are amused at the irony that the promoters of the opinion of equality are the same people who revolt against the real world application of equality, that is, they maintain the chorus of equality so long at it suits their subjective purpose, but do not hesitate to appeal to objective reality when it suits their needs. We agree with Saint James observation that “a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”
Courtesy of the Forster & Forster Law Firm:
This website may include information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational and entertainment purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems.