It's almost refreshing. Washington DC has finally found something they agree on.
It looks like people within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have been selecting non-profits
for audits because of their political philosophy.
Perhaps there is a valid explanation for this, but it certainly raises questions.
While an apparent
pattern of government agencies treating organizations differently based
on their political philosophy is troublesome for the President, people
on both sides of the isle have been able to join hands around the idea
that it is wrong.
And why wouldn't they?
We are supposed to be
a country that values free speech, free thought, and the marketplace of
ideas. Included in that is the idea that no one gets better treatment
because of what they believe...or don't believe.
Still, the outrage over the mistreatment of non-profit organizations seems a bit selective.
After all, this isn't the first time people have felt the wrath of government because of their beliefs.
In fact, a florist
here in Washington was assessed a $2,000 fine then sued for declining to
provide professional services for a same-sex wedding that was
inconsistent with her beliefs about marriage.
I think there are a lot of
people who would prefer to pay a $2,000 than be audited by the IRS. So
why is one universally condemned but the other hotly debated?
Clearly there are
differences between being targeted by the IRS for being conservative and
being targeted by the Attorney General for not wanting to be part of a
same-sex wedding. One involves a customer, and one does not.
Proponents of the lawsuit against the florist believe it is necessary to prevent a return to segregation.
Suing florists, and
bakeries, and wedding photographers, they argue, is a good kind of
discrimination (suing people because of their beliefs about marriage)
because it will eliminate the bad kind (not wanting to be part of
same-sex weddings).
This makes sense only
if you are so convinced of the moral superiority of your position that
you feel an obligation to use the government to prevent people from
making decisions you believe are wrong.
However, isn't this precisely what the left has spent the last 60 years indignantly accusing the "religious right" of doing?
The reason this kind
of inconsistency isn't more troubling to the left is because they have
decided that forcing the world to agree with them on issues of marriage
and sexuality is now more important than the values of free speech, free
expression, and individual rights which formerly define the left.
However, it appears
that not all is lost. The uniform condemnation of the IRS suggests that
there is still a recognition that the ability to participate in civil
society on equal footing despite strong differences of opinion is still
an American value.
When this debate is
over, perhaps we will see some relief not only for conservative
non-profits organizations, but for conservative florists as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment