Columnist Gil Smart states in “Conestoga Wood case isn’t about all contraception – or is it?”:
“We’ve done a lot of arguing about ‘religious freedom’ lately. Recent bills in Arizona and elsewhere sought to indemnify business owners who don’t want to provide services for gay weddings if their faith tells them gay marriage is wrong.”
“The American Freedom Law Center, which ‘defends America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values,’ wrote: ‘It has come to pass that the widespread use of contraceptives has indeed harmed women physically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually — and has, in many respects, reduced her to the “mere instrument for the satisfaction of (man’s) own desires.” ‘ Consequently, the promotion of contraceptive services — the very goal of the challenged mandate — harms not only women, but it harms society in general by ‘open(ing) wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.’ ”
WATCHDOG: A question and a comment:
In the first paragraph, does Smart mean “sought to indemnify business owners” or did he mean to say “sought to immunize business owners” ? We thought the issue was to prevent lawsuits claiming damages, possible even prosecution, for failure to accept gay clients under certain circumstances of conscience.
As for the second paragraph’s assertion that women would be reduced to the “mere instrument for the satisfaction of (man’s) own desires”, there must be something the matter with their husband’s love making if that is the case.
