|Will also destroy scalps with pagan fire|
Or, at the very least, merely the “fabric of civilization”. And how so? By ruling that it’s plainly wrong for a professional relationship counselor to deny therapy to same-sex couples because this is supposedly “against his beliefs”. But, you may ask, how does the latter lead to the former? Well … hey, it has to make sense somehow. After all, Vox Day said it, and he’s got teh smarts, so it must be true:
You can always count on the fact that some idiot in authority, somewhere, is going to try to destroy the fabric of civilization:
Lord Justice Laws condemned any attempt to protect believers who take a stand on matters of conscience under the law as “irrational” and “capricious”. In comments likely to set the church on a collision course with the courts, he claimed that doing so could set Britain on the road to a “theocracy”, or religious rule. His comments came as he dismissed a legal challenge by a Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked after refusing to offer sex therapy sessions to homosexual couples because it was against his beliefs.
Every intelligent individual, religious or irreligious, should be able to see the very clear danger involved in declaring the right of the state to override conscience and that "no religious belief itself could be protected under the law 'however long its tradition, however rich its culture'". This is overt totalitarian madness and is a direct conceptual strike at every cherished freedom of Western civilization. If there is no room for the law to respect religious beliefs, there is no room for it to respect beliefs of any kind and it rests upon a foundation of nothing more than the law of tooth and claw.
So, declaring that religious beliefs shall not be accepted as a valid excuse for denying care or service(s) to others because their choices or inherent nature might be “offensive” to some, or might be contradictory to their particular brand of delusion, is actually a totalitarian move to destroy modern society as we know it. Got it.
Secularists should beware of celebrating this form of superficially secular form of jurisprudence, as it isn[sic] not indicative of a movement towards a rational and progressive secular humanist society, but rather the unlimited state power formerly seen in ancient pagan societies.
Only in the heads of Vox Day and other such supporters of theocracy does this sort of argument make any sense.