By David A. Kallman
In the movie "Last Knights" (2015), starring Morgan Freeman (Lord Bartok) and Clive Owen (Raiden), an interesting exchange occurs between them. When the minister of the kingdom (second in command to the king) requires Lord Bartok to bring him a "gift" in order to stay in the good graces of the king, he refuses and instead brings him a cheap robe with none of the demanded bribe money. When Raiden questions Lord Bartok about why he offended the minister and refused to bring the required gift, he responds that the "gift" should be called what it truthfully is, i.e., a bribe.
Lord Bartok further explains: "Adopting the language of the pretense only serves to ease participation in it."
When Raiden urges, "Perhaps now is not the time to take such a hard stand," Lord Bartok continues:
"If I ease my approach now, at what crossing will you recommend I stand my ground? When they have taken half my land? Or when it comes to a point where I have to exercise my own tyranny over those beneath me to support the bribes of those above?"
This dialogue profoundly demonstrates the divide in today's culture wars. The progressive left increasingly demands that the rest of us lie and use language to affirm and endorse their beliefs and agenda. Recently, teachers in Texas and Indiana have been fired for refusing to refer to girls (as young as 6 years old) as boys. Progressives continually use the force of law to require such subservience, i.e., hate crime laws, anti-discrimination laws, speech policies in the workplace and on college campuses, government agency regulations, etc. If you refuse to use their newly created pronouns or required speech, or if you refuse to endorse and participate in their ceremonies, they will stop at nothing to destroy your reputation, job and business.
Should our response be one of appeasement – it's not such a big deal, why make an issue of it? As Raiden said, "Perhaps now is not the time to take such a hard stand." Or, should we stand our ground, and insist that language and culture be based upon truth? Truth does not deny scientific fact. Chromosomes are not social constructs. The law of gravity is universally true. Truth is not whatever you perceive your reality to be. I am a 6-foot-6-inch white male. If I declare myself to be a 5-foot-6-inch Asian woman, that is not true no matter how sincerely I believe it. I do not have the right to deny the truth and use the force of law to compel you to treat me as a 5-foot-6-inch Asian woman.
If you are required to lie and affirm that a man is a woman, is it really such a big problem? What is wrong with a school requiring your 15-year old daughter to shower and use the bathroom with a biologically intact man? Why can't the government force you to use your artistic expression to endorse and participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony? You do not want to offend anyone, do you? The extremist agenda that flows from this denial of truth must be confronted and exposed.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, ruling in a case decided after the Masterpiece Cakeshop U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of the Colorado baker, affirmed a Phoenix ordinance that mandates that business owners must endorse same-sex marriage through their artistic expression. The government may now compel artists to violate their consciences and convey a message about marriage with which they disagree. This contradicts and violates our long-cherished, basic constitutional freedoms.
There is a big difference between generally serving all customers and being forced to convey a message that violates my religious convictions. As Justice Gorsuch stated in his concurring opinion in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, "It was the kind of cake, not the kind of customer, that mattered to the bakers."
Canadian professor Jordan Peterson refused to use a made-up pronoun at the request of a student because the government was mandating him to do so, and he would resist all attempts to compel him to use only government-approved speech. He also refused to refer to a man as a woman because it would "warp his soul" to be compelled to lie. Any time a person is coerced and compelled by government to lie, thereby violating his or her conscience, or is required by force of law to participate in a ceremony that violates his or her religious beliefs, it is an assault on freedom against which we are required to stand.
We must decide "at what crossing will I stand my ground?" We are called to stand firm in the truth (Ephesians 10:13-14). I, as a business owner, am now required to order my employees to lie and violate their religious conscience. I, as an educator, am now required to order my students to lie and violate their religious conscience. We have reached the point "where I have to exercise my own tyranny over those beneath me to support the [lies] of those above."
What will you do in response – give in or stand your ground? Will you shrug your shoulders and "adopt the language of the pretense"? The choice is yours – and our culture and freedom hang in the balance.
David A. Kallman is senior legal counsel for the Great Lakes Justice Center.