The Practical Parson

 During this election year, there is one topic that seems to lead the headlines for the Democratic party- that of abortion.  Every single day; TV, Radio, websites, social media: all are inundated with the doom and gloom prophecies of the liberal party, proclaiming that women's very existence and freedom are at stake if we do not vote for someone who will "enshrine Roe v. Wade".    Access to abortion was granted under the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe vs. Wade in 1973, in which the supreme court interpreted that the US Constitution granted an imagined "right to privacy" as part of the first amendment right to freedom of speech.  The ruling was always fraught with controversy from the beginning, not only because of the outcome; but also because the notion that Freedom of Speech grants you freedom of privacy, is found nowhere in any of the foundational documents of the United States, and is not mentioned in any book of law with regard to the constitution (pre-R...

 Today, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Christian graphic designer who creates wedding websites, that she is not obliged to extend her services to same-sex couples who are getting married.  Of course the instant outrage over "Gay rights denied!" has been noted, with people and the dissent from the liberal justices on the court saying this will "make gay people second class citizens".   But, will it?  When you talk about discrimination, everyone automatically goes "Oh, discrimination bad!", as well they should; but wherein lies the truth in cases such as this?   Was it really a gay couple who so sincerely wanted this designer's services and she was the only person who could do the job; or was it on the other hand, a group of people who wanted to 'prove a point' about supposed equality?   The fact of the matter is that while there are legitimate cases of discrimination which occur every single day; cases such as this one before the Sup...