Gwen and the Rev

[Michael McConnell]

It seems to me there is a common thread between EV's two recents
posts: the one about the dismissal of Rev. Lumpkin and the one about
the Murfreesboro painting. In both cases the law looks foolish,
censorious, and maybe even dangerous.

In both cases, it seems to me, the right answer is: these are matters
for government discretion, and such not be subjects of lawsuits,
either way. There is no "right" to hold a high, policy-making
position; the Mayor did not require a "compelling reason" to dismiss
the Rev; he could have been dismissed for being too liberal, too
conservative, too energetic, not energetic enough, or whatever.
Including expressing views about homosexuality that the Mayor
dislikes. (For the court to hold (1) that this is an issue of
religious liberty, so that the government must have a compelling
interest, and (2) that the appearance of enforcement of the gay
rights laws is sufficiently compelling, does far more damage than
just leaving this political decision to the political sphere.) By
the same token, an artist has no "right" to have her painting
displayed in the town hall, and the town leaders have the discretion
to remove art work they dislike, for whatever reason. Courts should
not get into the business of deciding whether reasons for removing
art are "good enough."





-- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)