The logical conclusion of political correctness

They put up a flier advertising their group as "a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day," operating "with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values." They said they opposed efforts "to redefine the natural family and marriage," and noted that California law acknowledged marriage as "the union of a man and a woman." And then they got in trouble. A lesbian co-worker complained to the city that the flier made her feel "targeted" and "excluded." A supervisor quickly pulled it down for violating city rules against "discrimination," and announced that the women could only advertise their group's existence if it removed "verbiage that could be offensive to gay people" — like marriage, natural family, family values and union of a man and a woman.1

This is not fiction; it is political correctness taken to its logical conclusion. It is political correctness with the full force of law, one that has been held up by the Ninth Circuit Court. While that is the most overturned Circuit court, it is still uncertain if the United States Supreme Court will take the case. So for now at least, the law of the land on the west coast is that it is perfectly legal to deny people any right to participate in the political process, so long as those people are Christians.

For as Mr. Kaufman says, if we cannot talk about our positions, we can hardly expect to achieve anything.