I am having a discussion on discrimination/persecution issues and cases over at Aleksandria (post: Not cool, SSPX dudes, not cool…).

And in mentioning two particular cases involving discrimination and persecution of Christians (one in the UK and one in the US: Owen Johns, and Crystal Dixon), a question that I had asked before, that is, a point that I had previously raised, became even more starkly clear.

The Owen Johns case is very telling. The judge ruled it was not, I repeat, not religious discrimination to rule they were unfit parents based on their *religious* views.

I think it is one of the most blatantly hypocritical rulings in the culture wars related to homosexuality. See the Telegraph’s article for more incongruities and the absurd forms of discrimination and injustice it brings about.

But here is the largely unanswered question in this case. This ruling evidently brings up the conundrum: if the Johns are unfit to parent, so are all social conservatives – thus they should all be prohibited to have/keep their children. Otherwise you cannot rule against the Johns. (And remember that this ruling is considered a “normal” and “acceptable” way to think!). I don’t understand how such a ruling can be handed down, much less how it can be let to stand.

The Johns case is a great example of a ruling that institutes the criminalization of Christianity in England, while claiming its ruling has nothing to do with religion! In other words, it’s a blatant attack on religious liberty that does not acknowledge that is exactly what it is doing.

And it directly relates to the US because it signals a major change in cultural hegemony. Liberalism is being implanted here by suppressing the rights of socons/religious folks through similar legal and other practical maneuvers.

Which brings us to the Crystal Dixon case.

Dixon was persecuted out of her job because of her sound beliefs, which are socially conservative. Note that it’s the same conundrum as in the Johns case: if Dixon is unfit to have a job in HR, so is every other social conservative – her views are obviously too criminal to allow her to have an HR job. This obviously entails that all social conservatives cannot be managers – because if it is alleged that Dixon cannot behave ethically to University employees because of her socially conservative views, anyone else who has the same views cannot behave ethically in other work settings either. Consequently, all social conservatives who deal with any underlings must be fired – everywhere.

Why can she legally be singled out for discrimination then, and not everyone else who thinks the same? Why should anyone ever employ her again? Why should anyone ever employ a social conservative or Christian if it is alleged they cannot be ethical when dealing with other people? And notice Dixon has no further recourse through the legal system.

Between the SSPX (the guys who protested Francis’ recent interfaith Mass with the Rabbi, and reportedly can be probably rightfully called quite anti-semitic for their larger attitudes, not just this incident – see the post in Aleksandria for more details) and the liberals in Dixon’s university, or the liberals who want to deny the Johns their right to be foster parents, who would you say is the most close-minded and bigoted?