Is This An Issue Of Commerce or Christianity?

by Dick Mac

This man is party to a legally binding contract that he and the other party are trying to execute without interference:

Brendon Ayanbadejo

This man is interfering with the smooth and peaceful execution of that contract:

Emmett C. Burns, Jr.

If an activist uses his activism to interfere with the machinations of commerce, I believe it is a sin that conservatives would condemn. When two millionaires have agreements, and are happily and successfully conducting legitimate business, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and their allies should be on the airwaves condemning any "socialist" who is interfering with good, old-fashioned, American, God-given commerce.

There is a minister in Maryland interfering with the execution of a contract between Brendon Ayanbadejo and Steve Bisciotti. This minister believes that Bisciotti should interfere with Ayanbadejo's constitutional rights.

If one party to a contract tries to abridge the constitutional rights of the other party in the contract, it would not be good for the contractual obligations of the parties, their ability to generate profit, and their right to live in pursuit of happiness.

This seems like a bandwagon and script that the Republican presidential hopeful had created himself! What could be better? A black guy in Maryland interfering in the legitimate business agreement between two millionaires.

Ann Coulter should buy a brand new black cocktail dress for some morning television appearances to point out that a Democrat Socialist is at it again! Trying to destroy America.

Sarah Palin should be explaining that the lamestream media and Justice Department is failing to come to the defense of good American businessmen!

Rush Limbaugh should be apoplectic, while Glenn Beck weeps.

Let's frame it this way: Barney Frank writes to Roger Ailes and demands that Ailes stop Geraldo Rivera from reporting on the Democratic Convention.  I think the airwaves would be filthy with opinions from the conservatives.

If I remember correctly, American conservatism is currently basing its movement on the notion that nothing trumps commerce. No worker rights, no civil rights, no government regulation, no taxation structure, nothing, ever.

To interfere with commerce is an egregious sin.

So, I am not certain why conservatives have failed to defend the rights of Bisciotti and Ayanbedejo to conduct legal business, and execute their contract in peace, without interference from somebody in power.

In this case, it is A-OK with the conservatives to interfere with the peaceful execution of a contract. Why? Because the minister interfering with commerce is demanding that the parties to the contract stop expressing opinions about social issues; specifically, same-sex marriage.  So, again, we see that conservatives only care about commerce and constitutional issues when it's convenient for them; they do not actually believe that commerce and constitutionality should be protected for everybody.  They believe that their commerce and their constitutional rights should be defended and protected; but not anyone with whom they disagree.

In the vacuum created by the deafening silence of right-wing media, pundits, politicians, and elected officials, another businessman in the same industry as Bisciotti and Ayanbadejo has decided to defend them, and admonish the minister for impinging on the constitutional rights of the parties.

Still the right-wing, with all their demands that nobody interfere with commerce, remain silent.

Then the minister claims that although he tried to interfere with the constitutional rights of the businessmen, he has first amendment rights, too.

Yes, Reverend, you do have first amendment protection, the right to express your hate and intolerance.  Not one single person has ever tried to abridge that right, or silence you.

On the other hand, you wrote a letter suggesting that an employer abridge the first amendment rights of his employees. I am certain this would be a violation of their contract.

So, when that minister says he has first amendment rights, too, it is a red herring. He is just making-up stuff to deflect the negative publicity that a bigoted pig deserves.

In reality, he is exactly the type of person that I want to see execute his first amendment right to free speech, because it highlights the idiocy of his hatred.

Because he drapes his hate and bigotry in the vestments of a church doesn't make him any less hateful or bigoted.

Just because he pays his mortgage by reading Bible verses doesn't mean he is immune from criticism, especially when he tries to abridge the constitutional rights of an American citizen.

So, yes, Reverend Burns, we all agree that you have the constitutional right to spew your bigoted filth; but I am not certain you have a constitutional right to interfere with commerce, to insert yourself into the negotiations of millionaires, or to abridge the constitutional rights of another.

And where is Ann Coulter and where is Paul Ryan and where is Karl Rove when a minister interferes with commerce?

What is more important to them: commerce or christianity?

I guess it isn't commerce.

So, the next time a conservative wants to run-off at the mouth about commerce and constitutional rights, just laugh in his face, tell him he's a hypocrite, and walk away.

Conservatives don't care about commerce or the Constitution, they care only about themselves.