RUSH: According to Eric Holder, the attorney general of the United States, it's perfectly okay for state attorneys general to ignore their oaths of office and refuse to enforce a law that they don't personally agree with. He said that, and he advocated that to them. It is perfectly okay for the owner of a gay bar in West Hollywood to not allow anybody he disagrees with politically admittance into his bar.
Perfectly fine. It's perfectly fine for the president of the United States to alter, amend, or write laws on his own and to ignore laws he doesn't agree with. That's perfectly fine. But it is a crime for a baker to refuse to make a same-sex wedding cake, or a photographer to refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding. That is a crime. None of the other violations of official oaths of office are in any way, shape, manner, or form criminal.
RUSH: Nancy, is it Medina or Medina, Ohio? Hello.
CALLER: It's Medina, Ohio. And Rush, thank you so much for taking my call, and it's so nice to follow Anderson from Jacksonville, Florida. God bless him and his family.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I'll get right to my question. And it's about the governor, about vetoing the bill in Arizona. And I just wonder, Rush, if you feel that that would open the door for liberals to force doctors to perform abortions, even though it's against their moral and religious beliefs. I guess that's my question. How far are the liberals gonna take this?
RUSH: Well, now, that is an interesting question, because one of the undeniable truths of liberalism is that nothing is ever a solution. It's always the starting point for something else. So if they want this legalized -- it's a very valid question. Where does this go next?
RUSH: You're very shrewd, Nancy, because nothing is ever solved. Like, this is portrayed as a problem of discrimination. We need to solve this. But all it does is open doors. Where does it end? I'm gonna remind you of something. When the sodomy case in Georgia was decided, it was Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court who warned everybody that this decision was gonna lead to homosexual marriage, and he was right. In this case, if you can tell a Christian bakery that they have to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, then at some point can a doctor who is a conscientious objector to abortion be made to perform one against his religious views, without being labeled discriminatory or worse?
I think what your question points out is proper objective and motive here. What really is going on with this? It really isn't just about gay couples getting cakes from bakeries. There's much more to the agenda than that and I think your question is a great illustration. I appreciate the call.
RUSH: What would happen if a -- no, I know what would happen. Well, if a member of the Klan walked into a black bakery. "I want a cake." I'm just sitting here, I'm just ruminating.