Eugene Volokh echoing Joe Scarborough makes the legal case for the Ground Zero mosque, and it’s certainly an accurate one:
But the legal issue is open and shut. The Free Exercise Clause means that the government may not discriminate against an entity because of its religious denomination. The Free Speech Clause means that the government generally may not discriminate an entity because of what it says or teaches (and that applies to discrimination against religious speakers as much as to discrimination against secular speakers). There are some exceptions to the latter principle, but none apply here.
He goes on to make the legal case and concludes thusly:
These are basic principles of American free speech law, and of American religious freedom law. They help protect all of us, liberal or conservative, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist. Carving out exceptions from them will jeopardize all of us. We shouldn’t sacrifice these basic American principles — principles that help make America free and great, and distinguish it from most other countries — for the sake of symbolism.
The memeorandum thread is here, on the legal issues he is undoubtedly correct however this doesn’t change that the Mosque is basically a radical Islamic victory lap and highly insensitive, so what is the best way to answer such insensitivity? Why with even more legal insensitivity:
I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.
This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.
As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.
The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.
Hotair’s prediction:
Media narrative on the GZ mosque: Shining beacon of liberal values bursting through the overcast skies of American intolerance. Media narrative on the GG gay bar: Dangerous provocation that needlessly inflames cultural tensions in the ostensible service of liberal values.
I’m not a big “gay bar” fan but I’ve certainly argued that the best answer to unpopular speech is more speech and brother this would speak volumes…that is if they let him live.
Memeorandum thread here, it should be a lot more interesting that the other one (sorry prof Volokh)
Update: I’m of course opposed to both projects but to those guys who decide to put a fatwa on Gutfeld, you might as well include me on it too. You come for one of us, you come for all of us.
Update 2: Hotair’s prediction finally gets some legs at Dissenting Justice
Update 3: Prof Darren Hutchinson says I’ve misread his post and he has no issues with the bar. That’s not how I read it but he’s a pretty fair guy and I take him at his word.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 