You may not know much about Sam Clovis, Donald Trump's pick to be chief scientist for the Department of Agriculture, so here are the bullet points:
Clovis's new bosses are shocked by his blatant bigotry, and are taking steps to oust him from office. Wait, that's not right! My mistake. The Trump administration has made no comment or changes.
Clovis's nomination has drawn severe criticism from Senate Democrats, who think his lack of scientific experience makes him unqualified for a post overseeing science.
In America, there has been strong support in our legal system to define marriage as between one man and one woman. In particular, the Supreme Court as far back as the 1870s established that very definition of marriage. What seems the most troubling about extending the definition of marriage to same-sex couples is that it will be difficult to stop with this revised definition. Is the LGBT community wanting to stop the marriage arrangement at any two consenting adults? This is illogical. If society chooses to alter the definition of marriage, how can there be a line drawn at two adults? What is to say that polyamorous arrangements should not be included? What about other relationships? If that is the goal of the LGBT community leadership, then the reasons for rearranging the traditional definition is far more nefarious than just making a small segment of the population feel better.
In the furor over Sam Clovis's disgusting comments and behavior, let's not forget that he's grossly unqualified for the job.— michaleen (@michaleen) August 21, 2017
Homosexuality and personal choices about one's sexual preferences is not at issue. Businesses today have extended support to life partners in a number of ways. It's just good business if that is what it takes to get the best person for the job. On the other hand, businesses and their owners should be able to make decisions about who is employed if hiring people who do not behave in accordance with some deeply held religious belief system is at issue. Just as the government should not force business owners or enterprises to provide contraceptives or morning-after pills because of religious beliefs, the government should not be in charge of hiring practices, either. Religious freedom, perhaps the most fundamental of all protected freedoms, must be free of government interference.