Editor:

Thank you for pouring on us another dose of Mr. Keisling's hypocrisy. This time, he reached the heights of misrepresenting the issues used to illustrate what would generally be a valid line of reasoning.

The point I especially applaud is his implication that making somebody hire a gay person against their will is an imposition of morality on that employer. The point he missed, however, is the counter-example (not hiring someone who is gay) has additional financial bearings on the party being refused the job. For that reason, the two cannot constitute thesis and antithesis - because the material cause in the second one supersedes any moral causes in both of them.

Same goes for most of the other examples he used. The law that prevents you from destroying your neighbor's property is not a law dictating morality, it's a law about financial liability for your actions. The laws that protect black people are not written to make everyone share Dr. King's ideas, they are about economic protection.

This, I think, quite invalidates Mr. Keisling's attempt to show that current law imposes morality as much as Christian Coalition is trying to. I wonder if he himself belives his arguments. It seems very strange to me that a mathematics major is so bad at logic.

Konstantin Momot
chemistry graduate student