NYT Attacks Christian Arbitration

Is Afraid of Christians Escaping Absolute Secularist Control

"Objective" NYT reporters dog-whistle how double-plus ungood Christian arbitration is because the Christian program that used it occasioned a young man's repentance about his homosexual activities. Is there even a theory where this is relevant to the reporting of this story? Also, why did the reporters pass on some unsourced hearsay that the man's high school in Knoxville, which had nothing to do with the arbitration or his unfortunate death, "allowed teachers to question evolution"? If we have Christian arbitration, what's next? Teachers questioning climate change, single-sex showers? What does any of this have to do with the policies of private arbitration?

I am unmoved by the reporters' suggestion that secular courts act from some sort of consensus view in America about justice and fairness. Now that the Obergefell Court has held that orthodox Christians are all bigots whose values are outside the U.S. constitutional order, Christians reasonably are doing all they can to get decision-makers who lack an appearance of prejudice against them.

If secular U.S. courts want Christians not to opt out of their jurisdictions, perhaps they shouldn't express contempt for their beliefs so often.