Matt Welch writes at the libertarian magazine/website reason.com:
Gay people and gay rights activists should be among the first to recognize the critical link between open-mindedness and ending discrimination. It’s difficult to fathom in this historic year of 2015, when the Supreme Court may be on the verge of legalizing gay marriage nationwide, but gay rights advocates were almost hopelessly outnumbered in living memory. For decades, just about the only glimmer of hope came not from courtrooms but in the arena of public debate. …
But as the longtime minority view [on gay marriage] tips into what is looking like a permanent majority . . . Too many activists are now emboldened by their newfound political power to compel obedience and hound heretics rather than continue their incredibly successful long-term efforts at persuasion.
Driving the Kleins [owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery] into bankruptcy seems an odd tactic for changing their minds. Unless the goal is no longer about opening hearts, but rather enforcing new social norms by making examples out of nonconformers. …
But openness is also a condition of mind and a habit of discourse. Abandoning it in the face of victory will create as yet unimagined self-inflicted defeats. If we want to keep “open-minded” as a compliment, we need to make sure we don’t replace one set of intolerant laws with another. And we had better nurture a culture that appreciates the opportunity to debate, rather than driving disfavored opinion into the closet.
This blogsite pays so much attention to the issue of government action/lawsuits/mob threats against small businesses that don’t wish to provide services to same-sex weddings, based on the owner’s traditional religious beliefs, because it may be a bellwether of the next great civil rights struggle in our country—the right to dissent from the majoritarian view of the progressive state, and the corresponding right to be left alone and not to be coerced, by threat of punishment, into activity that violates religious conscience.
The magazine Welch now edits, he points out, “was editorializing in favor of gay marriage as early as 1974,” so this is not an issue of gay rights opponents suddenly discovering liberal (in the traditional sense) values. It is, instead, a matter of being consistent in defense of classical liberal values.
As the Cato Institute’s David Boaz tells The Federalist:
… mainstream libertarians have been generally supportive of gay marriage and the right of private individuals not to be required to participate in ceremonies that offend them. Cato has filed amicus briefs in gay marriage cases, also filed an amicus brief in the Elaine photography case out in New Mexico, and also in the Hobby Lobby case. I don’t know if there’s been a case in Indiana that would be relevant. People at Cato have defended the right of private individuals—and even reasonable large businesses like Hobby Lobby—to not support policies or participate in ceremonies that are offensive to them. It seems to me that libertarians have defended liberty on both sides on those particular issues.
More. We’ve seen it all before: Pagans persecute Christians, then Christians gain control over the state and persecute pagans; Catholics persecute Protestants, then Protestants gain control and persecute Catholics; the old guard persecutes the revolutionaries, then the revolutionaries gain control and persecute the old guard. When will they ever learn?
7 Comments for “Victory Ahead; Shadows Loom”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This blogsite pays so much attention to the issue of government action/lawsuits/mob threats against small businesses that don’t wish to provide services to same-sex weddings based on the owner’s traditional religious beliefs because it maybe a bellwether of the next great civil rights struggle in our country—the right to dissent from the majoritarian view of the progressive state, and the corresponding right to be left alone and not to be coerced, by threat of punishment, into activity that violates religious conscience.
I beg to differ, Stephen. Your overblown rhetoric when describing gays and lesbians, coupled with your unwillingness to discuss religious freedom outside the context of discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone, betrays you.
We could use, as a country and a culture, an intelligent, measured and rational discussion about religious freedom. We aren’t getting it on IGF.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, because liberals have taken over everything and force their views on everyone else? Really? What color is the sky in their universe?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Reason Magazine is an interesting magazine to read.
However, it is a right-libertarian magazine and so it pretty much takes the position that life would be better off without any private sector civil right laws, labor laws, health and safety laws, etc.
I am not exactly sure I would call that “classically liberal”. Many of the “liberals” in the 1700s and 1800s did actually support a government role in the economy in order to address certain social injustices. Heck, even Adam Smith — the great and powerful Oz, for some — is frequently misquoted and misunderstood.
posted by Jorge on
But openness is also a condition of mind and a habit of discourse. Abandoning it in the face of victory will create as yet unimagined self-inflicted defeats.
GLBT people make up anywhere from 5-10% of the US population.
We do not have the ability to control straight America.
From where I stand, I’m not sure I see many things for the GLBT community to strive for other than an end to social and economic disadvantage. That idea that seeking censorship will lead to a self-inflicted defeat is true only in form–with little to gain, the consequences of defeat and political powerlessness are only psychological. It is very little to reorder one’s mind and become a conservative.
Now, if I believed the GLBT political community actually cared about inequality I might see this differently, but I do not think those who strive for social justice are the same as those who seek political power; so I don’t think the former will be affected by “self-inflicted defeats”. I could be wrong.
posted by Kosh III on
“right to be left alone and not to be coerced,”
That’s what gay s have NOT had for centuries.
We’ve been bothered, harrassed, abused, arrested, killed and otherwise massively coerced by the so-called “Christians” and bogus “small-government” GOP and conservatives.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
the libertarian right objects to ant civil rights laws regulsting the private sector. So their effort to be a honest broker is deceptive.
Also, when a gay couple decides to sue a business for making their wedding plsnd more complicated….I doubt that they get prior approval from 1-800-Gay-Actividt-Left.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I can see have a general exemption to public accommodation laws for self-employed and small business owners. This is not a terribly new idea, as equal opportunity laws in employment and housing often require a minimum threshold of employees or rental properties.
However, it is one thing to talk about reasonable and consistent exemptions within the context of a larger LGBT civil right bill. Much of what is being proposed in these religious freedom bills has very little to do with freedom or religion.
I still say that if all of the gay waiters, fashion designers, florists, hair dressers, interior decorates and the like involved the right to discriminate based on their own beliefs, it is a fair bet that the response would not be ‘oh, its just religious freedom’.
Much like when Governor Reagan (California) backed comprehensive gun control legislation. This was in the late 1960s, when several radical groups (Black Panthers, etc) stated getting into guns. It is almost as if the “pro-gun” crowd get really nervous about the idea of lots of hippies, freaks, black militants and the like, ‘packing’.