Recently, in a posting titled The Ugliness of Reverse Animus, I pointed to the case of a 68-year-old flowershop proprietress being sued by the Washington state attorney general because, on religious grounds, she declined to provide wedding flowers for a customer who was marrying his partner. I asked, “Must progressivism decree that the power of the state be so absolute that there be no exemption from its dictate for religious conviction, not to speak of individual liberty?”
Along similar lines, Bart Hinkle of the Richmond Times-Dispatch takes note in a column titled Can gay couples, too, live and let live? of a case in which a gay Colorado couple filed a discrimination complaint against the owners of a cakeshop who declined for religious reasons to make them a wedding cake. Hinkle writes:
But there is another, stronger sort of equality: the equality of authority – which suggests social interactions should be consensual because nobody has the right to impose his will on somebody else. This is the sort of equality most compatible with liberty (including the liberty to marry whom one wishes), and the sort of equality gay-rights advocates should embrace. …
Yet if we are to respect the best arguments for gay rights, then we also have to recognize that those arguments also apply to people like Robertson – and to the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, and to others like them. They should not have the power to impose their will on gay couples. But gay couples should not have the power to impose their own will on them, either. “Live and let live” cannot be a one-way street.
Liberty ends when the aim is to force others to bend to your will and do your bidding or face persecution by the state, now aligned with your cause. That, sadly, has been the endgame of too many “liberation struggles.”
33 Comments for “More on ‘Reverse Animus’”
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
Again, the issues seems to be framed in a way that I find to be misleading….Apparently, we either have to believe in the Ayn Rand definition of ‘freedom of association’ and ‘property rights’ or else we are hurting not just mom and pop operations, but the gay rights cause as well……
Well, Golly Gee! Yes, their are very good reasons for having civil right laws — including those that regulate the private sector –. Ayn Rand and the libertarians would disagree, but (with all due respect) I think they are a just a tad bit…odd.
Again, it would not be too hard to write something into the code that when it came to sexual orientation/gender identity some exceptions were permitted for small business owners. Again, oftentimes that is how a civil rights code is written (i.e. a business with more then ‘x’ number of employees…)
That the small business is not being terrible consistent is worth noting. But, he or she probably does not think so. If they are a small business (and they are not the only option in town) and they don’t want to contract with a gay couple for certain services, its probably best if the law allows it.
posted by Mark on
I assume, then, that in addition to supporting the repeal of all public accommodations laws that apply to sexual orientation, Stephen believes that a racist florist should be able to refuse to sell flowers to a black person, and that an anti-semitic baker should be able to refuse to sell a cake to a Jewish person.
I wonder why he didn’t make that clear in his post, though.
posted by Houndentenor on
I have been hearing this argument against ENDA for 20 years now. People speak out against these nondiscrimination policies when we discuss them for gay people, and yet I never hear of anyone introducing the legislation to repeal the laws that protect people because of their religion, race, ethnicity, gender or age. And we probably aren’t going to. If someone is against nondiscrimination laws, then they should advocate repealing all of them.
posted by Jorge on
A business should not be forced to put into writing ideas on issues of public concern or of a religious nature that it does not agree with.
This reminds me of this story from New Jersey about this neo-Nazi couple complaining (fictitiously, in my opinion) that their children with Nazi-themed names were moved from them solely because of their names. Shortly before they were reported to child protective services, a baker refused to write the name of their son on a birthday cake. They went elsewhere.
It’s a dumb story. Every constitutional principle that exists says that the government has to treat neo-Nazis the same as everyone else; they have a right to raise their children with whatever beliefs they exist. This is a couple in denial about their own child abuse.
Gays, blacks, Jews, and neo-Nazis are equal in the eyes of the law. The only reason they are not is because some have a history of invidious discrimination and some do not. Not writing someone’s name on a birthday cake or a wedding cake is not a big deal.
posted by Houndentenor on
As I remember the story, the child’s name was Adolf. Yes, that’s child abuse, cake or no cake.
posted by Jorge on
Uhhh, no it’s not.
posted by Houndentenor on
You seriously don’t think that naming your child after perhaps the most despised human being in history (western history, at least) isn’t child abuse? Really?
posted by Houndentenor on
Perhaps we can strike a deal with social conservatives. Marriage rights in all 50 states and in exchange we promise not to force any of our filthy money on them for wedding cakes, flowers or photographs. Seems like a pretty good bargain to me.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Reverse animus is replacing a qualified heterosexual bartender with a gay one because as an LGBT business owner doesn’t want straight people on staff waiting on his customers.
Reverse animus is a gay baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a straight couple because of their religious bigotry towards gays.
Both are examples of reverse animus that are clearly wrong when it comes to workplace discrimination and public accommodation laws.
If you own a business that is open to the public – not a private entity for members-only – then you have to follow the law. This has nothing to do with marriage equality versus religious freedom. It is about following the public accommodation laws of this state which include not turning away people based on their sexual orientation. Period.
Don’t like the law? Get it changed. Until then, STFU… Continuing to flog this nonsense does nothing to bolster supposedly rational libertarian ideas – on the contray, it just makes you look dense.
posted by Gus on
There is a difference between a public accommodation or business open to the public and your private home. There would be a problem if the state forced someone to have a gay couple to dinner. I’m getting a little tired of this Libertarian excuse to be racist, etc. This argument is why supporters of the “Old South” are part of the Libertarian movement and why the Pauls of politics have some suspect people around them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anti-discrimination laws typically cover sex, race, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.
So long as the “religious conscience exemption” applies equally to all of the categories covered by the law on an equal footing, the “equal means equal” test is met. If sexual orientation is carved out as a special case, and treated differently from the others, then the “equal means equal” test is not met.
I think that reasonable people can differ about the wisdom and efficacy of anti-discrimination laws. But I strongly object to carving out a special exemption for same-sex marriages, which is what has been happening in states around the country.
The reason I object is that I cannot find a rational basis on which a “religious conscience” exemption applicable to marriage between gay and lesbian couples differs from a “religious conscience” exemption to marriage between and interracial couple, or a remarriage after a divorce, or an interfaith marriage.
With respect to public accommodations and other anti-discrimination laws in general, it seems to me that the same “equal means equal” concern applies. If “religious conscience” is a exemption with respect to one category, it should be an exemption with respect to all. I cannot find a rational basis on which to distinguish between an employer who objects to homosexuality on religious grounds and an employer who objects to women working outside the home on religious grounds.
Looking more broadly, it has been widely reported that NOM and other conservative Christian groups have internally acknowledged that they are losing the fight over marriage equality, and will not turn their focus to obtaining broad religious exemption laws.
I don’t know if it is directly connected (it would seem so, because the sponsors are religious conservatives), but “right of conscience” exemption constitutional amendment has been proposed (AR 43, SR 46) in Wisconsin, and is under consideration. The text to be added to the constitution is:
I don’t know whether the proposed amendment will get to the people for a vote (under Wisconsin’s constitution, a constitutional amendment must pass both houses of the legislature in two consecutive two-year sessions, and be approved by referendum, a process which normally takes 4 or 5 years) but the proposed amendment meets the “equal means equal” test.
If broad-scale “personal conscience” exemption laws and/or constitutional amendments are the direction in which we are headed, then, at least, we can begin to have a national discussion about the proper boundaries of personal conscience (including religious conscience) exemptions to our laws.
posted by Tom on
I don’t understand why anyone would want to willingly give money to someone with anti-gay sentiments. If one person doesn’t want to provide whatever service you are seeking because you are gay, find one who does and support their business venture with your dollars….and spread the word that they are a gay-friendly business. I just do not understand this concept of thinking you are punishing an anti-gay business by forcing them to accept your money when you are actually punishing a gay friendly business by not giving them your money.
posted by Doug on
Change the word anti-gay to anti-black or anti-jew and you might have more understanding.
posted by Tom on
If a private business wants to be anti-black or anti-jew, that is their business. Its not wise, not at all a sound business model and I sure as hell wouldn’t run a business like that, but a private business should have the right to run their business as they see fit. Apparently, people are under the mistaken delusion that you can regulate racism and anti-gay sentiment. No matter how much you want to live in that world, it will never happen. It’s a reality and everyone needs to accept this reality and move on, otherwise most will be always be living in a perpetual state of anger and being pissed off in general.
posted by Doug on
I sure as hell don’t want to live in your world, which apparently would include slavery and any other thing some business decides to perpetuate. No thanks.
posted by Tom on
Slavery? That’s the best argument you can come up with? Seriously? That would be forcing someone to work against their will and has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.
posted by Dale on
“Apparently, people are under the mistaken delusion that you can regulate racism and anti-gay sentiment.”
Perhaps some people are under that mistaken delusion, but I haven’t seen any such claims in this thread. I believe people are writing about here is regulating behavior, regardless of sentiment. If one makes an exception for “sincerely” held religious beliefs, who must bear the burden of proving or disproving sincerity? If you propose to provide a service or sell a product to the general public, but your sincerity excludes some categories of the general public, then I suggest you need to go into another line of work wherein your sincerity does not adversely affect the equal-ia-equal status of others.
posted by Mike in Houston on
If you are a public accomodation, then you have to play by the rules.
And the whole “find another business” nonsense is just that — nonsense… as nonsensical as telling gay people to “grow their own food” if they can’t get groceries locally because the only store owner won’t sell to them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/washington-staffer-gay-people-grow-food-discrimination_n_3178872.html
posted by Tom on
The only store owner? What world are you living in? Lame argument….go to Walmart…they are practically everywhere.
posted by Mark J on
What world do we live in?
Some of us live in rural America where it is over an hour drive to the nearest Walmart (if you are dumb enough to shop there).
Walmart may be “practically everywhere,” but they aren’t in fact everywhere.
Being cut out of the local, very small, community imposes serious restrictions on me.
posted by Mark on
The idea of “religious exemption” laws is just ridiculous and dangerous.
Do people get to ignore the laws against murder because their god demands honor killings?
We don’t get to decide which laws we like and which ones we won’t adhere to.
posted by Don on
Reversing the question always clarifies it to me. I like the point that a gay baker refusing to make a cake for a hetero couple and seeing how silly that sounds. But it’s also not such a good example because there will never be enough gay events to support a gay baker solely with gay people.
I turn the question around this way: why is baking a cake for a party an endorsement of gay weddings? I’m just not seeing the math here. Is renting a hotel room to an unmarried couple an endorsement of sex before marriage? Is serving a black person lunch at your restaurant an endorsement of the NAACP? Is selling a bassinette for a baby shower to an unwed mother an endorsement of slutdom? or a celebration of choosing life rather than abortion? and do you have to hang a sign clarifying that you are for life or for slutdom so everyone in town knows it? What about refusing to serve food to someone who is of the wrong political party? Is that legal? Should the state step in and say “um, no one will sell food to the guy who had a Romney sign in his yard. Cut it out. ”
No, none of that goes on. It’s a last-ditch effort of Christians to shame gays into changing or at least reminding them that they are
It sounds all nice on its face for libertarians. Freedom! Stop the state! But it also ensures that a libertarian ideal of a level playing field of OPPORTUNITY not outcomes will never happen. If everyone can’t get a job or buy a product from anyone else in the community, then there will be no libertarian utopia. Ever.
All one has to do is ask oneself “why is it we ended up with affirmative action to begin with?” oh yeah. right. because people had freedom to the point of starving others out of misguided prejudice. janitor or garbage man was the only job some were fit for. was it the right answer? doubt anyone here would say yes. but opposition to the solution isn’t going to make the problem go away.
I’m all for freedom. But sometimes a simple freedom to be wrong can have serious consequences. And I’m not buying that this is going to stop at cake. So I would give up a little “freedom” so that we can have a just society. Believe what you believe. But you either get in and sell to everyone or you sell to no one. And if the state has to enforce it, then so be it.
posted by Tom on
What freedoms would you give up, and how much would be a “little freedom”…I think history has shown us that when we are willing to give up a “little freedom,” at some point giving up a “little freedom” turns into giving up a lot of freedom..so be careful what you wish for.
posted by Don on
I agree with the point generally. But freedom to decide who to sell to and not sell to. I would give up that freedom to have a level playing field for society. I can see that keeping discrimination alive by forced compliance keeping resentment alive. It has with race and gender. But I find it wholly acceptable given the alternative. Never going to be a perfect system. Nor a perfect world.
posted by JohnInCA on
The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.
What “lot of freedom” has it grown to repress in the interim.
posted by Houndentenor on
The freedom to be a bigot without anyone calling you a bigot, of course.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
—I like the point that a gay baker refusing to make a cake for a hetero couple and seeing how silly that sounds.
It may seem silly, but if it were a small business and other options exist, why should a gay baker be forced to bake a cake for some idiot or old fart that hates gays?
–Why is baking a cake for a party an endorsement of gay weddings?
In some people’s minds it is. Yes, these people are mostly like idiots and old farts. However, it might just be best to leave them old for a decade.
—Is renting a hotel room to an unmarried couple an endorsement of sex before marriage?
To some people it may be. The more relevant question is how big is this hotel? If its a little old lady renting out a spare room in her house (or in the garage) that is a different issue then a standard apartment owner.
—What about refusing to serve food to someone who is of the wrong political party?
Good question. Most of the time membership in a political party or political belief is generally NOT included in civil rights laws (although I argue that it probably should be, but that gets into the issue of third parties).
Affirmative Action is trying to deal with historical racism (and sexism) and institutional racism (and sexism). It is still important, although I suspect that it in a decade or so it will probably shift gears to focusing more on economic class and less on race/sex.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. Very few people are going to want to admit that they do not want to bake a cake for an interfaith couple, interracial couple or a couple where the man or woman is divorced. At some point, ‘in yea olde goody days’ this probably would have been an issue, but (thankfully) not enough today to fret out too much.
Someday this will probably happen with gay marriage, but we need to be ready to live in the now. If gay couples push the issue — demanding that some idiot or old fart bake them a cake — they only end up helping the religious right.
posted by Don on
I only see that as half true at best. In smaller communities, one cannot simply get another baker. And the problem is much bigger than just a wedding cake. Try buying a house. Or getting a job. I understand the basic principle of forcing those to tolerate against their will or suffer legal consequences. It keeps resentment alive and well. And adds to a persecution complex. But if we sat back and did nothing to challenge legal prohibitions and did not “force” some to go against their beliefs by allowing this to stand, they will succeed in keeping us marginalized and stigmatized. So who is really helping the religious right now?
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
–In smaller communities, one cannot simply get another baker.
Again, that was one of the conditions I imposed on any theoretical ‘faith based’ exception. People seem to insist that we (a) abolish all civil rights laws or (b) have civil rights laws that don’t try to be practical. These are two extremes that I do not agree with.
The small business does not (if I were writing the law) have to make the gay couple a cake, but it cannot unreasonably burden their freedom to contract with someone else — which is why the existence of other cake shops is important.
I would make a similar case with birth control. If you are the only pharmacy in town then you cannot burden folks from getting birth control.
Equal opportunity in housing should be the law and — again — be based on the size of the rental unit (if we are taking about apartments). In terms of buying or selling homes, I would be skeptical of a ‘religious exemption’ being put in.
In employment — in generally hinges on the size of the business (i.e. more then 10 employees) and its general purpose.
For example, Hooters lost a civil rights case years ago because it would not hire male waiters. Had they argued that the purpose of Hooters is to sell sexuality or some such thing, they probably could have gotten an exemption from the sex discrimination issue. But, no they actually argued that Hooters was selling family friendly entertainment.
posted by Sandhorse on
>inadvertently posted this under the wrong post<
This topic was discussed over at BTB. I say here, what I said there.
Genuine tolerance flows from grace. Tolerance mandated through policy, on the other hand, is simply compliance.
With that in mind, the request for tolerance by O.S.Card, and now Bart Hinkle, is even more superficial. They do not tolerate us at all; not before and not now. They simply must comply with current policy. If that policy did not exist, or would ever be overturned, rest assured they would not show us the grace (i.e. tolerance) they so adamantly demand from us. They are now, unfortunately for them, at our mercy and they know it. Thus the ‘requests’ for tolerance ensue.
What’s worse is they are not requests, or even demands. No, we’re now being told we are obligated to tolerate. Not because they showed us tolerance, but because we won via policy. So, they now expect us to allow them to keep discriminating against us out of the kindness of our hearts. And not just tolerate their beliefs, no, we are supposed to tolerate their long standing intolerance.
When it comes to ‘law of the land’ the law should apply to everyone or it shouldn’t be applied at all. Otherwise we could plaster our governments with laws that only apply to other people. They are the easiest to pass.
If “Masterpiece Cakeshop” wants to make a statement by refusing services to a gay couple; then the gay owned flower shop down the road can refuse services to a Christian couple. The knife must cut both ways. If such a policy is applied evenhandedly, I actually don’t have a problem with it; though I think it would breed anarchy. However, if laws are in place barring discrimination, then that too needs to be applied evenhandedly.
Some want to conflate this as being some sort of infringement on the business owners ‘free exercise’ of religion.
From a Christian standpoint, I don’t believe refusal of services to be an exercise of faith. If that were the case, then the Priest and the Levite would have been the heroes of the Good Samaritan story. Thus, the requirement to offer services to all when that service is public, does not contravene their practice of faith.
Personally, I think refusal of services is more of an expression of hypocrisy then faith. Unless they can demonstrate that they have not offered services to previously married couples, interracial couples, people of a different faith, people who are ‘living in sin’, etc.; then their moral ground is fractured. Never mind the fact that they would eliminate at least 75% of their customer base in the process. So it goes without saying their ‘moral indignation’ only extends as far as their wallet will allow. But, discriminating against 5% of the population has minimal impact on the bottom line, and still allows you to flaunt that badge of (self)righteousness on your lapel.
At the end of the day, I hope, (as a gay community) we can find it in ourselves to offer grace and tolerance by not ‘enforce’ the policy of ‘compulsory tolerance’. If, for no other reason then to show them the grace they never showed us.
But, having said that, grace given upon demand or expectation, is no grace at all.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m probably in the minority on this, but I’m long past the point in my life where I care if strangers who I will probably never see again like me. I expect them to be reasonably courteous and professional in our dealings and beyond that it’s none of my business. If while they are treating me with the standard courtesy anyone should expect they are privately thinking that I am a disgusting pervert who deserves to burn in eternal hellfire, that’s really none of my business.
posted by Mark on
It’s also worth noting that Hinkle is publishing in a state (VA) where both marriage and civil unions are banned by the state constitution, and in which public accommodations are allowed, under the law, to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. There isn’t one business in his home state that could conceivably face the grave problems that have so concerned Stephen and him.