Our occasional co-blogger Walter Olson shared a different take on Indiana, Arkansas and the battles over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs), via the New York Daily News. A few excerpts, but you should go and read the whole piece:
Even if you think, as I do, that the past week’s great gay rights war was 90% hype…one take-away is still a bit amazing: America’s big businesses have emerged as a hugely effective ally of gay rights.
That is a very big deal that will reshape this crucial cultural cause, and perhaps others, for years to come. …
On what stoked the controversy:
In some parallel universe, bills like Indiana’s could have been pitched with a pluralist and moderate appeal: Until quite recently, after all, RFRAs themselves were seen as something of a bipartisan progressive cause and the group of law professors and religious scholars active in the push for state RFRA bills includes more than a few moderates, liberals and libertarians who themselves favor same-sex marriage and gay rights laws.
In our actual universe, on the other hand, where perception is nine-tenths reality, the Indiana effort was seen as the pet project of hard-liners that the state’s business community didn’t care for and didn’t want to have seen as representing the state. …
Taking aim at Indiana’s hapless governor, Walter writes:
One of the most damaging viral images was that of a ceremony in which Mike Pence was seen signing the initial bill into law surrounded by figures circled and identified as long-time bitter opponents of gay rights. Pence himself floundered on TV when asked to defend the bill, unable to finesse the gap between the culture war themes that had helped fuel its passage at home and the more moderate arguments that might have swayed national viewers. …
But he also warns, quite correctly:
Outrage can blow up in unexpected ways. When a small-town Indiana pizzeria owner truthfully answered a reporter’s inquiry by saying she was happy to serve gay customers but would have qualms about catering a gay wedding, her mom-and-pop business got hit by a classic social-media pile-on that included fake Yelp reviews and even threats of violence. No sane business—especially a big one—would want to get within miles of such mob-driven ritual shaming.
It might be tricky, in fact, to keep getting the symbolic point across while not alienating the majority of the public that—according to most polls—in fact opposes fines and penalties for bakers, florists and photographers that hold religious objections to entering into gay-marriage celebrations. …
From my perspective, after gay marriage is secured nationwide (which the consensus holds is likely to happen with a Supreme Court ruling in June, although one never knows), I think the movement from “live and let live” with legal equality, toward an embrace of authoritarian political correctness intolerant of dissent, could become much worse within the LGBT activist world.
More. Law professor Jonathan Turley, via the Washington Post. He argues that in their rush to support same-sex rights, critics of religious freedom laws have been too quick to dismiss legitimate questions about free speech and expression. You think?
27 Comments for “The Turning Tide”
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“When a small-town Indiana pizzeria owner truthfully answered a reporter’s inquiry….her mom-and-pop business got hit by a classic social-media pile-on…even threats of violence.”
I’m not sure just what kind of social media pile-on is classic, but something smells fishy about this whole Memories Pizza story, and it’s not the anchovies. Why would a reporter seek out the opinion of an obscure owner of an equally obscure, rinky-dinky pizza parlor in the middle of nowhere? Why would said pizza parlor owner offer her opinion to said reporter on how she would react to a exceedingly unlikely business situation (i.e., catering a gay wedding in this town that is little more than a wide place in the road, with 12 churches for 2100 people and no gay bars or cruisy campgrounds). And then why would she close the business altogether over a situation that had never happened before and probably never would? And even if outsiders started yelling on Yelp for a few days, wouldn’t those 2100 local Christians from those 12 churches keep her business and faith alive and well? It doesn’t make sense (and as Judge Judy says, if it doesn’t make sense then it’s probably not true!). It sounds like a set up of some sort to me, but I won’t venture a guess about who did the setting up. My sincerely held faith, however, tells me it wasn’t the conspired gay agenda scheme of the progressive activist haters-of-all-Christians; nor was it the hookwinked naivete of major corporations that became pawns of the radical gay left.
posted by Lori Heine on
The whole brouhaha is nothing but a gigantic fraud. It is yet another of the fake stories, manufactured by the Social Right. Memories Pizza has mulcted nearly a million dollars out of the public. Poor little persecuted “Christians.”
At first, I didn’t think they were trolls. Now I’m sure of it.
Even the redneckiest of rubes wouldn’t hire a pizza parlor to cater their wedding. At least so I thought–until this fakery erupted. Perhaps Memories Pizza wants to expand into the catering business, and hopes to supply itself with a steady stream of small-town bigot customers. The cash they’ve raked in over the Intertubes should give them plenty of capital to start.
But of course the free market has nothing to do with this. On both the Left and Right, gummint is always the prime mover of everything.
As this slow-motion-explosion of crapola unfolds on Easter week, surely even unbelievers cannot help but see the parallels between the attitudes of these anti-gay “Christians” and the people who crucified Christ. After two thousand years, people are essentially still the same.
None of them gave a damn about Christ. They cared about nothing but themselves and their own twisted and rotten self-interest.
I can spot a sensible and authentic human being from a total fraud or a moron by how he or she reacts to this story. It’s an automatic B.S.-o-meter.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Even the redneckiest of rubes wouldn’t hire a pizza parlor to cater their wedding. At least so I thought …
So iI thought, too, but apparently it is common enough … and not necessarily among “the redneckist of rubes”.
posted by Ricport on
Lori, as one of the few actual fellow independents on this INDEPENDENT Gay forum, I’m quickly becoming one of your biggest fans, but I gotta disagree with you somewhat here. I unfortunately grew up in the fundamentalist church, and I can assure you that there are plenty of small businesses like this that are the real deal. Remember, what precipitated this was a local TV station looking for local business reaction to the brouhaha.
Cue the cameras…
Interview #1: What do you think of this situation? Answer: “I wish it would all just go away, and everyone who comes here is welcome.”
Not compelling news.
Interview #2 with Memories Pizza: What do you think of this situation?
BINGO!! Sensationalistic TV news jackpot! New York, here I come!!!
The reporter was probably kissing her mic that this could be the story that gets her out of the backwater and on to a bigger station. The fact that this, and especially the incredibly poor and hypocritical response by the coastal lefties who took the bait like a bigmouth bass, fell right into the Talibangelicals’ laps is akin to drilling to oil – sometimes you drill a dry hole, and sometimes you hit a gusher.
Last week, CNN went to a small town in Georgia – a state which is considering an Indiana-esque law – and interviewed a florist. That florist spouted the same drivel and clobber verse-based nonsense. But, the reporter totally nailed her when he asked if she’d serve people known to be adulterers or who dishonored their parents, and she said she would. When asked why the contradiction, she could only sputter out that “…it was different.” If we only had more “gotcha” moments like this . . .
I’m all for the concept that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech. Shaming is a good and powerful tool, if utilized properly. But considering the death threats, Yelp takeovers and other behavior exhibited by our so-called “allies,” I think Stephen’s prophesy could come sadly true.
posted by Doug on
Whatever support RFRA’s had historically, changed when it became apparent that they were only going to be used as a vehicle solely to discriminate against the LGBT community.
I watched a woman on CNN proclaim her right to discriminate against the LGBT and when questioned about other Christian sins said ‘I don’t have a problem with those’. More cafeteria Christianity.
posted by Houndentenor on
The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies have been in favor of equal rights for gay employees and customers for a very long time. 15 years ago I had the unfortunate task of opening the hate mail sent to the CEO of a major financial institution after the company announced its nondiscrimination policy. (Note: the selling point by the in-house gay group was that the company wasn’t discriminating and had no plans to so why not put that in writing.)
As for Indiana, it was an anti-gay bill and you only have to look at who Pence had attend the signing, a group of far right anti-gay bigots, to know that. And then he lied and pretended like this was the same as a federal bill with a similar name. He lied. He got caught.
But back to corporate America, how odd is it that we have better allies in big business than we have in government. There was no arm-twisting required to convince companies that they wanted to sell products and services to everyone and that they wanted the best employees regardless of race, sex, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. So why is that such a hard sell in government? Because our politics is held hostage by religious extremists.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
National corporations have a legitimate business interest in being able to transfer executives and business operations from state to state without having to work around government-sanctioned discrimination. I think that is what is driving the large corporations to side with the proponents of equality, and against the proponents of discrimination.
posted by Houndentenor on
Right. And at this point they have employees that are married for federal purposes but not for state purposes. Or who cross a state line and are no longer married? It’s lunacy and the court is hopefully about to fix it.
posted by Houndentenor on
Oops, I lost my train of thought while posting. It’s been a long week for us gig sluts. Anyway, I was the one that opened the religious right hate mail about how awful said company was for treating gay people like everyone else. After a couple of days of it (mostly I forwarded things to various departments so they could respond) the head of HR actually came to me and apologized for me having to read such venom. I told her I was from east Texas and it wasn’t anything I hadn’t heard all my life. I think that made her even sadder, but honestly I was kind of getting a kick out of opening envelopes and having pieces of cut up credit cards fall out with a stupid letter attached. Such drama queen tactics never work. Fortunately I got a better job soon after which was fortunately soon enough so that I wasn’t the person opening the envelope that had what may have been anthrax in it. I did not get paid enough for that BS.
Anyway, my point is that people don’t like bullies and Americans like to think that things are fair. They aren’t, and I think we all know that but blatant discrimination doesn’t sit well, even with people who are a little bit bigoted. This has blown up on Indiana and even Indianians (is that the right word?) aren’t happy about it. But what’s sad is watching the homocons defending this crap. Opening hate mail? Not so bad.
posted by Lori Heine on
Anybody who claims to be a “gay conservative,” but takes seriously that this Memories Pizza crusade is a real thing, deserves to lose every last shred of credibility. They can’t even make this about whether the government should or should not do anything. It’s been about the social conservatives’ tender little feelings–and nothing else–all along.
This has been about making money, and self-promotion, and trolling, right from the start. Good for the big companies who are coming out against the Indiana bigots.
Having lived in Arizona all my life, I remember the SB1062 dustup well enough to know that a whole state gets branded when something like this happens. Maybe we sent all our idiots to Indiana.
…Nope. When I check our local political news, I can see that they’re still here.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I guess I’m wondering where Stephen & Walter have been over the last two & 1/2 decades.
For example — Chevron, oil & gas being that bastion of left-wing industry, has had protections for sexual orientation since 1991 and partnership benefits since 1997. The company currently has a 100% Corporate Equality Index rating — meaning they not only have protections in place for transgender employees, but also full coverage of health-care benefits (e.g., surgical transition).
That’s just one of hundreds of companies in all areas — finance to manufacturing — that have recognized the business value of workplace equality for LGBT employees. It’s a surprisingly low-cost, high value proposition that I can understand why the business community would want to protect that from the RFRA tantrums currently underway in state legislatures.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015/03/31/indiana-religious-freedom-gives-glimpse-into-the-gops-backwards-bubble?int=a39d09
Stephen, Walter and other homocons would do well to get out of the bubble more as well.
posted by Ricport on
“I guess I’m wondering where Stephen & Walter have been over the last two & 1/2 decades.”
I’ll hazard a guess that I think they were referring more to the fact that this was arguably the first time when big business – traditionally a staunch ally of the GOP – used their power to successfully influence a piece of legislation aimed at the GLBT community.
I have a feeling they’re pretty aware that more and more companies have seen the wisdom of codifying nondiscrimination, but if it make you feel better to make half-witted snarkisms, then have at it.
“Stephen, Walter and other homocons would do well to get out of the bubble more as well.”
Then why do you and the other strays from the DNC/MSNBC hallelujah chorus keep posting here?
posted by Mike in Houston on
Actually, this is not “when big business – traditionally a staunch ally of the GOP – used their power to successfully influence a piece of legislation aimed at the GLBT community”…
You seemed to have missed Arizona’s SB 1062.
As to half-witted snarkisms, check yours at the door… or head back to Brietbart or Gay Patriot with the rest of the poo-flingers.
posted by Houndentenor on
But this is NOT the first time big business has come out in favor of gay rights. That’s been going on for almost 20 years now, and it has led to calls from the right for boycotts of a variety of companies including Disney and Starbucks.
posted by Ricport on
Please name the Fortune 50 companies who actively lobbied Jan Brewer on SB 1062.
In the Arizona case, it was every bit, if not more, influenced by the state’s massive travel/tourism/convention industry. When groups from all over threatened to take their convention business elsewhere, AZ sat up and took notice.
Frankly, this is devolving into a stupid argument, as who really gives a flying F as long as we have the right to marry?
I suspect you two use this site to argue the same way most gay men use XTube, and thus, I’m not going to indulge you any further, unless you at least buy me dinner first.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Walter Olson: “Until quite recently, after all, RFRAs themselves were seen as something of a bipartisan progressive cause and the group of law professors and religious scholars active in the push for state RFRA bills includes more than a few moderates, liberals and libertarians who themselves favor same-sex marriage and gay rights laws.
That is because, until quite recently, RFRAs were understood, correctly I think, as a correction to Employment Division v. Smith, intended to return the level of protection against government intrusion onto religious conscience to the “strict scrutiny” standard set by Sherbert v. Berner in 1963. Sherbert applied the “strict scrutiny” standard, until then applicable only to race, to religion. Over the next decade, cases like Yoder (the Wisconsin Amish case) and a half dozen others deployed the Sherbert standard to carve out significant exceptions to laws of general application.
In the 1980’s, the Court began to back away from the Sherbert “strict scrutiny” standard. In 1990, the Court’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, written by Justice Scalia, formally lowered the level of scrutiny required in cases involving religion:
The federal RFRA was intended to put a brake on lowering the standard of review when individuals were harmed by government intrusion on their religious conscience. RFRA was not intended to sanction discrimination, however. The intent of Congress on both counts is clear from the legislative record, and, as Olson points out, the federal RFRA garnered bipartisan support in Congress. The motivations in opposing Smith were somewhat different — Republicans saw religious freedom of Christians being curtailed in a variety of ways; Democrats saw protection for minority religious groups eroded. But both agreed that correction was necessary. The legislative history does not support the idea that either party thought that the RFRA would override or create exceptions to public accommodations laws.
The same is true of the state RFRA laws enacted after the Supreme Court ruled that the RFRA did not apply to the states. Some copied the language from the federal law verbatim. Other states, like Illinois, put in exceptions for civil rights. But, as best I can tell from the legislative history of the states with which I am familiar, none contemplated that the state’s RFRA would trump public accommodations laws.
The reason that the current spate of RFRA’s have erupted into such controversy is that, for the first time, RFRA laws have been deployed as a weapon to sanction discrimination, as a defense to public accommodations laws. That — and the obvious dishonesty of politicians like Governor Pence of Indiana, who signed Indiana’s RFRA in a private ceremony surrounded by some of the state’s most vehement anti-gay activists — is what is creating the current uproar, as much as the expansion of the RFRA to cases in which the government is not involved at all, and to business entities large and small, under the mantra of protecting “bakers and florists and photographers”.
Gays and lesbians — and all Americans of good will — have good reason to be outraged. Gays and lesbians have been used as cannon fodder for short-term political gain in the past (witness the anti-marriage amendments), and the practice continues. Religious freedom has been hijacked in the service of anti-equality pandering, and it will not stand.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Walter Olson: “Outrage can blow up in unexpected ways. When a small-town Indiana pizzeria owner truthfully answered a reporter’s inquiry by saying she was happy to serve gay customers but would have qualms about catering a gay wedding, her mom-and-pop business got hit by a classic social-media pile-on that included fake Yelp reviews and even threats of violence. No sane business—especially a big one—would want to get within miles of such mob-driven ritual shaming.
Looking at the “Pizza Girl, She Don’t Deliver” hullabaloo, I suspect that the owner of Memories Pizza was used by an ambitious local reporter who trumped up a “color” story, then hyped the story out of proportion, and then milked the story with a tear-jerking GoFundMe drive. i don’t know whether this will be a seven-day-wonder or become the next generation “Joe the Plumber” or Benham brothers, but her situation is not enviable, despite the fact that she is now rich enough to be a minor-league Republican. I believe that she is sincere, if none too bright.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. BTW, if you want to watch the Daily Show clip on the Israeli PM check it out here; http://www.hulu.com/watch/759980
2. Personally, most of the pizza that I have bought from a store or ordered at a restaurant has been something of a disappointment. I realize that how good the pizza is, apparently, does not matter, but shouldn’t people taste pizza before they start giving the owners thousands of dollars?
3. I have no problem with a the federal religious freedom act, and I am not automatically opposed to small business/self employed, faith-based exemptions to the public accommodations laws. Exemptions to such a law requires that sexual orientation actually be covered in the statewide civil rights law.
posted by Kosh III on
“I think the movement from “live and let live” with legal equality,”
There has NEVER been a “live and let live” attitude on the Right: it’s been Kill A Queer For Christ the whole time. Nothing has changed.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
But, but, but Kosh.
Don’t you know that by “killing the queer”, the right honorable Christian is lovingly saving him from temptations and getting “left behind”?
(:
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s hilarious to be talking about “religious freedom” in contrast to marriage equality, especially when most states still prevent gay couples from marrying for religious reasons. And yes, the only reasons against gay marriage are the religious ones. it’s a sick joke. The religious right want freedom for themselves but have zero concern about anyone else’s rights. If they were sincere about rights they could have offered a compromise in which gay people get equal rights with some carve out for religious objections. But that’s not what’s happening. They continue to fight against marriage equality while making themselves out to be a persecuted minority.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More. Law professor Jonathan Turley, via the Washington Post. He argues that in their rush to support same-sex rights, critics of religious freedom laws have been too quick to dismiss legitimate questions about free speech and expression. You think?
I think Turley is tying himself in knots, for no good reason. The obvious and simple solution to the problem is to carve out an exemption for small, family-owned businesses from public accommodations laws, coupled with a notice requirement for exempt businesses that elect to discriminate. The de minimis solution has been used in employment and housing non-discrimination laws since the 1960’s.
posted by Lori Heine on
Ricport and Houndentenor are correct in their observation that big companies don’t need public accommodations laws to figure out it’s just good business to serve everyone. Tom S. has a good suggestion about exempting small businesses from any public accommodations laws that do exist.
When it comes to public employees, such laws should not apply. County clerks should not be permitted to keep their jobs if they refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses. If we, the people are given to choice as to whether we will pay them, then they should get no choice as to whether they will do their jobs.
posted by Lori Heine on
That should be “no” choice, not “to” choice.
posted by Jorge on
Why would a reporter seek out the opinion of an obscure owner of an equally obscure, rinky-dinky pizza parlor in the middle of nowhere?
My understanding is that the reporter was attempting to be fair and balanced by soliciting alternate points of view for the story, both pro and con, for the story, as part of good journalism.
Read any newspaper story on a new law and you will find that the media always does this. You can tell how divisive or conventional a law is by looking at the identity of the con viewpoint. Many stories in NYC on popular or common-sense laws only get their con viewpoints from the always on one side groups like the New York Civil Liberties Union or the Catholic League.
In this case, being that many people agreed with the law, it was very easy for the news organization to find a random merchant who said she would not serve to gay weddings.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“My understanding is that the reporter was attempting to be fair and balanced by soliciting alternate points of view for the story…” Jorge
I’m curious as to where Jorge got that understanding. My own understanding of that reporter has been gleaned from several Internet sources, and my own understanding of “fair and balanced” journalistic standards of reporting have been gleaned from my own earlier career in journalism and from a long lifetime of witnessing the reporting of other journalists. I would venture that this story was intended to be about as fair and balanced as any story by Bill O’Reilly or Chris Matthews. ABC News in South Bend, Indiana sent this reporter out into the hinterlands specifically to randomly dredge up someone like the owners of Memories Pizza who would say what they did. Apparently they had to go as far as Walkerton, IN in order to find someone who would give them the opinion they were looking for. As journalistic reporting, this was a non-story. Nothing had happened in Walkerton. Nothing was about to happen. It was a totally manufactured item of no news value. The likelihood is close to zero that the good citizens of Walkerton are about to encounter a same sex couple wanting to be married and have their wedding reception catered there with pizza. On the other hand, the television station apparently couldn’t find anyone in South Bend (a college town with reportedly at least two gay bars) who would give them a militantly Bible thumping opinion opposing public accommodation protections for gay couples. When the program aired that evening, the non-story from Walkerton was their lead item, and was not presented alongside any balanced opinions different than the Memories Pizza folks. So the story created a lot of national publicity for the ABC affiliate in South Bend, and a lot of outrage across the country, but nothing more. I’m grateful that I found a better profession than journalism for the remainder of my working life, a profession that provided public service equally to all, those I liked and those I did not, those who fit my religious beliefs and those who did not.
posted by Lori Heine on
I think that’s exactly what happened. H.L. Mencken said nobody would ever go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. This entire episode bears out the wisdom of that observation.
This was a manufactured story, launched by a sociopath reporter and her money-and-ratings-obsessed employers. Yes, Memories Pizza was probably a dupe. Nobody made them babble their heads off, stupidly, to the reporter. But they probably didn’t see this coming. It was an excuse for fifteen minutes in the spotlight, and the pizza baker guy, like a typical member of the Selfie Generation, seized the opportunity to rant about the Evil Gays Who Choose Their Lifestyle.
If we needed a reason to worry about our country, this would give it to us. I take hope from the fact that so many people out there recognize that we’re just being jerked around.