Via the Washington Times:
Mississippi bakers, florists and photographers who want to avoid serving gay weddings for religious reasons can breathe easy — at least for now.
Calls for a boycott and repeal campaign followed after Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed a religious-freedom bill Tuesday that protects small-business owners from facing penalties for declining to participate in same-sex ceremonies.
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay advocacy group, called the bill “horrific” and lambasted Mr. Bryant while vowing that “his state will suffer.”
Since Mississippi has no LGBT anti-discrimination law, the religious liberty law was unnecessary; no one is forcing small businesses with religious objections to provide services to same-sex weddings.
But in a saner, less mendacious world, tolerance for religious conservatives — particularly as regards expressive services for same-sex weddings — wouldn’t be viewed as “horrific.”
The irony is that where religious liberty is a legitimate issue — in states and localities where LGBT anti-discrimination laws are used to punish and destroy small businesses that offend progressive sensibilities — religious freedom protections won’t be passed.
20 Comments for “Culture Wars Redux”
posted by Kosh III on
When are you going to move to this conservative paradise? I understand the weather is lovely this time of year in Antioch and Soso.
If you are doing business for the public then do it for ALL the public.
Discrimination is always horrific no matter the rationale. My progressive sensibility is to EQUAL. Get a clue.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
When are you going to move to this conservative paradise?
Stephen prefers to talk the talk of his politics. G-d forbid he should have to walk the walk, and live with the consequences.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Since Mississippi has no LGBT anti-discrimination law, the religious liberty law was unnecessary; no one is forcing small businesses with religious objections to provide services to same-sex weddings.
The Mississippi bill is political theater, a predictable political reaction to Obergefell, just as years-long “massive resistance” politics in the conservative Christian “Bible Belt” after Brown was political theater. The Mississippi bill is notable only in that it is an omnibus for anti-gay discrimination, leaving no stone unturned. As was the case then, laws aimed at preserving discrimination will not stand Constitutional scrutiny.
But in a saner, less mendacious world, tolerance for religious conservatives — particularly as regards expressive services for same-sex weddings — wouldn’t be viewed as “horrific.”
Let’s test that, looking at the Mississippi bill, specifically religious objection to marriage. The operative language as applicable to private religious opposition to marriage is:
When I first skimmed the bill last week (I always look at the operative language first, and go back and look to the definitions), I read this language and thought that the Mississippi bill, unlike all the others to date, might actually meet the “equal means equal” test (religion-neutral, issue-neutral, class-neutral), protecting religious objection to any marriage, protecting the Catholic businessman who objected to remarriage after divorce as well as the Baptist businessman who objected to same-sex marriage, and so on.
That impression didn’t last, of course, because Section 3 carefully limits protected religious belief (again, as applicable to marriage) as applicable only to same-sex marriage:
But let’s do a mind experiment and assume for a moment that Republican politicians in Mississippi had given equal protection to all religious objection to marriage, protecting the religious beliefs of business owners who objected to same-sex marriage, to inter-religious marriage, to inter-denominational marriage, to remarriage after divorce, and to inter-racial marriage.
What would be the result then? Would Stephen and his fellow “libertarians” be saying that “in a saner, less mendacious world, tolerance for religious conservatives — particularly as regards expressive services for same-sex weddings — wouldn’t be viewed as “horrific” then? Would Tony Perkins be strutting with quite the same enthusiasm then? Would Governor Phil Bryant be clinging to the flag of self-serving “religious freedom” then?
I leave the question for Stephen and his fellow “libertarians” aligned with conservative Christians in service of the Republican Party’s coalition to ponder.
The irony is that where religious liberty is a legitimate issue — in states and localities where LGBT anti-discrimination laws are used to punish and destroy small businesses that offend progressive sensibilities — religious freedom protections won’t be passed.
Again, I ask Stephen to ponder if he would be making similar statements if Republican politicans actually (probably inadvertently) proposed laws that gave equal protection to all religious objection to marriage, protecting the religious beliefs of business owners who objected to same-sex marriage, to inter-religious marriage, to inter-denominational marriage, to remarriage after divorce, and to inter-racial marriage. Perhaps it is mean-spirited of me, but I suspect that Stephen’s enthusiasm for such laws would be distinctly muted in that case.
And that, of course, leads me to the observation that reducing protection of “religious freedom” to protection of anti-gay religious belief is, in a real sense, itself “horrific”.
As Christian scripture points out, “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”, which is another way of saying that men and women most jealously protect that which is most important to them. Stephen and his fellow Republican-aligned “libertarians” rather clearly are intent on jealously protecting the Republican coalition rather than religious freedom in any meaningful sense.
I expect Tony Perkins, Bryan Fisher and Brian Brown to reduce Christianity to anti-gay religious diatribes. That is, as a GEICO ad would point out, “is what they do”. But should “libertarians” to do that to libertarian thinking on religious freedom? I would hope not, but that is what they are doing.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
The problem is that the loudest and most well financed “libertarians” are basically Republicans who want to smoke pot.
They want power in the GOP and they want tax cuts. They are willig to give the right wing a pass or a few million passes.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Can Stephen at least change the title to “Religious Liberty (aka stick it to the gays & trans) Redux” or “Stephen’s Culture Wars Ad Nausea” ?
We get it. Places (like where Stephen lives) that have employment, housing & public accommodation laws that include LGBT people should get rid of said laws so that other places (like Mississippi — which you can’t spell without ISIS twice, and they force their religion on you,too) won’t for forced… FORCED! I tell you… to enact discriminatory laws.
posted by Houndentenor on
Of course religious liberty is important. It’s in the 1st Amendment after all. But the people screaming about their religious liberty are the ones who want to discriminate against others and put religious displays on city and state property at taxpayer expense. This is nuts and no one should be supporting it. But of course Stephen is because it’s blunt weapon he can use to beat up on liberals while ignoring the egregious actions of Republicans this year.
posted by JohnInCA on
“[…] where LGBT anti-discrimination laws are used to punish and destroy small businesses […]”
There’s been what, a half-dozen cases over the last decade? Did any of those businesses go under? The closest I can think of is that Sweet Cakes by Melissa closed their storefront, but they did that because (A) that allowed them to get around the state laws, and (B) they refocused their business model to rake in that sweet sweet martyr-cash.
In comparison to these half-dozen cases, there are literally hundreds of non-discrimination cases, at the federal level alone, every year.
Even if non-discrimination laws that include gay people put businesses out of business, wouldn’t the magnitudes-larger problem of pre-existing non-discrimination law be way more noteworthy?
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
Its simple: 1.pass a comprehensive civil rights bill. 2. Said bill would allow certain self employed and small time private businesses to opt out of offering services to ANY marriage that they claim objection to.
Not passing a comprehensive civil rights bill is horrible. Not caring about other peoples religious freedom, while posing as a defender of religious freedom is horrible.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anyone want to bet that Brian Hamilton will be the next ChristianMartyr™?
posted by Wilberforce on
The issue is absurd. But Stephen’s support is a career move, plain and simple. How better to get a spot on Fox News than by being the only gay man in the Universe to support this so-called religious liberty.
posted by Houndentenor on
Well, he could dye his hair and do a lot of drugs and take Milo Y’s job.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Of course religious liberty is important. It’s in the 1st Amendment after all. But the people screaming about their religious liberty are the ones who want to discriminate against others and put religious displays on city and state property at taxpayer expense. This is nuts and no one should be supporting it. But of course Stephen is because it’s blunt weapon he can use to beat up on liberals while ignoring the egregious actions of Republicans this year.
Stephen is avoiding a discussion of religious liberty rather than having it.
We should be having a discussion of religious liberty exemptions to public accommodations laws in an “equal means equal” context, debating the wisdom or folly of a general, across-the-board exemption — such as the exemption that would be in play if Mississippi’s marriage opposition law had applied to any marriage, not just same-sex marriages.
No sound reason exists why the religious objections of Catholics who oppose remarriage after divorce, or the religious objections of conservatives of may religions who oppose marriage outside the faith, or the religious objections of ChristianNation adherents who oppose interracial marriage, and so on, should not be treated as seriously in the discussion as the religious objections of conservative Christians who oppose same-sex marriage.
We should be having that discussion if we take religious exemption seriously, and we can’t pretend to be talking about religious freedom in any meaningful sense unless we include all religious objection to marriages of various types in the discussion.
But we are not having that discussion. Instead, Stephen, his “libertarian” cohorts, his conservative Christian allies, and his Republican politician bedfellows are avoiding that discussion altogether, and instead using the rubric of “religious freedom” to advance the cause of gay-bashing.
posted by Lori Heine on
“But we are not having that discussion. Instead, Stephen, his ‘libertarian’ cohorts, his conservative Christian allies, and his Republican politician bedfellows are avoiding that discussion altogether, and instead using the rubric of ‘religious freedom’ to advance the cause of gay-bashing.”
I’m glad you had the honesty to put quotes around “libertarian.” Libertarians tend to be a rather secular lot (many even vehemently anti-religious), and they don’t give a flying rat’s butt about religious liberty. The Ted Cruz types who are buying into this temper tantrum about “religious freedom” consisting of blatantly anti-gay legislation are NOT affiliated with the liberty movement.
The general reaction I get, from my fellow libertarians, is much more likely to be disdain and contempt for all religious belief in general than blind credulity toward what’s going on with this type of legislation.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m glad you had the honesty to put quotes around “libertarian.”
It is not a matter of honesty. There’s nothing to be dishonest about. I’m simply trying to stay out of the endless internecine warfare about who is, and who is not, authentically libertarian, and what, if anything, the term means.
I use the quotes to describe those who self-describe as libertarian but who are not affiliated or aligned with the Libertarian Party. that covers the field, more or less. The Libertarian Party is small, much smaller than those who claim the “libertarian” title for themselves.
It keeps me free of the debate among libertarian-minded folks about who is and who is not libertarian.
posted by Lori Heine on
As there is now endless warfare over who may or may not use any political term–including progressive, you must spend a lot of time sitting around saying nothing.
Good way to stay out of trouble, I suppose. But not very interesting.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As there is now endless warfare over who may or may not use any political term–including progressive, you must spend a lot of time sitting around saying nothing.
You can read my comments and make up your own mind about whether or nor I am saying anything substantive. So can anyone else. I say what I have to say, and leave it at that for the most part.
Good way to stay out of trouble, I suppose. But not very interesting.
Sorry about that, but I think I’ll just trudge along, discussing the intersection of law, politics and the Constitution, and let it go at that.
posted by Lori Heine on
Since every political term is being redefined to suit the dishonest and manipulative interest of every faction that chooses to redefine it, I will keep insisting that there be some cognizance of what the words mean.
If we lose the language, we lose a huge part of what makes us human beings.
I’ll keep trudging along, according to that understanding.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Language morphs.
posted by Lori Heine on
Sure it does, when you want it to.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
A fair numb