Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week, we give you the straight pepperoni on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act fight in Indiana and as expected, the podcast mirrors real life (or at least real life on Ricochet). Then, former HP CEO and current 90% decided Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina joins to discuss why she’s the best person to beat Hillary, why she won’t fall into the same CEO trap that Mitt Romney found himself in, and why printer ink is so darn expensive (Thanks, @Lileks!).
Then, our good pal Andrew Ferguson joins from The Weekly Standard to discuss his must read profile of Jeb Bush, and his impressions of the other candidates in the field (he’s met them all). Also, will a dog allergy kill Scott Walker’s chances to win the White House? A Ricochet Podcast Investigation ® settles the matter. Finally, the curious case of new Daily Show host Trevor Noah — are his jokes off color or just not funny? We give our take — what’s yours?
Music from this week’s episode:
Indiana by Louis Armstrong
The opening sequence for the Ricochet Podcast was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Extra cheese, EJHill.
Yes, you should absolutely subscribe to this podcast. It helps!
Help Ricochet by Supporting Our Sponsors!
This podcast is brought to you by Harry’s Shave. For the finest shave at the best price, got Harrys.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
I’d like to throw this piece by Deroy Murdock at NRO into the mix of comments, for a couple of reasons. First, he’s obviously one of those supporters of gay marriage who was blindsided by the whole fascist underpinning of the movement. And second, because I think he is right about how ridiculous it is that we are quibbling over the precise instances in which the government can compel you to bake a cake–it’s a symptom of the totalitarian drift of modern day American law:
And before you start citing the Civil Rights Act, yes, I do understand how we got here. But it’s a bad place to be and it’s time for us to try to reverse the situation.
Seriously, Rob, why do they need to be “protected against the Baker Who Won’t Sell the Cake”? In the first place, I deny the Baker’s existence if you imply that he won’t sell the cake to a person just because that person is gay. But if he did exist, what is the harm? Is there nowhere else to find a cake? Do you really want to buy a cake from a person who doesn’t want to sell it to you? Isn’t it worse to have an intrusive state that maintains the right to meddle in every business’s every decision than to run the risk of someone, somewhere, having to drive down the block to find a different baker for his cake?
Anyone who seriously believes Texas isn’t pickup country anymore has not driven on Beltway 8 in Houston during commuting hours. Or rather just before the morning commute starts.
I have a 75 mile (round-trip) commute to work each day, and take Beltway 8 for most of it. Good luck avoiding the monster pickups bombing down it at 75 mph.
Mind, this is is the pre-dawn hours when the brawny workers are getting to their jobs. Maybe Andrew Ferguson spends most of his time in Texas in Austin or the chi-chi districts of Houston and Dallas like Montrose or Deep Ellum, but in the working parts the pickup rules.
Seawriter
Hey, Leslie, long time no see! Hope you’re doing well. We should get together some time.
I thought I’d point out that Rob said that his initial dislike of the group that he characterized as “anti-gay” arose because they objected to the sexual behavior portrayed on Cheers, which did not as far as I know have anything to do with homosexuality. So at least with respect to this particular group, I think it’s probably not a specifically anti-gay and -lesbian organization. I don’t know anything else about the group, though. It may be objectionable on lots of other grounds.
Let me split a hair, and say that Rob–although he clearly has nuanced positions on these issues that are far more conservative than his zip code demands–sometimes sounds like a “severe conservative.” To wit, Rob correctly notes that it’s wrong to threaten the lives of god-fearing pizza tossers just because they hold “perfectly legal (and not even fringe) views about gay marriage.” Wait a second, which views are illegal? I thought none of them. Something, something about the Constitution?
Perhaps Rob just picks up these turns of phrase by osmosis, but it’s this sort of statement that makes the traditionalists in this debate go bonkers, question motives, and think thoughts like, which views that everyone openly held 10 years ago are about to become illegal, or at least so costly to hold publicly that no one with anything to lose will?
BT: On the legal issue, if I understand your original comment on the issue (#40), I think that you are conflating two separate issues: (1) application of strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis review in an case against the government under the Equal Protection Clause, and (2) application of RFRA as a defense in a discrimination claim under an anti-discrimination statute.
(1) An Equal Protection claim can only be brought against a “state actor,” which generally includes federal, state, and local governments and their agencies, officials, agents and employees. “Strict scrutiny” applies to state action that discriminates on the basis of race or ethnicity. This means that the government can discriminate on the basis of race, but only to advance a “compelling interest” and only if uses the “least restrictive means.” Until recently, case law has made it almost impossible to satisfy “strict scrutiny.” As a hypothetical that might pass muster, imagine a deadly plague that affects only people of Korean descent. A quarantine law applying only to Koreans in these circumstances might satisfy the “strict scrutiny” test.
There has been some recent case law watering down the concept of a “compelling” interest which, frankly, I find to be extremely misguided. At least one of the recent affirmative action cases recognized “diversity” as a compelling interest, and I’ve seen suggestions that enforcement of anti-discrimination principles is a “compelling” interest.
Something called “intermediate scrutiny” has been applied to state action discriminating on the basis of sex , and I think a few others classifications (like disability). In my view, this test provides little guidance, but it is the current law set forth by SCOTUS.
For other classifications, the “rational basis” test applies, which essentially asks whether the law might conceivably (even if incorrectly) be considered to advance some legitimate government interest. This test is very rarely failed.
Frankly, it is not clear to me what level of scrutiny applies in an Equal Protection claim on the basis of homosexuality. I think that the 4 Leftists on SCOTUS would apply strict scrutiny, while the 4 conservatives would apply rational basis review. Justice Kennedy’s opinions are, to me at least, unintelligible, as he seems to simultaneously say that he is applying rational basis review, but then reject arguments that would easily satisfy the rational basis test in any other circumstances. He writes about “dignity” and the “animus” of those who passed the law in question, and then rules against the government.
RFRA is no defense in an Equal Protection claim, and really can’t be, as the defendant is essentially the state, which has no religion.
(2) The type of claim to which RFRA might apply is under an anti-discrimination statute. There have been some Leftist efforts to interpret the federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex to apply also to sexual orientation, though I think that these have generally (perhaps universally) been unsuccessful. Many states and localities have statutes or ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in things such as employment, housing, and other business activities.
In the enforcement of such a statute, there is no application of strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis review. The statute simply prohibits whatever it prohibits, and is enforced accordingly. If it says, for example, that a landlord cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in the rental of residential property, then a landlord who does so is subject to whatever penalties are set forth in the statute.
A RFRA statute provides a defense in these circumstances, if the accused discriminator can demonstrate that he acted on the basis of a genuine religious belief. If so, then RFRA directs to the court to apply “strict scrutiny” to the anti-discrimination law in question, and the discriminator cannot be punished unless the court concludes that (1) the statute serves a “compelling” interest and (2) it does so by the “least restrictive means.”
The Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision was an application of the federal RFRA (as amended by a later statute called RLUIPA). SCOTUS found that: (1) Hobby Lobby could assert the religious rights of its owners; (2) Hobby Lobby had a genuine religious belief prohibiting it from providing health insurance to its employees that included abortifacients; and (3) that a less restrictive means existed for the government to serve the interest in providing such health care (in the form of an exception already provided to certain clearly religious employers). If I remember correctly, the majority did not rule on whether the government interest was “compelling” because, even assuming that it was, the Obamacare law still failed to pass strict scrutiny.
I hope this helps.
Thanks AP. That is a nice and clear summation of the legal principles. In light of that explanation I think my main point on the law in Indiana stands, but I would restate it this way.
I don’t think that there are bakers or florists asking their customers whether they are homosexuals, or adulterers, or fornicators. They don’t care. If someone walks in off the street and says “I’d like that cake” or “I’ll take this arrangement of roses,” they make the sale. It doesn’t matter if the customer is homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or a one-legged pirate.
The problem is that bakers, florists, and photographers are being asked to participate in homosexual weddings, to which they have moral objections, and are being told that they are not allowed to refuse. To make it clear — for a homosexual couple to ask the question is certainly not wrong, but it is also not wrong for the baker, florist or photographer to say “no, thank you.”
I’ve never heard of, say, an adulterer making such a request, though I can construct a hypothetical:
Can you see how a Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) baker would have an objection to providing the cake?
Interesting legal discussion. I think Rob is right that the drafters of this law were looking to close a legal loophole that existed in New Mexico’s RFRA that allowed a private discrimination claim to go forward against a photographer who didn’t wish to participate in a gay wedding.
But, it’s not a principled distinction. Gay groups are only upset about the broadened application of Indiana’s (original) RFRA because they want to be able to force compliance with their views, even if the government is unwilling to take on a case of such questionable merit (perhaps the government would be more interested in prosecuting serious crimes than forcing bakers and photographers in a competitive market to serve people they’d rather not). If First Amendment protections of religious practices and views should exist in response to the state government’s enforcement of the law, then those constitutionally protected practices should not lose that status simply because it is a private party, rather than the government, seeking to enforce the same law in a private suit. It’s not as if the government has no power to enforce anti-discrimination or public accommodation laws. To the contrary: it does in almost all cases. The mere existence of a statutory provision allowing for a private right of action (created to enhance a law’s enforcement, and empower “private attorneys general”) should not eviscerate constitutionally protected rights. In short, the arguments on this point are purely strategic, and have been presented to preserve for gay rights proponents a full panoply of legal responses to what they perceive as discriminatory action.
Arizona Pat, you’re absolutely right in drawing that distinction. Isn’t it kind of absurd that we’re forced to have a discussion–following a national outcry–wherein we have to explain that devoutly religious cake sculptors shouldn’t be forced by law to carve out of pound cake, butter cream, and fondant an image of something they find to be sacrilegious? Isn’t even more absurd that we’re having this discussion at a time when Iran is trying to acquire a nuclear weapon and Russian strategic bombers are probing the Baltic coast for weaknesses?
This exchange, this exchange right here where there’s an actual mob braying for actual blood, and Rob says “it’s mushy.” This is the reason why, for all their caterwauling to the contrary, when the libertarians around here say “oh, we’ll defend your religious liberty” I file it under “BS.”
When my head is actually on the block, I fully expect them all to say “Oh, he didn’t like Sullivan and Son, it’s mushy, I don’t want to get involved.”
In the event Rob’s head is on the block next to mine, I’ll issue my heartfelt apologies for not thinking highly enough of him.
It’s not absurd, because this discussion is fundamentally about the Left’s effort to destroy Christianity and traditional morality, which I think is a much greater danger all that is good an right in the world than even an Iranian nuke or Russian bombers. A conservative America could beat the living daylights out of the Iranians or even the Russians, though the cost would be terrible. But if we lose America, what will be left, at least for the foreseeable future?
Not sure where Andrew got the idea Texans don’t drive pickups anymore. Every other vehicle on the road in Texas is a pickup. We love them and you will have to pry my cold fingers from the steering wheel before I will give mine up.
Fascinating discussion. If anything, this comment section surely proves that there is vital debate on the Right–disproving what liberals have said about us for generations. We are not mindless automatons, marching behind Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, etc. And I love it.
I guess where I’m stuck on this entire debate is this: I really don’t think any of these photographers, cake bakers or pizza makers are going to go to Hell if they take part in any of these ceremonies.
It may seem like a trivial point but I think it’s the entire point. If these business people as Christians think homosexuality is immoral, I understand–because it’s in black and white of every Bible.
But the Bible says nothing about being friends with gays–it doesn’t say that’s immoral. However, as straight Christians, if we know a gay un-married couple and treat them well and compliment them and say what a cute couple they make, and from that, we pretty much support their relationship–and then the two get married, aren’t we as friends much more duplicitous in two gays getting into an “immoral” marriage, than any photographer or cake baker or pizza maker would be?
The problem–going back to the first sentence of the preceding paragraph: Being friends with gay people isn’t immoral. So, in some sort of twisted logic, we’re as Christians permitted to be friends with gays, we just can’t say anything nice about their relationships–whether it’s within marriage or not–because it might lead to a further immoral situation.
That all sounds crazy to me.
And I think that’s the problem these businesses are having. They say that it’s against God’s teachings–thus immoral–to take any part in these marriages, but they’re having a hard time convincing even other Christians that they’ll go to Hell if they take part.
Furthermore, we’ve all done immoral things. Do any of us really believe we’re going to Hell? Maybe. But I bet we also believe we have a chance to get back in God’s good graces before we leave Earth.
Because to these Christian business people it’s all about the penalty they think they’ll be forced to deal with if they do business with gay marriages, isn’t it? And that is something that’s hard to prove because it’s based on faith.
What’s to stop these business people from getting back into God’s good graces after they take part in a gay wedding? Nothing. Because if they believe they can get on God’s good side, then there should be nothing stopping them from doing businesses at gay weddings.
Now, if they truly, truly, truly believe they’re gonna go to Hell or whatever no matter what, isn’t it upon the business people to show that? And that brings up a whole new issue: How do you prove something like that beyond a reasonable doubt?
The truth is these businesses would’ve been better to use a private property defense than a Christian belief defense. The problem is their private property defense comes from their Christian belief defense–and as I’ve shown above: That causes problems.
They should’ve used the defense of “The state cannot force me to allow me someone else to use my private property” and left it at that. But, every one of these businesses defaulted to their Christian beliefs first and that was a mistake because very few people believe serving pizza at a gay wedding is gonna get someone sent to Hell.
I understand: It doesn’t matter what we believe; it only matters what the business people believe. I agree–but there’s nothing in the Bible about serving pizza at gay marriages. Whereas there is a whole heck of a lot about stealing, killing, lying, worshipping false gods, pre-marital sex, etc. If it were any one of those topics, these businesses would be on more solid religious ground.
I don’t know–that’s just how I see it. Despite many conservatives thinking otherwise, I think these businesses are on very shaky religious ground. If they made a different kind of defense I think they would be on very solid private property ground.
But, they didn’t. Now everyone knows these businesses’ property defenses comes from their religious beliefs. Well, atheists believe in property rights too–so it’s possible to have the former without the latter.
Still, a fascinating discussion.
To imply that the “fear of hell” is what motivates opposition to the homosexual agenda is absurd and simple-minded.
I don’t know if conservatives stayed home in 2012, but if we get another Romney I’ll guarantee they’ll stay home in 2016. Enough is enough, and our patience is shot.
Maybe he only goes to Austin. Austin isn’t Texas. Austin is a hipster island in Texas that mocks everything that makes Texas what it is.
To the podcast, in brief:
Rob’s characterization of RFRA, and the whole “anti-gay” thing is one reason conservatives are going to lose on religious freedom: our so-called reasonable people that more or less agree with the left about, not only this issue, but religious influence in general. When Rob said “This isn’t England”, he’s missing that what happens to western civilization seems to happen there, and then travel here. Europe became feckless and post-Christian first. Our left has been clamoring to emulate them ever since. The Squish Side is bearing arms for that side, whether they see it or not.
On Fiorina; there’s not a cold chance in hell she’s going to get anywhere near the office. She’s a social squish, and is the very model of “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” that conservatives are so wary of. I suspect she may be running in hopes that it helps her get a big cabinet position, but who knows. And whether right or wrong, her tenure at HP is largely considered a disappointment. If she runs on that, the Buzzfeed/Slashdot/Reddit crowd will instantly eat her alive, and they’ll be so loud that their narrative will carry the day. “Failed CEO wants to lead country”, etc etc. In fact, they’ve already started doing so.
On Ferguson’s characterization of Bush as very conservative… LOL, as the kids say. Bush has been quite clear that he’s repelled by the conservative movement (“I don’t recognize it anymore”). Let’s cut to the chase: he’s being accused of being like his dad because he probably is. All the way back in 1991, George Will pointed out that the elder Bush had some aristocratic views about himself compared to the Republican hoi polloi. Apples falling far from trees and all that.
Okay, fine, Basil Fawlty, I’m willing to hear you out. Then you tell me . . .
You’re a Christian. You have a pizza parlor. You’re asked to serve at a gay wedding. Do you or don’t you? Do you choose to do it or not to do it based on your faith? As you ponder whether you’re going to work the wedding or not, what are the plusses and minuses you calculate as a Christian? If you decide it’s against your Christian faith, what do you believe will happen if you act against what your Christian faith tells you?
I’m generally interested in this. This is not a gotcha moment. Because I would’ve loved to have been in the back rooms of any of these businesses in AZ, NM or wherever when these decisions were made to understand the decision process.
As a guy who believes Jesus died on the cross for my sins, I would’ve taken the money. And then donated it to some anti-gay marriage group out there. Not for one second would I’ve thought I was doing something immoral or against my faith. Given the other things I’ve done in my life, taking money from a gay couple would certainly be low on the list of sins–I think.
So, what you do, Basil Fawlty, and why?
Basil can answer for himself, of course, but the relevant proscription is 1 Cor. 10:18-24, Acts 15:19-21, and Romans 6:1-4. Which is what Nick Stuart was getting at up-thread (part C).
It is a prudential judgment whether or not catering a same-sex marriage is equivalent to having something to do with idols or eating food sacrificed to demons. Does any of this imperil someone’s salvation? No. That still doesn’t mean it’s allowed.
I wouldn’t do anything to promote the false equivalence of buggery and reproductive intercourse. I would base my decision not on any fear of Hell, but on the fact that I can discern a natural difference between the two acts that should be respected by any thinking individual.
Just so we’re clear, Sabrdance, since you seem to know the Bible WAY better than I do:
These Christian pizza makers, photographers, cake bakers, etc.–in God’s eyes they’re going to be viewed the same way no matter if they serve the weddings or not?
None of these people have to worry about their souls, getting through the pearly gates, meeting St. Peter, nothing, no matter what choice they make?
More pointedly, I open up a pizza parlor, I work at a gay wedding . . . I personally don’t have to worry about my soul regarding this particular action? I may have to worry about other things I’ve done, but God will be non-judgmental with me serving pizza at gay weddings?
Furthermore, Christian pizza makers who don’t work the gay wedding won’t have an easier time getting salvation than I will, everything else being equal?
Is that what you’re saying?
For anyone who doesn’t know . . . I didn’t–I had to look it up because, well, I’m absurd and simple-minded, buggery means “anal intercourse between a man and another man, a woman, or an animal.”
I’m not in everyone’s bedroom but lots of church-going Christians surely committing that second kind of buggery tonight. And I’m sure all of them see it as equivalent to non-buggery. In fact, probably a lot of them prefer it.
Thanks, Basil Fawlty, I about got the answer I expected. Not one mention of faith–just talk about sex. And I’m sure (sarcasm inserted) every one of those Christian businesses was thinking about their aversion of anal sex when they declined service.
Thank you.
Murderers who confess their sin and accept the gift of grace enter into paradise as easily as saints. The entire point of the atonement, which we are celebrating at this moment, is that when God looks on the sinner he sees not the sinner, nor the sins, but the blood of Christ crucified, and so no sin is a barrier to eventual communion with God and the other saints. So adding sins doesn’t affect your salvation. However, being free from the condemnation of sin is not a license to sin further.
The question is not one of whether a sin keeps you out of heaven. Being human achieves that. Sin should not be committed because it is harmful spiritually, physically, socially, and frequently all three simultaneously. The question here is whether partaking in a same sex marriage ceremony is equivalent to taking part in a pagan ceremony or eating food offered to demons. Those with a historical bent might also make comparisons to treading on the Fumi.
Additionally, whether the baker can articulate this is irrelevant. One need not be able to quote human law in order to obey. The same is true of divine law.
Coming at the point from a different direction, nor do previous sins render future sins irrelevant. You can’t be so damaged you can’t be saved. God will, on occasion, let people’s sins play out without his protection -see numerous examples when dealing with Israel, and the New Testament reference is Romans 1. However, the point of letting a person have their own way, no matter how destructive, is that -as the alcoholics say -sometimes you have to hit rock bottom first to recognize the problem. The worst sinner -even Saul, who murdered the early Christians -can, upon their realization, calling, or confession (depending on your particular theology) be saved. They may have the same compulsions to sin, and their life may be hard, but their soul is repaired, and perhaps their life and community, too. But if not? Paul never had the thorn removed from his side, and Jesus accepted death on a cross. We who have received grace are in no position to complain -especially because when we continue to fail, even though we know we shouldn’t, God still extends salvation. Infinite second chances to those who ask.
Which is why Paul tells the Corinthians not to eat food offered to demons -not because the demons are real or powerful, or because eating food offered to real or fake demons imperils the believer’s soul, but because it leads other believers to sin, and because it misleads the person who offered the food into thinking they are doing the right thing.
For similar reasons, Martin Luther railed against indulgences (they were lies to the people who bought them), and it is why Christians can’t accept that same sex marriages are marriages. It misleads the observers about what is best for them (which has been Jennifer’s hobby horse around here), and it lies to the participants about the state of their own lives, which was Basil’s, somewhat over-stridently-stated -point.
All of that said, this doesn’t therefore imply that Christians can’t serve homosexuals in any way, and it doesn’t even mean that they have to oppose civil marriages (my own opposition largely consists of “in a country where 1 in 5 are living intermittently celibate lives, 1 in 4 aren’t marrying, and 1 in 3 are divorcing, the last thing you should do is monkey with family law further” with a dash of “and when they’re done with the family, they’re coming for me next”). The Christians who survived Ancient Rome’s marital insults are perfectly capable of drawing a distinction between what the state says and what God says, and living accordingly while arguing, as they did 2000 years ago, that there is a better way. If the sick or the drug addicted wants to refuse our help, that is their prerogative. But pretending that our current system, and immanent modifications to it, is good is inflicting harm on society no less than if we were handing out fixes those same addicts or killing the sick.
If American Family Association calls Big Gay Actor and says, “Hey, we’re doing a “Klassics for Kids” audio series, and we really enjoyed your Hamlet for Shakespeare in the Park last season. We need your services for which we pay market rates. When is your schedule next open?”
BGA has put himself into the market as a professional actor. He doesn’t object to the material. He will be fairly compensated for his services. Nevertheless, is not BGA allowed to refuse, simply because he does not want his brand associated with the moral teachings of the AFA?
Should not Grandma’s Cottage Flower Shop enjoy the same freedom?
You’re quite welcome, Edward. When you discover the first case of buggery producing new life that needs to be nurtured and supported over its initial decades, just let me know and I’ll reconsider my decision that buggery has nothing to do with the foundational purpose of marriage and is an act not to be equated with reproductive sex. I’m sorry to have brought up homosexual sex in a discussion of homosexual “marriage” but it is the signal identifier of its class.
Totally agree. I love Rob, but he has never been more boneheadedly wrong than he was at the beginning of this podcast. Kudos to Peter for not backing down, even though Rob was louder. It’s kind of funny; you can alway tell who is more emotionally involved, because tone starts to elevate.
As for the dog conversation – I have a Jack Russel Terrier, the smallest of seriously bad-assed dogs. Once, I was taking Ziggy out for a walk and a bird flew by. Before I even noticed, she had leaped up about 4 feet, done a 180, and came down with the bird in her jaws. Freaking ninja dog. I could respect a president with a JRT.
Rob, this is a long list!
What I really got out of your disagreement with Peter, and your tenor in general, was “I have gay friends and this is a very emotional issue for them.” There are literally no examples of businesses refusing to serve gays. That said, we still should not legislate against them… I think Ace of Spades recently addressed this argument over at his blog. I say the same about racial or sexual or religious discrimination. If I walk into a business and am refused because I’m a Christian (which would generally be no more obvious than me being gay … it’s a bit different than your gender or skin color, in my opinion), I’d be pissed, and I’d leave, but I would not support legislation to penalize the business. That’s the free market. The government cannot and should not discriminate (also, see our 2nd to last Flyover Country, where we also agree that the government should accommodate the disabled), but that is as far as I’m willing to legislate it.
I think Peter was perfectly right to point out that you make no real point in saying that bigotry exists against gays. It exists in equal numbers against virtually any group. The government should not endorse any of it, and absolutely should not engage in any of it. I don’t care one wit if citizens want to do so.
Your point #10, I think, is just the opposite of “murky.” It is a fear without any basis except in hypothesis. There is no danger of gays not being served, period. This isn’t a problem for Jews or Muslims or Christians or Albinos, either. All can be afraid because they are “minority” groups (yes, even Christians right now in a lot of places), and some could theoretically even find business owners who don’t want to serve them. None are in danger of being shut out of business in America. That isn’t even slightly murky. It is not a legitimate concern.
edward… you are very snarky, but I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re trying to say. That religion is stupid, yes? You are welcome to have that opinion. Even that we’re all hypocrites. Surely most of us are. Even the non-religious. That’s why I don’t want to see legislation built up either way. I wouldn’t want the government to go after you for being deliberately obtuse (if you are) and I wouldn’t want them going after me for being a hypocrite. I think that is a fairly consistent position.
[edit: I went back and read the comments that lead up to this one – which I should have done in the first place. I still think you’re being a bit snarky to Basil, but that’s neither here nor there. He can defend himself. Snark away. That said, it cannot possibly be a requirement for decision-making that Christians fear for their eternal soul. That’s actually quite insulting when you think about it. What it does is boil all of morality and moral decision-making down to what is essential superstitions mysticism. Even atheists do not live their lives like this. What makes them want to boycott the pizza place or hobby lobby or chick fil’a? Is that not a rational preference that they make based on solidarity with a potential business partner? Why is it that they are permitted to behave rationally, while I must justify my actions based on fear for my eternal soul? To me, that doesn’t make much sense. But as I said – I wouldn’t want the government to answer the question either way. Let people act rationally and let the market do its work. I’m not saying it’s magical, as it surely is not. But where racism really became a problem in the south was when the government got involved… which is why the government claimed that it was the only solution. I can think of a better one.]