Some considerations*:
- “It’s Virginia, for God’s sake. Every other person is pro-life.”
Is this an argument for or against? Might LGBTQ+ people living under constant threat be more likely to make this kind of decision(?) - “We can all agree that a Christian baker should bake wedding cakes for gay couples, even if it violates his religious beliefs.”
Liberals: 90% yes
Conservatives: 99% no - “And I think that we can also agree that a Christian web designer should design websites for gay weddings (currently before the Supreme Court) even if it violates her religious beliefs.”
Liberals: 90% yes
Conservatives: 99% no - Now, how about a gay restaurant refusing to serve a Christian group?
Liberals: 70% yes
Conservatives: 99% THIS IS THE GREATEST OUTRAGE IN THE HISTORY OF RECORDED HUMANITY! PROGRESSIVE DEMONCRATS ARE HYPOCRITES AND VILE IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD! REPLACE THE CONSTITUTION WITH THE BIBLE SO WE RULE AND THEY CAN’T WIN ANY MORE ELECTIONS!
(Note: the first draft of that last paragraph was extreme, so I toned it down…)
On the merits:
- I don’t think the scales balance.
- One party is a brutally oppressed minority who constantly fears being fired from their jobs, ostracized, injured, or killed. The other is someone in the powerful majority feeling a shred of discrimination through being deprived of their right to discriminate.
- Similarly: which is worse? Baking a cake for people you hate vs. waiting on people who hate you?
2. Does it matter that one side is trying to “establish religion” while the other is not?
3. It also depends on what you’re trying to accomplish.
- If you hope left-leaning groups can singlehandedly prevent the nation from splintering, forget it. Do we watch how the right operates? They are bound and determined to win or tear it all down. The splintering will proceed regardless.
- Does something like this hurt by giving them ammunition? Again, do we watch how the right operates? They wake up every morning looking for stories to drive the wedges deeper. They’ll make one up if they can’t find one. (War on Christmas, anybody?)
- However, even if the right is immune to cognitive dissonance and charges of hypocrisy, the left isn’t, and they’ll self-flagellate over it.
- Not canceling the reservation would get zero get credit with the right-wing media, but doing it will draw fire from the “mainstream” and even elements of the left-wing media.
To be clear, I agree with you — in theory. However, being neither gay nor Christian, I can’t accurately speak to the feelings of the people involved. One thing I’ve been working diligently on in recent years is trying not to dictate or discard the opinions of people unlike myself. I’m uncomfortable telling a religious person to suck it up and deal, but similarly uncomfortable telling LGBTQ+ waitstaff they have to serve people who hate them and may want to see them dead.
Is this an interesting thought experiment? Imagine a segregated 1950s town. North of the river, a White-owned restaurant refuses to seat a Black patron. South of the river, a Black-owned restaurant refuses to seat a White patron.
Question: are these actions morally equivalent? On the one hand, the business is motivated by racism aimed at the patron. On the other, a business is motivated by anger at the racism aimed at the owner.
Personally, I’m more sympathetic to the minority victimized by bigotry than the majority doing the victimizing. I’d protest the first. The second would get a shrug and a “what did you expect?”
*Caveat: as a non-Christian involved in the arts, I have gay friends and a life full of experiences with Christian oppression and bias. These facts may color my perceptions.
