Indiana’s new law
So David Brooks wrote a weaselly column in The New York Times saying that gay-rights supporters will hurt their cause if they argue that the new Indiana law is not about religious liberty, but is a “cover for anti-gay bigotry.”Â
Be patient, he says. Be respectful of deeply held religious beliefs, he says. Don’t “polarize the debate” by accusing religion of promoting bigotry, he says. As if this particular debate hasn’t been polarized for a long, long time -- and not by the people objecting to this law and the others like it that are about to pass in many other states.
It’s idiotic. Worse, it sounds exactly like something that people said 50 or 60 years ago in dismay over a bus boycott or sitting at lunch counters or marching over a bridge. This kind of thing will inflame people. Someone’s going to get hurt. This will only impede progress and harm your cause. Just be patient.
I mean what a fucking pussy.
Just admit that you think that it’s OK for the government to promote Christian beliefs over nonreligious beliefs. What’s that? That’s not what this law does? Oh, so you wouldn’t object to a law giving legal cover to businesses who refuse to provide their goods or services to Christian fundamentalists and other people who discriminate against homosexuals on religious grounds.
Well, no. Nobody should support that because it would allow discrimination between prospective customers on the basis of their religious beliefs. But here’s where that leaves us:
1. Businesses (gay-owned, gay-friendly, or otherwise) can’t discriminate against fundamentalist Christians. Federal law and Indiana law prohibit it.
BUT
2. Christian-owned businesses can discriminate against LGBT customers. The new Indiana law protects their right to do so.
It sure sounds to me as if the state of Indiana is choosing a specific religious belief and giving it protected legal status, which is not only complete bullshit, but also possibly unconstitutional. The government cannot promote any particular religion or religion in general. Favoring a specific religious belief over nonreligious beliefs strikes me as less than neutral.
















