Two last quick notes on Indiana’s RFRA

Avatar

Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

23 Responses

  1. Avatar Will Truman says:

    If boycotts (and negative yelping and such) were all that were occurring, #2 would be a good point.Report

    • If conservatives are horrified by threats, why wasn’t there an outpouring of sympathy for Adria Richards?Report

      • Oh, I’m not arguing that conservatives aren’t hypocritical or at least inconsistent in their outrage. I’m just saying that, contrary to what I have seen asserted repeatedly, what happened there wasn’t really a market decision.Report

      • Avatar j r in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        The thing about hypocrisy arguments is that they fire both ways.

        So, if progressives are horrified by threats, why wasn’t there an outpouring of sympathy for Memories Pizza?

        Perhaps because Tod is right and what both sides value more than peace is victory.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        Hypocrisy is a human characteristic. Find humans and there you go. Attach humans to something like social media that seems to magnify many of our more questionable traits and boom.

        What was done to the Mem Piz folks was wrong. What was done to the “anti-gay cake” bakers in Fla was wrong. Every bodies side does stupid stuff.Report

      • Avatar zic in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        @j-r So, if progressives are horrified by threats, why wasn’t there an outpouring of sympathy for Memories Pizza?

        There was an lot of progressive don’t do that going on.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        The thing about hypocrisy arguments is that they fire both ways.

        So, if progressives are horrified by threats, why wasn’t there an outpouring of sympathy for Memories Pizza?

        Uhhh, because Memories Pizza is actively advocating discriminating against gays and that seemed like the bigger worry? I mean, I’m sure lots of lefties – maybe most, I dunno actually – were opposed to the threats. Were they supposed to be anti-threats before they were pro-non-discrimination? No one’s ever told me the rules on this stuff so I don’t really know.Report

      • Avatar ScarletNumber in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        Because Adria Richards had it coming?Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        Is no one going to complain about the “both sides do it” defense here?Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        You can, Jaybird. I mean, you can’t be on a “side” and complain about that, right?

        ALsotoo, j r is flat out wrong when he says that hypocrisy charges cut both ways. Eg, if I’m a huge advocate of military power based solutions to political problems and I accuse a pacifist of hypocritically apologizing for the use of force by a group she favors, it makes no sense to say that I’m also hypocritical when I apologize for the use of force by one of my favored groups.

        Personally, I find that charges of hypocrisy fall on the tiniest of all possible ears. They’re just itty bitty ones.

        (Taking the time to demonstrate that person is being inconsistent, on the other hand…)Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        No, I’m fine with only one side complaining when someone points out that both sides do it.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        I’m fine without anyone bringing it up either. Doesn’t seem relevant to the topic. Just someone pushing their ideology on us, yeah? A “Hey! You guys! Yer doin it rong, ya ********* *** ******* ******************s!” sorta thing.Report

      • Avatar j r in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        @stillwater

        Exactly how am I wrong? I just gave the perfect example of a hypocrisy claim that works forward and backwards. The answer to both questions is the same: both sides care more about winning. Your own answer demonstrated this.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        j r,

        Glad to help!Report

      • I think the Pizza thing sucks. I hope the $800,000 makes up for it in some small way.Report

      • Avatar Will H. in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        Hypocrisy = partisanship
        Sometimes, partisanship needs a bit of make-up to enable some to maintain their self-respect when the cold light of morning hits after a night of carousing, but beneath all that plaster, it’s still good, old-fashioned partisanship.

        both sides do it = acknowledgement of a two-party system
        See above for details.Report

  2. Avatar trizzlor says:

    I don’t see the connection for #2. None of the conservatives I’ve seen have argued that the government should come in and protect the pizza shoppe. There’s no contradiction in saying “sellers and buyers should have the right to refuse service” and also saying “this specific act of refusal is wrong”. And that’s not even getting into the death-threats and such.Report

    • Avatar zic in reply to trizzlor says:

      None of the conservatives I’ve seen have argued that the government should come in and protect the pizza shoppe.

      Ironically, this all happened because people wanted protection from the government if/when they opted to discriminate, no? They were already asking the government for help, and that’s what triggered the whole pizza-shop fiasco.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to zic says:

        zic,

        That’s my take on it as well. The point of Indian-like laws is for an actual rejection of service to be challenged in court, with the hoped-for ruling being which falls in favor of religious expression.

        Maybe the way trizzlor has phrased it is sorta correct tho: conservatives don’t want protection of the pizza joint, they want protection from discrimination restrictions. They want to be allowed to…Report

  3. Avatar Francis says:

    Grossly oversimplifying, here are two conservative values:

    a. Businesses should be able to do what they want;
    b. Liberals / liberal values should lose.

    Occasionally, these values come into conflict (eg., the Eich firing). Dreher’s blog (and commenters) is a great example of the struggles that some conservatives have in reconciling such conflicts.

    Rarely, but with increasing frequency, conservatives lose on both points — a liberal win leads to businesses not being able to discriminate. On Dreher’s blog, this is largely seen as a great tide of persecution descending on religious conservatives. Pointing out that a substantial majority of Americans see themselves as Christians and that religious conservatives have lead the fight in preventing reasonable accommodations getting written into law is largely a fruitless task.Report

  4. Avatar Will H. says:

    a liberal win leads to businesses not being able to discriminate.
    I take it this somehow benefits the financial sector.
    Odd how failing S&L’s used to be a Rep. constituency, the financial sector generally is now a Dem. constituency, while payday lenders are the dog everyone loves to kick, and nations squabble over lost pirates’ treasure found.Report

  5. Avatar CK MacLeod says:

    ICYMI off the twitter feed, Damon Linker offered a concise and thoughtful versions of the third position on RFRAs and SSM: http://theweek.com/articles/548197/indiana-gay-marriage-liberal-betrayal-american-liberalismReport