The deeper hypocrisy of the "religious freedom" argument

[markpkessinger]

NOTE: This is a somewhat more fully fleshed out version of a comment I posted earlier to a superb column by Charles Blow in The New York Times (a column you really should read, btw).

There is yet a deeper level of hypocrisy -- one that I haven't seen discussed anywhere -- on the part of those who claim their "religious freedom" will be violated if they are forced to do business with those whose lives in some way go against their religious convictions. The great majority of those making this argument are not members of separatist sects such as the various Anabaptist groups (Amish, Mennonite, etc.), whose religious faith requires them to remain separate from "the world" in order to maintain moral purity. Indeed, if they were members of such sects, their argument might be at least a little more convincing. These are, for the most part, evangelical protestants who are, in all other respects, fully engaged with the world around them. They do business with "sinners" all the time -- some of them repentant, some of them not. These 'Christian' vendors routinely sell products and services to people they disagree with without so much as even asking the purpose for which the product or service is being purchased. Yet, suddenly, these folks are singling out this one, particular "sin" in a way they have singled out no others, insisting that they, the vendors, are, in this case only, somehow morally or religiously on the hook for how this particular product or service is used.

To counter charges that they are discriminating against LGBT persons, some of these 'Christian' business owners have argued that they will serve LGBT customers, but will not provide products or services for LGBT weddings, because that would be "supporting a commitment to sin." In point of fact, they do not, and indeed cannot, know what the two persons in a marriage ceremony are committing themselves to. Sex, which religious conservative claim is the locus of their objection, may or may not be a part of it -- no one really knows and neither is it anyone's business. Indeed, I have known many long-term gay couples for whom sex long ago ceased to be a component of the relationship, but nevertheless have deep and abiding love for one another. I would add that, by the same token, neither does anyone attending or providing services to a traditional, straight wedding really know the precise nature of the relationship the couple are committing themselves to. For all anyone knows, behind closed doors the couple might be into some things that would make one's hair stand on end. But the important point here is that no one considers it appropriate to ask, concern themselves with or even to contemplate what will go on in the privacy of the straight couple's bedroom after they are married.

These 'Christian' business owners sell products and services to people every day of the week without knowing how or where or for what purpose they will ultimately be used. And in virtually all other cases, they don't even care to know. The hypocrisy is simply stunning.

[2naSalit]

1. Not to mention all those sins committed by these

allegedly "pure" individuals... like all those RW christians who have been busted for child porn, sexual assault on minors and all kinds of other hateful and evil things they do. Oh, and wars.

I feel like going into known RWRR owned businesses and proclaiming after making my purchase that my gay partner will just LOVE what I got for them and somehow tie in that they will come and thank these business owners. I almost did do it yesterday while I was in Idaho, a really heavily populated by mormon part of the state. But I decided to not go there since I wanted to get home safely which meant a three hour drive in rough weather.

[KingCharlemagne]

3. A stupendous comment. My sincerest compliments! - nt

[markpkessinger]

4. Thank you, Sir!

I am very humbled by that, and most appreciative!

[Zorra]

5. Plain, simple truth. This is a very real 5 star ***** DU post! Don't miss it!

Thank you, Mark.

I really, really enjoy your posts.

[markpkessinger]

6. Thank you for the high praise!

I am honored and very flattered!

[lovemydog]

7. That is a a really good point.

They just seem to freak out about what might go on behind closed doors, in the privacy of the couple's home. That's not conservative in the least. It's radical fundamentalism, and these radical fundamentalist discriminators can and should be boycotted unless and until they scrap their stupid laws.

[markpkessinger]

8. It is also related to something I commented about the other day on Raw Story. . .

. . . in an article titled, "Here are 9 things many Americans just don’t understand — compared to the rest of the world." The article stated:

Still, far-right politicians in the U.S. can’t get it through their heads that inadequate sex education and insufficient sexual knowledge actually promote teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases instead of decreasing them.

Here was my response:

markpkessinger
Excellent article and painfully accurate in many ways. But with respect what the article states regarding sex education -- i.e., that "inadequate sex education and insufficient sexual knowledge actually promote teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases instead of decreasing them" -- I think the author is missing something about the motives of conservative American evangelicals. These folks are not, at root, motivated by a desire to to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies or limit the spread of STDs. Their primary motivation Is to enforce their moral code concerning sexual relations upon everyone else. As part of that enforcement, they want to punish those who violate their code, and thus very much want those who engage in sexual relations they disapprove of to incur life-altering consequences as a result. They can then tell themselves that such consequences constitute divine judgment against "unreptentant sinners." It isn't the negative consequences they worry about -- it's the prospect of others being able to do things they disapprove of WITHOUT incurring consequences they can then point to as evidence of Divine Wrath! And this desire to passively punish is particularly acute with respect to girls/women and to LGBT folks.

The strategy of withholding adquate information that would enable young people to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and STDs, thereby increasing the frequency of both, is indeed irrational of the ultimate goal is to reduce their frequency. But given that their true goal is actually very different, that strategy serves the goal it is intended to serve, and does so quite effectively.