The Religious Right's Failed Gay-Marriage Backlash

[rug]

In states like Arizona, social conservatives hoped to push back against the rising gay-rights tide, but lawmakers and the public sided against them.

Mar 21 2014, 7:00 AM ET
Molly Ball

Frank Schubert tried to warn us. In 2012, after voters in four states took the side of gay marriage in ballot initiatives, Schubert, a consultant working for the National Organization for Marriage, was sure they would live to regret their choice.

"A raft of problems will appear that we'll be able to point to,” Schubert told me back then. "The truth of the matter is that same-sex marriage creates a host of conflicts with people who disagree with it. That's just a fact. You will start to see wedding photographers sued and fined, innkeepers put out of business, churches sued, small businesses sued. Then people will say, 'Whoa, I didn't think this was going to happen.'”

In a way, Schubert’s prediction has come to pass. But politically, it hasn’t gone down the way his side hoped.

Clashes like the ones he anticipated between venders claiming religious liberty and gay couples seeking services have indeed cropped up, though there have been only a handful and they’re not directly connected to the legality of gay marriage. But the backlash that gay-marriage opponents expected as a result does not appear to be materializing. Instead, in states like Arizona, Mississippi, and Kansas, lawmakers have largely backed down from attempts to protect religious dissenters after a national outcry branding the bills discriminatory.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-religious-rights-failed-gay-marriage-backlash/284496/

[wandy]

1. Sometimes, when you trust you're own decisions you may miss the obvious..............

I'm probably missing something here. I'm probably catch hell for even saying something. Non the less here goes..........
About 30 years ago, over a didn't work out of the box power tool, the great Sears and Robucks made it perfectly clear that they didn't value my business.
I have not so much as set foot inside a sears store since.
Over time this attitude has applied to any number of suppliers.
In any transaction, if I am not treated with the simple respect due another human, I would likely spit on the floor and take my business elsewhere.
In the type of thing we are talking about here, I would likely spit in the owner's face and take my business elsewhere.

So what I don't understand is this.
Why would anyone want to pay someone who doesn't want their business and would likely provide poor service because of it.
Why not deal with someone who has the decency to do what they are being paid for.
Whoever or whatever you are, when you pay for a service you are due some amount of respect.

And I guess this is where we get out the slings and arrows and shoot the moose.

[cbayer]

3. I don't think it's about how an individual may or may not react to being discriminated

against.

I'm with you, I'm not going to take my business to someone who doesn't want it.

But the issues are much larger. Should anyone supplying goods or services be permitted to discriminate against individuals or groups based on things like sexual orientation, race, gender, etc., etc.,

I think we can generally agree that they should not.

There may be cases when it's the only florist in the area, or the only medical practitioner in a certain specialty, and on and on. Or maybe you don't know about their discriminatory policies and are humiliated when you go to their shop.

Boycotting anyone with a whiff of these kinds of prejudices is something I would strongly support, but I think making sure that we do not allow any laws with loopholes for discrimination is much more important.

[wandy]

4. Agree compleatly................

Discrimination is senseless in a business for any reason.
What fool would turn away business because a customer had, let's say, green eyes.
That attitude does not lend its self well to "putting food on you're family".

I have no problem with boycotting those that give over tho such foolishness.
Laws that allow discrimination are a highway to hell.

I guess I'm just saying.
Starve them.
Do business with people who are happy to do business with you.

[cbayer]

5. I agree about starving them, just that it's not sufficient.

Part of starving them can also involve making sure that others in a community know about their discriminatory practices.

[wandy]

6. Once again I agree. It is not sufficient...............

Any one that believes that a business can discriminate for any reason may be in for a sad awakening.
Someday that business may decide that they don't like you're green eyes.
Warning others about discriminatory practices is a good thing.

Sure, in my small retirement business I do discriminate. Mostly involving people who haven't paid their last bill.
That would be about the extent of that.

[cbayer]

2. Great analysis and very optimistic.

There are those that are going to continue to kick and scream, just as there are with any civil rights movement.

But this tide has turned and there will be no turning back.