General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumshoo boy. the heated Douhat, Stern, Saletan, Friedersdorf argument about bigotry
I'm with Stern.
On Wednesday, the Atlantics Conor Friedersdorf penned a lively response to my recent piece explaining Ross Douthats canny and dishonest defense of homophobia. In my original post, I casually noted that when a business owner denies gay people service because theyre gay, he qualifies as a bigot. Friedersdorf takes issue with this claim, which he believes is itself prejudice rooted in ignorance. I beg to differ.
At the heart of Friedersdorfs article is an insistence that there are reasons other than homophobia that explain why a business owner might refuse service to gay people. But he doesnt actually name any; instead, he justifies his assertion by pointing out that Elaine Huguenin, the now-infamous photographer who refused to shoot a lesbian wedding, is exceedingly polite over email. Friedersdorf excerpts an exchange between Huguenin and the would-be lesbian client, Vanessa Willock, highlighting how courteously Huguenin phrased her rejection of Willocks request for service. As Friedersdorf puts it:
<snip>
Here is how I understand this argument: Because Huguenins rejection of Willock (solely on the basis of her orientation) was worded very graciouslyand perhaps because the wedding wasnt a real weddingWillock should not have sued.
Leaving aside Friedersdorfs strange addendum about Willocks pseudo-wedding, I see two problems with this logic. The first is that Friedersdorf seems to think that true bigotry always loudly announces itself as it enters the room, when in reality it thrives in the cracks between superficially civil conversation. (Remember the old quip about the Jewish gentleman who has just left the room.) This kind of tactful bigotrya sister of polite racism and a close cousin of pretext discriminationarises from the same place as any kind of bigotry: hate, fear, ignorance, or whatever base emotions lead a person to believe that some humans are less worthy than others. By dressing up her homophobia in good manners, Huguenin might have softened the blow for Willock. But the ultimate effect of her actions is the same as if she had placed a sign on her shop door stating No Gay Couples Served Here.
<snip>
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/06/homophobia_bigotry_prejudice_conor_friedersdorf_calls_me_ignorant.html
Saletan:
Is everyone who opposes gay marriage a bigot? If a photographer declines to participate in a same-sex wedding, should she be held legally liable, on that basis alone, for discrimination?
I dont think so. Over the past several days, Ive been following a lively exchange on this topic between Ross Douthat of the New York Times, Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, and Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic. I like all three of these writers. I was a best man at a same-sex wedding 23 years ago, and I was a fan of gay marriage even before that. But Im disturbed by what I see today. Were stereotyping and vilifying opponents of gay marriage the way weve seen gay people stereotyped and vilified. This is a deeply personal moral issue. To get it right, we need more than justice. We need humanity.
The exchange began on Sunday, with Douthats column about proprietors who decline, on religious grounds, to participate in same-sex weddings. On Monday, Stern denounced these proprietorsthat infamous trio: a florist, a photographer, and a baker, who claimed their Christianity required that they deny service to gay couples. Criticizing these and other bigots, Stern asserted that their dissent is a hatred of gay people so vehement that theyll violate non-discrimination laws just to make sure they never, ever have to provide a gay person with a basic service.
On Wednesday, Friedersdorf challenged Sterns characterization of the dissenters. Friedersdorf quoted from the photographers petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, which gave her account of the events leading to her conviction for discrimination. The email exchange between the photographer, Elaine Huguenin, and the prospective lesbian client, Vanessa Willock, didnt seem hateful:
<snip>
http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/07/gay_marriage_and_religious_freedom_don_t_stereotype_the_christian_wedding.html
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)Friedersdorf has a limited point, to the extent that the Slate article that hes criticizing suggests that refusal to provide services to gay marriages is rooted in personalized hatred. Its entirely possible that the people in question justify their refusal on some version of love the sinner, hate the sin. But Friedersdorfs suggestion that this is not itself a kind of bigotry seems to me to be very obviously wrong.
Bigotry derived from religious principles is still bigotry. Whether the people who implemented Bob Jones Universitys notorious ban on inter-racial dating considered themselves to be actively biased against black people, or simply enforcing what they understood to be Biblical rules against miscegenation is an interesting theoretical question. You can perhaps make a good argument that bigotry-rooted-in-direct-bias is more obnoxious than bigotry-rooted-in-adherence-to-perceived-religious-and-social-mandates. Maybe the people enforcing the rules sincerely believed that they loved black people. Its perfectly possible that some of their best friends were black. But it seems pretty hard to make a good case that the latter form of discrimination is not a form of bigotry. And if Friedersdorf wants to defend his sincerely-religiously-against-gay-marriage people as not being bigots, he has to defend the sincerely-religiously-against-racial-miscegenation people too. They fit exactly into Friedersdorfs proposed intellectual category.
http://crookedtimber.org/2014/03/05/principled-bigotry-is-still-you-know-bigotry/