Andrew Sullivan's Misguided Deference to Religious Bigots

Bigots Cynthia and Robert Gifford - Photo: Shannon DeCelle

I frequently agree with many of Andrew Sullivan's thoughts and positions and enjoyed meeting him several years back.  But from time to time he flat out gets it wrong - especially when it comes to giving too much deference to religious belief and those who choose to be ignorant bigots.  Public accommodation laws stand for the simply proposition that if one operates a business that is open to serve the public, then one has to serve all of the public, not just whoever one might like or choose to allow in one's establishment.  Of all of the classes typically protected under public accommodation laws - race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc - only one is in fact a voluntary class: religious belief. All of the rest are inherent to a person.  Religion can be picked and discarded at will and certainly enough information is available via the Internet and other outlets where one could shed their religious based ignorance (and bigotry) if they but wanted to. Sadly, far too many "godly folk" seemingly revel in their ignorance and bigotry.  Yet Sullivan would give deference to such people and asks that gays not seek the services of businesses owned by anti-gay bigots.  Would he offer the same advice to blacks, Jews, Hindus, Muslims and other groups that the godly Christian crowd dislikes?  I suspect not. Indeed, in the South, we would still have segregated restaurants if blacks all heeded Sullivan's advice. 

What got a burr up Sullivan's ass is the case of a lesbian couple suing a family business that refused to rent out their property for a same-sex wedding.    Sullivan's advice to gays:

[I]t makes sense to me – as someone interested in a civil society – not to press conflict on culture war issues when a less aggressive and counter-productive strategy is perfectly possible. Also because you deny the New York Post and the victimhood-right a chance to crow about gay suppression of religious freedom. We are winning the argument; we are winning the culture. There’s no point on forcing our opponents to lose face as well as losing the debate. Magnanimity, restraint and gradual progress. It’s gotten us a very long way already. We should trust this strategy to the end.

No, Andrew, you've got it wrong.  Giving deference to bigots is never the right course of action.  I'd also note that it's easy to give such advice when living in a liberal city.  Here in Virginia, we have no employment protections and no public accommodation protects, all because the legislature gives undeserved deference to religious based bigotry.  The irony is that the family business at issue claims that it doesn't discriminate:

“We respect and care for everyone!’’ Cynthia Gifford told me. “We had an openly gay man working for us this past season,’’ she said.  “We’ve had a woman who’s transitioning to be a man. We don’t discriminate against anyone.’’

Except, of course, they did discriminate.  I suppose they also claim that some of the best friends are black too.   Freedom of religion means being free to worship as one chooses and not having to support an established church.  It does not mean that one gets special exemption from non-discrimination laws. Period.