Is it just me or is the discussion of recently passed religious freedom legislature in Indiana and Arkansas thoroughly unsatisfying? As the the state laws was explained to me, it just doesn’t go far enough. So, allegedly, it enables the Christian businessmen who object to gay marriage to refuse accommodating LGBTQ weddings. Conservatives are all wound up because the law that purports to protect religious freedom is attacked by liberals, some of whom are bent on violence. Or depriving conservatives of their livelihood anyways.
I find the scope of the laws in question to be ridiculously narrow. Our national conversation should be about freedom in general, not just religious freedom. I know, we can make a strong argument around religious freedom, but why stop there? Why should any business owner be compelled to serve anyone at all? Say, an atheist DJ who feels that marriage is an outdated institution and refuses to put records atop of turntables at weddings [except for the gay ones], should he* be compelled to perform at such events or should the bride and the groom cue in an ipad? Or a dressmaker who opens business to design clothes for his five best friends, should he drive to meet a client out of town simply because they are darker in complexion?
The great irony of the gays versus religious freedom debate is that gays created some of the most exclusive, glamorous and successful subcultures in the United States. Take the enduring allure of the disco-era Studio 54, a club notorious for denying entry to revelers in last season’s shoes or insufficiently luminous eyeshadow. Or try to hang with sharp-tongued queens.
And please, don’t try to explain away this behavior by past incidents of bullying because for one it encourages the current bullying of Middle America. And it’s bully’s bullying, too. The cliques of ostensibly grown up men and women, like that at Andy Warhol’s Factory, can teach your junior high queen bee a lesson or two. No surprise there because hard drug use, BDSM, fame and money make superficiality a must in this subculture. Individuals who composed it are deeply flawed. As much as I admire Warhol as an artist, his personal flaws, starting with him being a rotten friend, are undeniable.
Fascism is another thing. Gays joke about fashion police and dress up in shiny uniforms for their S&M sessions. Punks took it to another level with actually wearing swastikas. But really, who is searching for meaning in all the wrong places?
Another thing to consider: leftists complain that corporations are immoral, but if a businessman shows his morality, he gets boycotted by… the leftists!
I’m using he as a generic third person personal.