I suppose this jerk was within his rights, but there's a huge difference in his position and that of Christian small-business owners

It's not often I find the reasoning of a Red State piece problematic, but I must point up the shortcomings in this one by Jon Street.


At first glance, his position seems reasonable enough:

. . . if we’re being honest with ourselves, shouldn’t the same rule we apply for Christian business owners also be applied for gay business owners? Aren’t conservatives and libertarians, generally, in favor of everyone living equally under the law. So, what happened to this shared principle in this particular case? 

Could it be, perhaps, that gay business owners are not the right’s base, generally speaking, whereas, generally speaking, Christians tend to lean more conservative? It shouldn’t matter which political side a group of people take, broadly speaking. The concern we as Americans should have is ensuring that everyone is treated equally.

That’s not the reality if we are fighting for the rights of Christian business owners to refuse service while simultaneously fighting against the rights of gay business owners to do the same. Now, I acknowledge that the religious freedom element is present within the Christian business owner argument. I get that, and in no way am I advocating for those business owners to be forced to do anything that they feel goes against their faith. 

I’m simply saying that if we want to be perceived as consistent in our principles, forcing gay business owners to serve customers who handed out anti-LGBT brochures probably isn’t a hill worth dying on, politically. 

Just something to think about.

 But earlier in the piece, all he offers in the way of depicting what went down is this:

Earlier today, Red State reported that a gay coffee shop owner in Seattle forcible removed a group of pro-life customers who distributed anti-LGBT brochures. As I read the piece, I had a few thoughts I wanted to share.

Now, the other RS piece, linked in the above paragraph, goes into far more detail about what actually occurred.

But I think the account that really offers the clearest perspective comes from The Daily Caller:

According to the Liberator, the Christian group had been handing out pamphlets to Seattle locals on abortion, sin and the Bible. The group entered Bedlam Coffee to take a break and drink coffee when a barista went upstairs to tell the owner that the group was there.

Got that? They were taking a break from handing out their pamphlets. They were just sitting there having coffee. And the owner was up in his office, unaware of the group having come in until notified by an employee.

And then the owner lets loose with this:

The group tried to explain that they hadn’t placed any in the shop, but the owner repeatedly told them to”shut up.”

“There’s nothing you can say. This is you and I don’t want these people in this place,” the owner says. The group asks why he can’t tolerate their presence, prompting the owner to ask them if they would watch him have sex with his boyfriend.

“Can you tolerate my presence? Really? If I go get my boyfriend and f*ck him in the a** right here you’re going to tolerate that? Are you going to tolerate it?” the owner asked. “Answer my f***ing question! No, you’re going to sit right here and f***ing watch it! Leave all of you! Tell all your f*cking friends don’t come here!”

The group gets up to leave, as one woman among them says, “just know that Christ can save you from that lifestyle.”

“Yeah, I like a**. I’m not going to be saved by anything. I’d f*ck Christ in the a**. Okay? He’s hot,” he said.

The qualitative difference between this and cases involving Christian florists, bakers and photographers should be pretty clear. Those business people very simply and without fanfare declined a particular type of service, isolating it from the range of general services they'd be happy to provide. They also didn't hurl obscenities and insults at the gay couples that had approached them.

So far, the group handing out the pamphlets has not taken any legal action, which is a huge qualitative difference. Let's hope it doesn't. That would keep the lines of this clear. Just leave the shop and let that be that.

Now, for my take on all this:

I understand that the civil rights tensions of the 1960s were historically unique, and that the legal concept of public accommodation looked like it was necessary to bring into play to address the injustice of things like all-white lunch counters. But it opened the door to a lot of sticky questions.

I lean toward a pretty libertarian view - that is, that the free market takes care of these things. After all, who wants to either patronize a place perceived to be run by bigots, or, conversely, serve customers who are very upfront about views a business owner finds repellent?


But there's a level that a nice, tidy libertarian solution doesn't address. It's the human-interaction level, the cultural level.

Before the last few years, would any business owner in America have gone on the rant that the coffee shop proprietor did? Blaspheming the Lord and making patrons listen to a graphic scenario-setting about exotic sex acts?

This is what I mean by brittle. Everyone is now so concerned with what he or she may have the "right" to do that we have tossed the whole notion of respect, let alone kindness, out the window. The more fierce and vulgar one can be to those with opposing views, the more admirable.

And when the only begotten son of the one true God is involved, it adds to the applause from those who have willfully spurned Him.

It is so very late in the day.