I haven’t posted about Arizona’s attempt to protect businesses who claim religious exceptions when serving gay and lesbians because the stupidity of columnists whose libertarian principles are as deep as birdbaths is a better target. Andrew Sullivan:
I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.
My first thought yesterday: how privileged Sully is to live in a city with a plethora of florists, caterers, banquet halls, limo services, and bed and breakfasts; what about options for gay couples in rural Washington without money, who live in small towns where the opprobrium is suffocating?
I don’t want to come across as snarky, but do you think that maybe the fact that you live in one of the largest metropolitan regions in the world and have virtually unlimited alternative options for just about anything you’d want might make it easy for you to come to this opinion? Think about all the gay couples living in small towns, where the next closest florist isn’t interested in driving that far for a delivery. In fact, I believe you brought up a very similar scenario when it came to pharmacists in rural areas deciding they could refuse to dispense birth control to unmarried women on religious grounds.
If a florist doesn’t want to take the order of a gay couple, then the florist better lie about it.