Brookings Panel On Utah's Non-Discriminatin Bill

[Hamilton Porter]

I have one more post to spare before Mormons start thinking I'm gay.

 

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2015/03/16-gays-mormons-religion

 

I encourage you to watch the whole thing.

[The Nehor]

I already think you are gay. You free this weekend?

[Hamilton Porter]

Oh stop it, Nehor. I hate it when we fight.

[The Nehor]

Oh stop it, Nehor. I hate it when we fight.

I was not trying to start a fight.

[Kenngo1969]

Non-discriminatin'?  Ah agree: we should all be non-discriminatin'!

[Daniel2]

Thanks for sharing this, Hamilton. I think it unfortunately got lost on the flurry of cake war threads, and now that they've died down, perhaps this thread can serve as the means to have a balanced discussion on similar issues...

The video was excellent, and I think we here on MD have overlooked opportunities to discuss the positive, conciliatory changes that have been unfurling on the Utah stage... maybe because we assume "dialogue" means "debate," and therefore that must mean there's a winning debater and a loser that's defeated...

But the dialogue in the opening video suggests otherwise, as does the following article, which I think deserves to be seen and heard here... It is long, but well worth the read:

Utah gays and Mormon leaders cut a deal to protect the rights of both. Can they show religious conservatives a way forward?

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/utah-gays-and-mormon-leaders-cut-a-deal-to-protect-116047428151.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

Jon WardSenior Political CorrespondentApril 10, 2015

Members of Mormons Building Bridges march during the Utah Gay Pride Parade, in Salt Lake City. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

WASHINGTON — In 2010, Jonathan Rauch — a longtime advocate of same-sex marriage who is also part of the D.C. conservative policy world — issued a warning to the gay community.

After decades in which gay rights drew support from only a minority of the country, Rauch argued, there was now an emerging majority in favor of them. As the public increasingly moved into alignment with gay leaders on questions from same-sex marriage to military service, he said, the gay community should move away from the combative, confrontational style of its outsider years and adopt a more tolerant attitude toward opponents whose views were now in the minority.

“We need to allow some discrimination and relinquish the ‘zero tolerance’ mind-set,” Rauch wrote. “Paradoxical but true: We need to give our opponents the time and space they need to let us win.”

Rauch pointed to the then-recent example of a bakery in Indianapolis that had refused to bake rainbow cupcakes for a gay college group event — a decision backed by the cityat that time — as instructive. It would be “positively dangerous,” Rauch wrote, for LGBT advocates to push for the bakery to lose its city-owned space.

A lot has changed in the five years that followed — in the gay community, in public opinion, and in the tactics that religious conservatives are taking to defend their now-minority views.

“A lot of what I wrote in 2010 is now out of date, unfortunately,” Rauch told Yahoo News. “It is no longer possible to get gay people to look on religious-liberty exemptions with anything other than extreme suspicion. That is because conservative legal groups and others have weaponized these laws. … They now have the specific purpose of opting out of gay weddings or gay pride or other gay-affirming events.”

Advocate Jonathan Rauch (http://jonathanrauch.com

As demonstrated by the recent controversies in Indiana and Arkansas over attempts to put in place religious-freedom statutes, religious conservatives have a real problem on their hands. As they scramble to enact similar laws around the country, those laws are being seen as discriminatory, and so these groups have lost the support of the most conciliatory gay rights thought leaders, such as Rauch — not to mention the nation as a whole.

Conservatives are angry over the characterization of the Indiana law, in particular, as an anti-gay bill. Family Research Council president Tony Perkins referred to the coverage as “media malpractice,” pointing to the fact that Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) laws have never been used to discriminate against gays.

But the context of the new law made it appear targeted at gays, Rauchwrote in Time magazine during the uproar. First of all, he noted, there are no protections in Indiana law against discriminating against gays to begin with, so adding an RFRA law to an already lopsided legal environment looked like piling on. Second, the Christian leaders photographed with Indiana Gov. Mike Pence when he signed the bill are perceived to be hostile to legal protections for gays and lesbians. And third, the Indiana statute was written so that it looked like a direct response to a 2014 case in New Mexico where a same-sex couple brought suit against a photographer who refused to photograph their wedding. The language in the Indiana law ensured that a court could not deny a religious-freedom-exemption request on the grounds that the New Mexico Supreme Court did.

The conservatives argued repeatedly, however, that the differences between the Indiana law and the federal RFRA — promoted by Senate Democrats in 1993 and signed by former President Bill Clinton — were minor and that the basic thrust of all RFRA laws was the same.

“RFRA simply allows religious people to challenge government activities that encroach on their beliefs. They have to show that the government action substantially burdens a religious belief that they sincerely hold. And if they prove all that, it falls to the government to show that the challenged action is justified as the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest,” Mollie Hemingway wrote in the Federalist. “Having a RFRA doesn’t mean that you know which side wins, it just sets the terms of the debate.”

Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock agreed with conservatives. “The main thing is this charge that it’s a license to discriminate. That’s the principal allegation, and it’s based on nothing in real experience,” he told Vox.

But Laycock also said that conservatives fueled concerns by making claims about what the law would do that were not accurate.

“You’ve got Republican legislators fueling the fire by saying when the bill was under consideration that this would protect Christians against gay rights. They either don’t know what they’re talking about, don’t know what the bills have actually done, or they’re just pandering to the base and promising things they can’t deliver,” Laycock said. “There’s blame to go around here, but neither side is talking much about what these bills have actually done in practice.”

Little of that mattered in the Indiana debate, which conservatives lost as Pence backtracked on the law in the face of overwhelming pressure from corporations and even from other states. That’s left religious conservatives facing an existential question: Where do they go from here?

Some think that a recent compromise reached in Utah and signed into law last month offers a way forward. The Utah Legislature worked with advocacy groups from the gay community and with the Mormon Church to reach a deal. Churches in the state, along with affiliated institutions such as Brigham Young University, would retain rights of conscience to hire and fire and employ based on their beliefs. But LGBT people were also given protected-class status in housing and employment, though small businesses with fewer than 10 employees and places of lodging with four or fewer units were exempted from these nondiscrimination clauses, according to one of the bill’s chief sponsors, state Sen. Stuart Adams, a conservative member of the Mormon Church.

On the issue of same-sex marriage, which has been legal in Utah since the end of 2013, the Legislature said that county clerks could opt out of performing a gay ceremony but must arrange for someone else to do it in their place so that a gay couple would not be discriminated against by the government. The Utah law also protects county clerks from being fired or punished by the government for opting out of performing a gay wedding, Adams said.

Michael Otterson, the chief spokesman for the LDS church, said that Mormon leaders were reacting to the pummeling that conservatives took over the debate on religious liberty in other states, where people representing other religions sought to put in place protections for themselves without extending any rights or concessions to gays. Indiana’s RFRA debate had not yet taken place, but similar situations had popped up in Arizona and New Mexico.

As Otterson put it, unilateral campaigns by religious conservatives to pass religious-liberty bills have prompted fierce backlashes that have left conservatives in an even worse position than before. Speaking about the Indiana law, Otterson said, “Whether the law is perfectly framed or not is not for me to say. But if you don’t get your messaging right to begin with, if you can’t argue from a basis of what is fair and legitimate, if you seem to come across as pushing only one side, then you’re going to invite the retaliation of the other side that is very well organized and very well funded.”

LGBT groups executed “a shock-and-awe campaign, and they overwhelmed the argument” in Indiana, Otterson said. “We avoided that in Utah by meeting with the LGBT community and trying to find a middle ground.”

The Utah law, said Rauch, was a “significant development.”

“The Mormons have broken with the rest of the conservative Christian world,” he said. “They’ve looked at the way the world is going and said, you’re not going to get religious liberty exemptions anymore unless they’re paired with protections in law for gay people.”

Rauch said that Utah was also crucial to buying time, ironically, for the religious conservative side of this debate.

“Without Utah, we were six months to a year to a situation where [the Human Rights Council, the leading gay rights advocacy group] could no longer do that because the resistance from the grassroots would be so intense because of all the [religious liberty] bills going forward,” Rauch said. “HRC, if it makes these deals, is going to have to fend off a lot of criticism from people who say, ‘Why are you doing this? Because in five to 10 years the other side just loses.’”

Robin Fretwell Wilson, a University of Illinois law professor who worked closely with the Utah lawmakers on their compromise, agreed that religious conservatives need to move quickly to secure protections like the ones reached in Utah.

“Perhaps most urgent for the religious right is the clarity the faith community receives in the Utah Compromise. Faith communities are struggling to sustain their received traditions about marriage in a world that recognizes same-sex marriage,” Wilson said. “Twenty-two states now have sexual orientation nondiscrimination laws. Twenty-eight do not, but in those 28 are municipalities that do provide these important protections to the LGBT community.

“If care is not taken to be clear, sexual orientation protections that are about commercial services like taxis and large apartment buildings inadvertently spill over to a religious sacrament like marriage. Utah — and all the voluntary same-sex marriage states — went to great lengths in their statutes to be exceedingly clear — for example, that religious counseling that occurred before same-sex marriage can occur after, exactly as it did before,” she wrote. “People of faith need to know how to proceed in a world that recognizes same-sex marriage, and the Utah Compromise charts the way forward.”

Rauch agreed that Utah could be the model: “We need to move quickly to find one or two other states to do this.”

That may prove difficult. There are few leaders on the religious conservative side who want to recognize LGBT people as a protected class under the law on the same level as ethnic and racial minorities. Crossing that threshold would be, for many on the right, ceding the argument over whether being gay is an inborn trait rather than a lifestyle choice. And for many religious leaders, that remains a bridge too far.

Michael Wear, however, is one religious conservative in favor of a compromise approach. Wear, who was a deputy in President Obama’s White House office of faith-based initiatives and directed faith outreach in Obama’s 2012 campaign, opposed the administration’s mandate that religious institutions provide contraception to employees. Wear said that a compromise is the right thing and is also the only pragmatic way forward.

“It might have seemed to Republicans that they were playing offense by pushing RFRA legislation, but in this climate it is more like sending an all-out blitz with no safety to prevent the Hail Mary,” Wear wrote in an email. “Incredulous assurances that Republicans are not interested in discrimination are not convincing to many Americans. Republicans need to prove they are both opposed to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and religious identity by advancing laws that protect both.”

Wear said that “the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, that received the support of Democrats in the Senate and included a strong religious exemption, would be a good start.”

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, has been a leading voice among evangelicals for immigration reform and has established a reputation as something of a moderate on that issue and a few others. If any religious conservative were a seemingly prime candidate for some openness to a compromise approach, he would be it. But on the question of pairing religious-liberty measures with antidiscrimination laws in various states, Moore gave little ground.

“I have yet to see antidiscrimination measures that do not seek to restrict the speech and free exercise rights of those with moral objections to sexual expression outside of conjugal marriage,” Moore said in an email. “I think the attempts to thread the needle the way Indiana did is counter-productive and leaves religious liberty in the state in worse shape than before,” he said, referring to the changes that Indiana Republicans made to the law.

Talking with conservative radio talk show host Bill Bennett last week, Moore said that Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s decision to add clarifications to the law was “an incoherent approach,” and he suggested that Pence looked “panicked.”

“[Pence] should have stood by the law, and he should have articulated and used this as a teaching opportunity to say to the people in Indiana and around the country, here’s why religious freedom matters, and it matters for everybody,” Moore said.

Republican politicians tend to follow the lead of religious conservative leaders on issues like these. And so far, there’s little evidence that any Republican presidential hopeful has an appetite to challenge his religious supporters to seek compromise with the gay rights movement.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this past Sunday whether he would sign a bill in his state’s Legislature that could deny employment benefits to employees based on their sexual orientation. Jindal was noncommittal but gave no indication that this provision would disturb him.

“I want to look at the bill. I’m always in favor of defending religious liberty,” he said.

Wouldn't it be great if we could put down the weapons we use in this war of words and find workable solutions to respect all and peacefully coexist...?

Edited April 12, 2015 by Daniel2

[Russell C McGregor]

Thanks for sharing this, Hamilton. I think it unfortunately got lost on the flurry of cake war threads, and now that they've died down, perhaps this thread can serve as the means to have a balanced discussion on similar issues...

The video was excellent, and I think we here on MD have overlooked opportunities to discuss the positive, conciliatory changes that have been unfurling on the Utah stage... maybe because we assume "dialogue" means "debate," and therefore that must mean there's a winning debater and a loser that's defeated...

But the dialogue in the opening video suggests otherwise, as does the following article, which I think deserves to be seen and heard here... It is long, but well worth the read:

Wouldn't it be great if we could put down the weapons we use in this war of words and find workable solutions to respect all and peacefully coexist...?

Wouldn't it be great if "peacefully coexist" didn't hold a surreptitious subtext of "Let us have everything we want, all the time?"

[readstoomuch]

Wouldn't it be great if "peacefully coexist" didn't hold a surreptitious subtext of "Let us have everything we want, all the time?"

Isn`t that what Daniel2 is trying to say? Believe me I don`t find myself agreeing with him much, but I think he is right on this one. As was Utah when they put it forward.

[tonie]

Wouldn't it be great if "peacefully coexist" didn't hold a surreptitious subtext of "Let us have everything we want, all the time?"

 

It would be neither side had their fingers crossed behind their back. It could be regarded that "everything we want, all the time", is the basis for the non-severalibility clause in the Utah bill.

[sunstoned]

Wouldn't it be great if "peacefully coexist" didn't hold a surreptitious subtext of "Let us have everything we want, all the time?"

I agree, but religionists are starting to come around. Public opinion is becoming such that prefered treatment will no longer going to be tolerated.

[Russell C McGregor]

It would be neither side had their fingers crossed behind their back. It could be regarded that "everything we want, all the time", is the basis for the non-severalibility clause in the Utah bill.

Anything could be argued; but could it be argued cogently?

The Utah bill, by my reading, doesn't give either side everything they want. Those who support Marriage Sanctity don't get to roll back "same sex marriage," and the LGBT etc. lobby can't ask the courts to financially obliterate churches and church-owned entities that don't give them preferential treatment.

Note that the non-severability clause doesn't give anyone everything they want. All it does is protect the integrity of the compromise agreement. Anyone is still free to challenge any of the law's provisions in the courts, providing they are willing to risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And that wouldn't be much of a risk, if the bill hadn't given both sides something they wanted.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Russell

[Russell C McGregor]

I agree, but religionists are starting to come around. Public opinion is becoming such that prefered treatment will no longer going to be tolerated.

So you foresee an end to the preferential treatment of LGBT etc. people, do you?

Regards,

Russell

[tonie]

Note that the non-severability clause doesn't give anyone everything they want. All it does is protect the integrity of the compromise agreement. Anyone is still free to challenge any of the law's provisions in the courts, providing they are willing to risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And that wouldn't be much of a risk, if the bill hadn't given both sides something they wanted.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Russell

 

I suppose the non-severability clause could be viewed as each side saying "take it or leave it".

 

 

Anything could be argued; but could it be argued cogently?

The Utah bill, by my reading, doesn't give either side everything they want. ... the LGBT etc. lobby can't ask the courts to financially obliterate churches and church-owned entities that don't give them preferential treatment

 

 

Strawman or redherring or otherwise specious argument.

 

The religious groups are the ones seeking preferential treatment, by way of preferential exemption from the laws.  LGBT on the other are seeking equal treatment.

 

Will you show - congently - where "LGBT etc. lobby have asked the courts to financially obliterate churches"?  Cases involving religious refusal to provide public accommodation to LGBT invdividuals are each against individuals or otherwise property that was held out as a public accommodation.

Edited April 13, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

So you foresee an end to the preferential treatment of LGBT etc. people, do you?

Regards,

Russell

 

A statement demonstrating deliberate misrepresentation.

[Russell C McGregor]

Pathetic strawman or redherring or otherwise specious argument.

In your opinion.

A statement demonstrating deliberate misrepresentation.

Your accusation is false.

Tonie,

If you are trying to provoke me into answering you in kind so that you can start a moderator reporting campaign, I'm afraid it's not going to work.

You need to be a little more Harmonious and Serene.

Regards,

Russell

[tonie]

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins referred to the coverage as “media malpractice,” pointing to the fact that Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) laws have never been used to discriminate against gays.

 

Mollie Hemingway wrote in the Federalist. “Having a RFRA doesn’t mean that you know which side wins, it just sets the terms of the debate.”

 

 

While the above statements may be true; the statement are terribly misleading. Unless it can be shown that individuals have challenged State/Federal non-discrimination laws using a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as a defense; then the statements above are baseless and without merit.

[tonie]

Russell,

 

I addressed why your statements are strawmen, redherrings or otherwise specious; perhaps you could address why your statements are not.  

 

LGBT are not seeking preferential treatment as you have claimed; LGBT are seeking "equal protection" hence the 14th Amendment of the vaunted United States Constitution.  I do not take you for one who posts from ignorance (lack of knowledge). As such, I beleive you are well informed on the issues regarding the LGBT community in the United States in seeking the same rights as other groups. I believe you are informed enough to not post a statement from ignorance, this is why I labeled your post #12 as a "demonstrating deliberate misrepresentation".

 

Religious individuals are the ones seeking preferential treatment. Religious individuals are seeking this preferential treatment by way of specific individual religous exemption from non-discrimination laws.

 

What I labeled deliberate misrepresentations of the LGBT community and what I labeled, strawmen, redherrings or otherwise are addressed in post 13 and 14, and more thoroughly in this post.

 

 

Perhaps you would be willing to provide examples of preferential treatment for LGBT as opposed to LGBT seeking equal treatment.

Edited April 13, 2015 by tonie

[Russell C McGregor]

Russell,

 

I addressed why your statements are strawmen, redherrings or otherwise specious; perhaps you could address why your statements are not.  

 

LGBT are not seeking preferential treatment as you have claimed; LGBT are seeking "equal protection" hence the 14th Amendment of the vaunted United States Constitution.  I do not take you for one who posts from ignorance (lack of knowledge). As such, I beleive you are well informed on the issues regarding the LGBT community in the United States in seeking the same rights as other groups. I believe you are informed enough to no post a statement from ignorance, this is why I labeled your post #12 as a "demonstrating deliberate misrepresentation".

 

Religious individuals are the ones seeking preferential treatment. Religious individuals are seeking this preferential treatment by way of specific individual religous exemption from non-discrimination laws.

 

What I labeled your fasle accusations and deliberately misrepresentations of the LGBT community make those specific statements of yours, addressed in post 13 and 14, strawmen, redherrings or otherwise specious.

 

 

Perhaps you would be willing to provide examples of preferential treatment for LGBT as opposed to LGBT seeking equal treatment.

Perhaps you would be willing to apologise for calling me a liar.

I suggest you avoid trying to foist the burden of proof for your accusations onto me. It won't work.

Once I have received your apology -- and only then -- I may consider entertaining any questions you might wish to put to me.

Regards,

Russell

[Tacenda]

Talk about avoidance.

[tonie]

Perhaps you would be willing to apologise for calling me a liar.

Regards,

Russell

 

Considering that I have not called you a liar, then I see no reason for your request.

 

I suggest you avoid trying to foist the burden of proof for your accusations onto me. It won't work.

Regards,

Russell

 

I meet my burden i.e. equal protection is what the LGBT community is seeking. You made several claims (using courts to obliterate churches and affiliates; LGBT seeking preferential treatment) that you refuse to validate.

 

 

Once I have received your apology -- and only then -- I may consider entertaining any questions you might wish to put to me.

 

 

 

No apology is due.

 

I am very familiar with the same sex marriage cases in the United States. I am also familiar with the typical spin opponents of equal rights apply to LGBT; that typical spin being that LGBT are seeking preferential treatment under the law.  It is unreasonable to characterize seeking equal treatment as seeking preferential treatment. For example, same sex marriage allows even heterosexuals to marry their same gender - even if only for tax purposes; I am unaware of any requirement at law that a marriage must involve sexual intimacy.

 

Non-discrimination laws do not provide a preference. A law that prohibits discrimination based on race, can not reasonably be regarded as providing preferential treatment to blacks, whites, asian, latinos, etc. Thus a black woman seeking redress againts a public accommodation which told her "No blacks allowed"; is not seeking preferential treatment. She is seeking equal access to a public accommodation. Similarily a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity applies equally those who identify as heterosexual and homosexual; no preferential treatment is permitted or sought.

Edited April 13, 2015 by tonie

[Russell C McGregor]

Considering that I have not called you a liar, then I see no reason for your request.

Really? Wasn't it you who wrote the following?

A statement demonstrating deliberate misrepresentation.

What is "deliberate misrepresentation," Tonie?

[tonie]

.

Edited April 13, 2015 by tonie

[Daniel2]

Wouldn't it be great if "peacefully coexist" didn't hold a surreptitious subtext of "Let us have everything we want, all the time?"

Isn`t that what Daniel2 is trying to say? Believe me I don`t find myself agreeing with him much, but I think he is right on this one. As was Utah when they put it forward.

Russell,

It appears you may have posted prior to reading the article I posted or without watching the link provided in the OP.

Readstoomuch's characterization accurately reflects what I and the article are proposing--that middle ground needs to be sought where both sides walk away having won something. In particular, I agree with LGBT advocate Rauch when he proposed allowing some discrimination against gays and lesbians. You might want to go back and watch the link and read the subsequent article.

This has been a long, arduous battle for us all. I realize you are passionate about your cause, and wary of giving up too much. Your biting wit and zealous defenses have proven formidable weapons in this war of words--but when peaceful middle ground is being sought, perhaps it is time to allow at least enough pause to stop and read what is being proposed before jumping to pull the trigger and potentially jumping the gun.

Best to ya... and welcome back.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Daniel2

[Russell C McGregor]

Russell,

It appears you may have posted prior to reading the article I posted or without watching the link provided in the OP.

Readstoomuch's characterization accurately reflects what I and the article are proposing--that middle ground needs to be sought where both sides walk away having won something. In particular, I agree with LGBT advocate Rauch when he proposed allowing some discrimination against gays and lesbians. You might want to go back and watch the link and read the subsequent article.

This has been a long, arduous battle for us all. I realize you are passionate about your cause, and wary of giving up too much. Your biting wit and zealous defenses have proven formidable weapons in this war of words--but when peaceful middle ground is being sought, perhaps it is time to allow at least enough pause to stop and read what is being proposed before jumping to pull the trigger and potentially jumping the gun.

Best to ya... and welcome back.

Unfortunately, I've seen expressions like "peaceful coexistence" being used far too often as euphemisms for "I get to snap my fingers and you get to jump."

But based upon what you are now saying, I take it that you are happy for same sex couples to be prepared to shop around for service providers that are willing to support their particular events, rather than taking the "do it or else" approach?

Cheers,

Russell

[Daniel2]

Unfortunately, I've seen expressions like "peaceful coexistence" being used far too often as euphemisms for "I get to snap my fingers and you get to jump."

But based upon what you are now saying, I take it that you are happy for same sex couples to be prepared to shop around for service providers that are willing to support their particular events, rather than taking the "do it or else" approach?

Cheers,

Russell

Fortunately, that's not the way I used that phrase, and I hope you took some of the time I suggested to pause and familiarize yourself with the environment of this thread that shows the context here didn't mean what you thought it may have meant.

Although I wouldn't say I'm "happy" that gays and lesbians should expect to face some discrimination, I am suggesting that I am open to the idea that LGBT individuals should expect some discrimination, specifically from family-owned-and-operated, Mom-and-Pop type businesses, and they should take their business elsewhere without legal punishments to such businesses.

Additionally, I think gays and lebians need to put down their weapons and expectations that it's an "all or nothing," "take no prisoners!" aproach, and that our lobby groups need to me more vocal about supporting a balanced and compassionate approach, as well.

I am not alone in this position, as previous posts in this thread indicate.

And others in the LGBT community are speaking up, as well. For example, another recently published piece from the nation's leading LGBT magazine, The Advocate, had this to say about the pizza parlor fiasco:

The Pink Mob Strikes Again:

Here's the case that our social media frenzy played into the hands of equality opponents

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/04/13/op-ed-pink-mob-strikes-again

BY JIM PATTERSON

APRIL 13 2015 4:00 AM ET

Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Pence and the national LGBTQ community could learn a lesson from the firestorm that followed a televised call an enterprising reporter made to a small-town pizzeria in Walkerton, Indiana.

In Walkerton, population 2,200, one of the owners of the now-famous Memories Pizza spoke honestly when she told the reporter that the restaurant would not cater a same-sex wedding. Perhaps if not asked a leading question by a TV reporter, the young co-owner might have made a different, more human statement. We’ll never know.

When the proprietor’s statement went viral, the pink mob went to work. Now, in my life I have seen mob mentality firsthand more than once. As a youth during the civil rights struggle in Alabama in the 1960s and an AIDS activist in Washington in the 1980s, I saw the ugly face of mobs who wanted to kill African-Americans and gay men and children sick and disabled by AIDS.

What happened in Walkerton was done via faceless social media. The results were no less ugly. As I learned as a youth, mobs, gay or straight, attract the type of mentality capable of lynching, bombing, burning, shooting, and inflicting painful words. In the case of social media, hateful words are captured forever. The owners of Memories Pizza were so shocked by the national social media language directed at them — which included death threats not worth repeating — that they reportedly decided to close the business. No LGBTQ leaders stepped forward to call off the mob and encourage the business to reconsider its position. That might have been seen as caving in to the religious right by the LGBTQ community. We couldn’t have that because, in the minds of many, we are rebels. We can’t use LGBTQ diplomacy to change people’s minds. No, instead we have to threaten them with pink violence; social media threats that are one step below real violence.

Eventually, Memories Pizza reopened after its supporters used crowdfunding to raise nearly $1 million for the restaurant. I suspect that is just the beginning of what will be a record year for the small restaurant. Aside from the money and publicity, evangelicals and Roman Catholics — losers in their fight against marriage equality — were happy to see the pink mob try to destroy a small heartland business. It shows the country, they say, how heartless the LGBTQ community is. It helps cement the myth of an organized "radical gay marriage agenda," as Ted Cruz puts it.

The LGBTQ community should not be about hate and intolerance. We must peacefully protest and reject the anti-LGBTQ bias and intolerance against us. What the public saw at Walkerton was gays gone wild.

The enduring lesson of the struggle for marriage equality should not be whether supporters or opponents can be more heartless and cruel. Rather, it should be who has more heart and love to share with those who are evolving on the issue. Based on the social media frenzy and backlash in Walkerton, both sides have a way to go.

So, yes, Russ... Hopefully you didn't skip the articles I posted, like this excerpt:

After decades in which gay rights drew support from only a minority of the country, Rauch argued, there was now an emerging majority in favor of them. As the public increasingly moved into alignment with gay leaders on questions from same-sex marriage to military service, he said, the gay community should move away from the combative, confrontational style of its outsider years and adopt a more tolerant attitude toward opponents whose views were now in the minority.

“We need to allow some discrimination and relinquish the ‘zero tolerance’ mind-set,” Rauch wrote. “Paradoxical but true: We need to give our opponents the time and space they need to let us win.”

Rauch pointed to the then-recent example of a bakery in Indianapolis that had refused to bake rainbow cupcakes for a gay college group event — a decision backed by the city at that time — as instructive. It would be “positively dangerous,” Rauch wrote, for LGBT advocates to push for the bakery to lose its city-owned space.

...And yes, Russ, I am suggesting there has to be a way to find a middle ground to preserve liberties and promote individual respect on all sides--even if it may mean allowing private individuals' businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Daniel2