Today, though, as I said above, I think the consensus center-left position has basically shifted toward the argument offered by Garrett Epps for The Atlantic: It doesn\u2019t matter if Stutzman or any other wedding vendor is a nice person with sincere religious beliefs, and it doesn\u2019t matter if she or they would provide her services to gay clients in any other context; her religious anxiety about decorating a wedding chapel for a same-sex couple is no different from the objection to integration of a Southern store-owner whose preacher taught him the races should be separate, and needs to be dismissed with extreme prejudice lest anti-gay discrimination flourish and spread.<\/p>\n
And whether you find this view, this analogy, persuasive or you don\u2019t, it has a lot of possible further implications. Because in the annals of American history, both Jim Crow and the means we used to destroy it are, well, legally and culturally extraordinary. So if our current situation with same-sex marriage and religious conservatives really is analogous, there is no obvious reason why we\u2019ve reached any kind stopping point once the florists and bakers have been appropriately fined or closed down.<\/p>\n
Hence the following seven questions about future steps, which I\u2019ll pose specifically to Epps and generally to the Indiana law\u2019s many liberal critics. Some are rooted in real-life examples and possibilities; some are much more (I think) unlikely. But I\u2019m still quite interested in whether people would support them if they were to become plausible options a little ways down the road.<\/p>\n
Read it all<\/a> and there is a WSJ editorial on it there<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Today, though, as I said above, I think the consensus center-left position has basically shifted toward the argument offered by Garrett Epps for The Atlantic: It doesn\u2019t matter if Stutzman or any other wedding vendor is a nice person with…<\/span><\/p>\n