Sunday, April 12, 2015
Some Days You Get The Bear!
When it comes to the squabbles in Indiana a few weeks ago, I had the simultaneous pleasure of being away from the computer and being able to listen to hours and hours of talk radio in my car. Listening to the "debate" really juiced up my critical thinking faculties as I interpreted, accepted, and rejected different aspects of different opinions.What was most interesting was to see how ill informed many speakers were, especially when confronted with the specific facts of the case in hand. Not infrequently they had to relent, but without seeming to being seen to do so.
But to the matter. The question really seems hinge on one difference of opinion - the question of the nature of homosexuality. If you imagine that being gay is a lifestyle choice, then pitting that choice against the equally valid choice of religious belief seems only fair. But if you feel that being gay is an intrinsic genetic trait which individuals are born with with no regard to their whims or fancies, then the creation of any legal mechanism which allows for folks of that ilk to be denied legal access to publicly available facilities smacks you as akin to the same complaint that we find with regard to race. And that is long decided as unacceptable.
So there's the rub.
A vendor cannot forbid me access to their services if I'm too tall, too short (unless you operate a carnival ride that is), too dark, too European, too Islamic (a choice but an equally protected one), too Christian (see Islam), or as in the case here sexual attraction.
The Indiana law made that possible. If it had not done so, then the governor of Indiana would have been able to plainly say so, and no alteration to the law would have been needed. That the desperate pols in that state were pressured into making their decision by the force of the marketplace doesn't speak to the question of what they did, only motivation. If nothing could be done but repeal the law, they might have done so, but they "fixed" it and in so doing admitted it was flawed, and intentionally so in my opinion despite protests to the contrary. They weren't enlightened, they were caught out.
So there's little to debate here. We believe what we believe. If the public (come as we are in all our many guises) is going to be fairly served by a variety of public businesses without undue discrimination then we have to make it plain that they must be served uniformly. But if you think that being gay is a choice like buying detergent or selecting a news source, then you can never be convinced that homosexuals can ever qualify for that protection.
But then you'd be wrong.
But that's your choice.