Rick Santorum cited the Westboro Baptist Church’s “God Hates Fags” slogan while defending Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act this weekend…. “Tolerance is a two-way street,” Santorum said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday. “If you’re a print shop and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print ‘God Hates Fags’ for the Westboro Baptist Church because they hold those signs up? And this is really the case here: Should the government force you to do that? And that’s what these cases are all about. This is about the government coming in and saying, ‘No we’re gonna make you do this.’ And this is where I think we just need some space to say, ‘Let’s have some tolerance be a two-way street.’”…. Westboro Baptist is notorious for holding signs emblazoned with “God Hates Fags” and remarks about sodomy when picketing at funerals or outside businesses and venues.
I realize that some who lean to the right may look at the title of this post and blow a gasket, but any reasonable, rational person should be able to see that Santorum’s argument is prima facie absurd.
To assume to there is an implied right to hatred and discrimination is ridiculous. Christians of whatever flavor and regardless of their personal views are no better or worse than anyone else. To grant Westboro Baptist Church the unfettered right to spread their hatred and bile make a mockery of tolerance. Santorum’s belief that refusing to be tolerant of intolerence is in itself intolerance is almost enough to make my head explode.
I can’t speak for Santorum, but I proceed from the assumption that “all men [people] are created equal.” That means no one person or group has the right to marginalize, discriminate against, or oppress any one person or group because of who they are. America, a nation blessed with secular governance (not a “Christian nation”), and where the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and expression, doesn’t stand for hatred. Nowhere in the 1st Amendment is there expressed (or implied) a right to discriminate against a minority class. Westboro Baptist Church is free to express themselves, just as counter-protesters are free to push back, but they have no legal right to engage in hate speech. Contrary to Santorum’s opinion, there is no legal requirement to tolerate intolerance.
Santorum said the law was not about discrimination against individuals for who they are, but rather support for business owners to abstain from activities based on ideology.
“Obviously attitudes in this country change and when those attitudes change, we run into a whole bunch of new issues,” he said, referring to the national shift to acceptance of same-sex marriage. “And so the question is how do we deal with that in respecting people on both sides of the issues? And I think that’s where you have to differentiate between discrimination against the person because of who they are and discrimination and … unwillingness to participate in actions because they’re inconsistent with your religious beliefs.”
Where Santorum becomes something less than honest is his assertion that RFRA wasn’t about “discrimination against individuals for who they are, but rather support for business owners to abstain from activities based on ideology.” RFRA was ABSOLUTELY about discriminating against individuals for who they are and how they live and love. One press release obtained by The Washington Post makes it abundantly clear:
VICTORY AT THE STATEHOUSE!
Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!
Supporters of RFRA make a distinction that turns out to be patently false:
The Post also says that these people see a distinction between turning away an LGBT customer, and refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding. The problem is, there is no distinction. If you do weddings, but you refuse to do a same-sex wedding, you’re turning away LGBT customers because they’re LGBT.
Plain and simple, RFRA is about discrimination. It’s about denying goods and services to people because of who they are. Santorum is merely trying (ineffectively) to provide justification for intolerance by claiming that those engaging in discrimination and hate speech have a legal right to do so. The problem with that argument is that there’s no legal right to intolerance. The rule of law doesn’t provide for discriminating against a minority class because your “religious beliefs” require you to do so.
Sometimes the role of government is to protect a minority class from discrimination and oppression. Government is not going to force Christian bakers, florists, and photographers to participate in a same-sex marriage. They can decline business opportunities for any numbers of reasons, but refusing to provide service based on a person’s sexuality is wrong. Despite what Santorum may believe, intolerance of intolerance is NOT intolerance.
