There is a lively back and forth between
Slate's
Mark David Stern and
The Atlantic's
Conor Friedersdorf (all responding, more or less, to
Ross Douthat's
New York Times op-ed) on the gay marriage-cum-religious discrimination debate, which I think presents a snapshot of the entire LGBT rights discussion today.
Stern wrote a piece taking issue with Douthat's disingenuous religious freedom nonsense, and outlined persuasively how red state politicians may use the arguments moving forward. Friedersdorf responded with a less thoughtful rebuke, and Stern has (to date) the last word.
Since this argument—that there’s no parallel between 2014 Kansas and 1960 North Carolina—is really the crux of Douthat’s column, I wish he’d given us even a glimpse into his rationale. But I have a decent idea of why he didn’t. At the core of Douthat’s argument is a tacit shrug that, well, obviously anti-gay discrimination isn’t as bad as racism: The Bible’s hostility toward gays is a good deal clearer than its distaste for blacks.
The essence of the new "religious discrimination" tactic is to attack the victims, much the same way racists denigrate their accusers as merely "playing the race card." It's despicable, no matter how prettily dressed or religiously outfitted.