Every now and then, some conservative or right-wing commenter on some thread on some article somewhere on the Internet will directly and explicitly reveal, perhaps inadvertently, just how depraved some conservative political ideas and positions can be.
[Note: I use the word “conservative” here, per usual, as shorthand to refer to people who are generally fans of the GOP and tend to vote for and support Republicans in national elections. It’s a convenient term that I don’t really like to use, but I’ll ask for the reader’s indulgence.]
I’ve written about this a few times before. The topic for today is the corporate backlash against Georgia’s new “religious liberty” legislation, as discussed in this Mediaite article. Mediaite comment threads tend to contain a pretty good mix of political-animal species, so I go over there from time to time and wander into the proverbial cages to mix things up a bit.
Anyhoo, one of the creatures there was going on and on about “tolerance,” about how we liberals are so “intolerant” and how we should be more “tolerant” of people who have strong religious beliefs and don’t want to participate in gay weddings or pay for contraception coverage for their employees, like the poor little nuns that we have intolerantly “forced” to do that. “I can’t imagine being so intolerant,” he said, to “force a Muslim caterer to serve a gay wedding” or to “punish a feminist for refusing to photograph a patriarchal orthodox wedding.” Only I, meaning “the Left,” can “imagine being so intolerant.”
OK, getting to the good part. At one point after sifting through some of the standard strawmen and the usual passive-aggressive nonsense I explained:
[Y]our "Muslim caterer" will, and should, be at risk of being sued for "refusing to cater a gay wedding" if such discrimination is against the law in his jurisdiction. Same for your "feminist" photographer, as commercial discrimination on the basis of religion is actionable everywhere in the U.S.
Response:
I just disagree with you here. I am in favor of more tolerance and openness, not less. I don't really think we suffer from too much tolerance.
(emphasis added). Me:
Commercial discrimination is not an act of "tolerance" or "openness." Neither is sanctioning such behavior by eliminating the risk of civil liability.
Then, the pièce de résistance:
But allowing someone to discriminate against yourself, is.
Wow.
Seriously, wow. Think about that for a second.
Around the same time, a second response appeared, apparently a clarification saying, “It would be intolerant of me to force someone to serve me” (which is Wingnuttese for, “...to sue someone for commercial discrimination”), but the response quoted above is the one that got my attention. “[A]llowing someone to discriminate against yourself” is, in this person’s world, “an act of ‘tolerance’ [and] ‘openness.’” And the obvious corollary, that “tolerance” means “allowing someone” to violate your legal rights, by e.g. “discriminating against yourself,” and not taking any steps to vindicate those rights. Unless you’re willing to let people treat you like dirt if they feel like it, you are intolerant.
Is this really the conservative notion of “tolerance,” viz., “Let us walk all over you”? Was this person really calling for the LGBT community to just willingly allow themselves to be discriminated against? Is that what conservatives expect? Conservatives are always mocking liberals for being “intolerant” despite claiming to be the “tolerant” ones, and it almost never makes any sense. But this is the first time I’ve heard/read a conservative actually say that “tolerance” means “allowing someone to discriminate against yourself,” viz, Let us (conservatives and their political/ideological cohorts and allies) do whatever we want to you (liberals and their cohorts/allies), don’t complain about it, don’t say we’re wrong, don’t try to stop us or make us change, and don’t dare try to make us pay for it.
But allowing someone to discriminate against yourself, is.
What a remarkably revealing statement. It’s rare, but it’s awesome when it happens.
