« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
12/16/2014
Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point
On Monday's edition of Tony Perkins' daily radio show, anti-LGBT activist and reality TV personality Josh Duggar showed up to chat with guest host Richard Land about the recent repeal of an LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance in Fayetteville, Arkansas (both Josh and his mother Michelle had put themselves front and center of this debate). And while Josh and Richard have a good ol' time talking about "lifestyles" and "agendas" as they push the anti-intellectual notion that LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances are somehow different than nondiscrimination ordinances that already protect religious people, Josh makes a personal point about his own past work as a used car dealer which he doesn't seem to realize actually weakens rather than strengthens the point he's trying to make. Have a listen (car dealing part comes at :45):
SOURCE: Tony Perkins' Washington Watch [FRC]
Josh says he sold cars with people who believed differently than he does, and it wasn't an issue. And that's precisely the point. Small business owners can and should engage in commerce with the public without imposing any sort of morality test on the transaction. If you are a business owner who sets up a shingle and purports to sell your wares to "all comers," then it is not okay to arbitrarily determine that certain consumers are disqualified from those goods and services simply because of your personal religious beliefs. Frankly, this is a "debate" most of us had thought we left back in the 20th century.
But now people like Josh demand that goods and services sold yo us constitute "agreement." Well who the hell is to say what does and does not constitute "agreement"?! Some religions believe that women can't drive. If a man who holds this belief opens a car dealership, is he allowed to deny car purchases to women consumers so long as he claims it's his religious conviction? If not, then why not, Josh? What makes an anti-gay evangelical's reluctance to sell a cake or flowers more deserving than any other religious person's personally-held conviction? Who gets to say that baking a cake constitutes "agreement" more than some other transaction that is performed for some other customer? If you want to talk about "slippery slopes"—and people like Josh *love* to do so—then this could be the ultimate one. It's so damn arbitrary.
But the truth here can be summed up in Richard Land's closing comments above. Josh and Richard simply do not believe that the bible supports our "lifestyles," and they don't want a fair and free American to do so either. Period. End of story. Full stop. And the thing is, they have every right to hold such an exclusionary view. I fully support that right. I just wish they'd be honest about it.
Your thoughts
comments powered by Disqus
