« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
04/09/2015
Maggie Gallagher's telling slip-up on what constitutes participation in a wedding
GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul took a question today about those "religious freedom" laws that keep reminding America of how much some people want to discriminate against us. And while longtime champion of marriage discrimination Maggie Gallagher is pleased, she did respond in a way that helps those of us who want to make the case that what the other side is seeking is, in fact, a special exemption. Here's the pertinent snip:
Congratulations to the Rand Paul campaign for being in the mix. I wish it had come sooner, and I wish it included more information on what he would do to protect the rights of those of us who oppose gay marriage to make a living, without government punishment. Does he mean just the wedding participants, or does he also mean the Christian bakers, florists, and photographers?
FULL: Rand Paul Speaks for Religious Freedom [Pulse 2016]
Catch that last line? "Does he mean just the wedding participants, or does he also mean the Christian bakers, florists, and photographers?" That's quite interesting considering the other side keeps demanding that baking a cake or arranging flowers does, in fact, constitute participation. Maggie is cutting right through that, the chief talking point that her movement uses to pretend that these vendors are something other than vendors who wish to discriminate.
Maggie is admitting what people like her really want with fights like the now-infamous one in Indiana: they seek "the rights of those of us who oppose gay marriage to make a living, without government punishment." Translation: They want the "right" to operate above and beyond fairly applied nondiscrimination law, even though Maggie herself admits that this isn't about actual participation in a wedding. They simply want a newfound "right" where public accommodations can turn away members of one certain minority group for no reason other than what they claim to be a religious objection. We call that discrimination.
Your thoughts
comments powered by Disqus
