I Do Not Think That Means What You Think It Means

World Magazine has published a piece titled No Middle Ground. It is an excerpt from a book by Erick Erickson. It begins as follows:

When the state of Indiana passed legislation to protect religious freedom in 2015, corporate America, which tends to worship a green god of its own, threatened to pull out of economic activity in Indiana. And the media ginned up a hypothetical case of discrimination. A reporter asked the owners of Memories Pizza, a family restaurant that does not even cater weddings, whether they would cater a same-sex wedding. When the owners said that to do so would violate their conscience, the media firestorm erupted—inspiring fake orders and death threats that forced Memories Pizza temporarily out of business. Governor Pence and the legislature quickly caved to the bullies on the Left and modified the legislation, and people of faith in Indiana found their religious liberties more at risk than ever. And we still did not have one case of actual discrimination to illustrate the rabid fears of discrimination against gay people.

Memories Pizza may have jumped to the top of media attention, but evangelical publications like the one this is printed in actively encourage wedding providers to deny services to gay and lesbian couples and have covered numerous cases of discrimination against gay people, each time championing those who are doing the discriminating. Surely Erickson is not ignorant of that?

This section is titled “Live-and-Let-Live Legislation.”

I do not think that is how it works.

As we’ve seen throughout this book, we need live-and-let-live legislation to protect religious liberty. For-profit businesses can’t discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, but they do reserve the right not to provide goods and services for events or engage in acts that offend the conscience of the business owner.

Wait wait wait wait wait. Those two things are contradictory. Businesses can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation—but they do have the right to refuse to provide goods and services for events that offend their consciences. Such as gay weddings. But that’s somehow not discrimination.

Except that it absolutely and totally is.

People should be free to live and work according to their faith without fear of being punished by government. That freedom of conscience is a basic human right that deserves protection under the law. Live-and-let-live legislation like RFRA simply ensures that religious liberty gets a fair hearing in court and protects every person’s freedom from government intrusion, regardless of party, religion, race, orientation, or any other aspect of someone’s identity.

I’ve got news for you, bro. Sometimes “government intrusion” is necessary to protect the rights of various groups. Those who champion “freedom from government intrusion” tend to be those whose rights are not under threat from private individuals. Those with a long history and continuing presence of private discrimination tend to want government intrusion. Consider how school desegregation worked. Add to that that those talking about “freedom from government intrusion” are extremely selective when doing so—consider that in the 1970s conservatives in many locales banned gay people from working as teachers.

Some “freedom from government intrusion” you got there.

When Pence and Indiana Republicans went back and included a discrimination prohibition in RFRA, they essentially gutted it, leaving churches and believers in the state in a worse position than they were before. It was a complete cave-in in Indiana, brought about by outrage orchestrated by gay-marriage-friendly businesses and the media.

In other words, when Pence et al. amended the legislation to prevent it from being used to justify discrimination against other groups, this change “gutted” the bill. Meaning, of course, that the entire purpose of the RFRA, according to Erickson, was to allow evangelical Christians to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples by refusing them services.

Erickson describes the RFRA as “live-and-let-live legislation.” But how is refusing service to gay couples living and letting live? Wouldn’t living and letting live involve saying “I believe in traditional marriage and that won’t change, but you disagree, no big deal, enjoy your cake”? Isn’t that the very definition of live and let live?

Erickson isn’t describing live and let live, he’s describing live and discriminate.

Marvin Olasky, World’s edit0r-in-chief, offered this note in the intro:

Its crucial takeaway concerning the battle to preserve religious liberty: “There will be no middle ground. Many people would like to find middle ground. Many churches would like to find middle ground. But there will be none, because homosexuals and their culture war warriors on the Left are unwilling to have a middle ground.”

I do not think “middle ground” means what he thinks it does either.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!