It’s always amusing to hear conservatives rail against the evils of anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT people with arguments that are actually in opposition to all anti-discrimination laws, then try to find ways to wiggle out of the dilemma they create for themselves. Tony Perkins, for example:
Espuelas, however, pointed out that “the idea that someone who has a business license can then discriminate against one group or another is something that was put to rest in the 1960s.”
“We’re talking about forcing someone to take their creative ability, their talent and force them,” Perkins insisted. “This is almost forced servitude, saying that you have to be a part of this or the state is going to punish you.”
“That’s essentially the same argument as segregation,” Espuelas stated.
Perkins disagreed: ‘We’re talking about marriage. That is a sacred institution. Just three years ago the president had the same view.”
“But he didn’t have the view that people should be discriminated against,” Espuelas said. “How is it not discrimination if you pick one group, a specific group of people and have different rights for them? How is that not discrimination?”
“No one can deny that marriage is a religious ceremony,” Perkins insisted. “And you’re forcing someone to violate their beliefs.”
Yep. Just like the law has required for more than 50 years in regard to interracial marriages. So businesses should be allowed to discriminate against interracial couples, right Tony? After all, you’re “forcing someone to violate their beliefs.” So that’s forced servitude too, by your own “reasoning,” isn’t it? In fact, the fact that a business cannot refuse to serve someone because of their Christianity, isn’t that “forced servitude” too? Please, sling us some bullshit to try to make a coherent argument for why not.