I’m sure some of you have noted lugubrious gnashing from the corporate/liberal left following recent ratification of Indiana’s religious freedom law. I have not actually found a clean copy of the legislation and so am relying on journalism’s renowned good-faith to describe its provisions. From what I can discern it grants wavers for Indiana businesses to deny service to BLTs on religious grounds. This being a direct result of the crass BLT baker knock-out game of which most are likely aware. Though for those not advised, it has become quite chichi for homosexers to specifically seek out businesses not inclined to leaven colonary confections and either force them into their own ovens or sue them to bankruptcy for the impertinence. These are champions of tolerance, you see. The Indiana law was an attempt to forestall this playful movement before it could find traction in the Hoosier state.
The articles I have read on the topic have not been merely apoplectic. They have been grindingly dumb, with comments to match. Not typically prosaically dumb, as one would expect from remarks on any liberal hobby horse. But surprisingly dumb, almost shockingly so. “The Indiana Law that fell off the stupid tree.” A click of the link above will reveal a grown man actually serving up that primeval cliché.
In no single article or comment did I see acknowledgement of the native friction assiduously not under debate. That being the inherent tension between freedom and some youthful concept called “nondiscrimination.” Whether they are angelic moral paragons or satanic teapartiers, free people will discriminate. And in a vast array of manners. It would be useful if this could be openly acknowledged without triggering a cacophony from the hate hens. Alas, it may not. Though not speaking isn’t the same as not being. And granted latitude, people will do, say, and think what others want them not free to do. Those others, in turn, will desire a range of motion that separate third parties wish equally restricted. And for each, the sodium pentothal position is: We want to be free to speak and associate exactly as we please, and for you to do exactly as we say. Everything else is a lie marinated in moralizing. And the winners are those who have the platform, discipline, or guns to maintain their lie to victory.
If one were actually interested in a minimally manageable heterogeneous society for the brief duration such things are fated, certain questions must be openly debated. Contra 319,572 comments and counting, that question actually isn’t “who’s the white bigot?” Rather it is where are the boundaries between freedom of association and this thing called nondiscrimination? And where frontiers are unmarked, to which do we default? Though these are the queries of extremists and hardly the province for sober reflection. Instead we get this:
Let’s be 100-percent clear: Indiana’s brand new Religious Freedom Law is a measure that fell off the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down. And I say that as not only a conservative, but a religious conservative.
Conservative Ghost Shirting. There is no more frequent preamble to a litany of liberal positions than the words “I’m a conservative but…”
The law isn’t even a day old and it’s already showing very bad results for the entire state of Indiana, including the religious people it was supposed to protect. Just hours after Governor Mike Pence signed the bill into law, Salesforce.com founder and CEO Marc Benioff announced on Twitter that his company is canceling all business with the state that would require its customers to, “travel to Indiana to face discrimination.” Other tech company leaders followed suit with similar statements before the day was out.
I’m not going to continue quoting as its tedious and the most garish drivel follows in the comments. Though again we note the core premise of modern “conservatism:” serving big business. Indiana’s law was jettisoned from the ‘stupid tree’ because it’s “showing very bad results” for corporations. And for what other purpose are infants in Indiana conceived than to produce robust margin growth? One could understand this unseemly allegiance if the relationship were remotely symbiotic. Though it is not. Conservative voters empower the political stooges of big business, who subsequently undercut them at every opportunity. Democrats are equally obedient and perhaps even more comical in indulging long cherished fantasies of opposition to the CEOcracy.
Would it be discriminatory to refuse my guests Rock Hill bourbon rather than Basil Hayden? WTF cares. It’s the very good results going down that I’m interested in.