Are all these religious freedom bills really about religious freedom? And by that I mean the principle of religious freedom — freedom for everyone, not just for members of the anti-gay tribe. Apparently for Ryan Anderson, the Heritage Foundation’s expert on marriage, the answer is a resounding NO – religious freedom is not the issue.
A lovely aspect of Twitter is the way it enforces bluntness. Sure, the 140-character limit wipes out any shot at subtlety or nuance, but it also spares us the onslaught of rhetoric that people so often use to wrap ugly views in a soft, gauzy glow. Look at this exchange on Ryan’s twitter feed. The first message is someone challenging Ryan on his discrimination argument, followed by Ryan’s reply.
@IngrahamAngle @RyanT_Anderson Since when is not being refused service by a for-profit business because of who you are a "special right"?
— Ian Thompson (@iantDC) February 27, 2014
@iantDC @IngrahamAngle you have no right to have anyone bake you a wedding cake.
— Ryan T. Anderson (@RyanT_Anderson) February 27, 2014
@RyanT_Anderson @IngrahamAngle Bakeries aren't able to turn away interracial couples. Why is anti-gay discrimination more acceptable?
— Ian Thompson (@iantDC) February 27, 2014
@iantDC @IngrahamAngle racism is wrong. Marriage has nothing to do with keeping the races apart. Marriage is about uniting male and female.
— Ryan T. Anderson (@RyanT_Anderson) February 27, 2014
Ah, racism is wrong. Ryan’s bluntness reveals two things. First, that he doesn’t think anti-gay discrimination is wrong. I guess that’s not a news flash, but it contrasts with disingenuous commentators who say, Of course I’m opposed to discrimination, but we have to respect people’s freedom. (By the way, I don’t find that indefensible; I just rarely find it to be sincere.)
Second, he shows this isn’t about religious freedom for him. Sure, he thinks racism is morally wrong. And that’s based on his religious views. But others may (do!) find their faith not only fails to find racism wrong, but actually mandates it. These are both religious views. From a “religious liberty” perspective, the only difference is that one of them is part of Ryan’s religion while the other is not — but Ryan wishes liberty only for his own beliefs.
Which, of course, is how we know Ryan isn’t really an advocate for religious freedom.
Keep in mind, this is the man who wrote:
Liberty protects the rights of citizens even to do things we might personally disagree with. http://t.co/svqMn5QaND via @Heritage
— Ryan T. Anderson (@RyanT_Anderson) February 25, 2014
Really, though, he means liberty protects the right of people to do things you and I might disagree with, but if he disagrees with them, then liberty can go bake a cake. Freedom for me, but not for thee.