Liars are usually clever — you have to give them that. And one of the things the really smart ones know how to do is to use the last lie you caught them in as a basis for getting you to believe the lie they are currently telling. Take the specter of Jim Crow laws and the current “scratch a liberal, find a totalitarian” frenzy that we have going on right now. Or, as Iowahawk aptly put it, “Hey, great job, ‘coexist’ bumper sticker community.”
The enabling problem with Jim Crow laws was the fact that they were LAWS. The sin involved was bigotry. The crime involved was coercion by the state. Bigots focus on the fact that people are white or black, and they run screaming to their first refuge, which is “there oughta be a law” that mandates the imposition of their bigotries. Entrepreneurs notice that everybody’s money is green, and they don’t demand that anybody do anything. And in a mixed community, where the free market is allowed to work, the general result is cosmopolitan.
So Jim Crow laws did not simply allow bigoted business owners to refuse service to those they detested. You don’t need a law for that. Jim Crow laws required non-bigoted business owners to act in a way contrary to their consciences. Sound familiar? And Jim Crow laws enshrined bigotry in the law, such that institutions governed directly by the state (e.g. schools) maintained and enforced the currently approved bigotries.
Got that? The problem was the government. If you were a white restaurant owner in Alabama, and your conscience said that you should be able to serve anyone who came in your one and only front door, well, then, too bad for you.
“It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment.”
Now why do people make such laws? They do it because if they didn’t make them, then other people would start to do the thing prohibited. Bigots don’t believe in argument because they consistently lose them. They routinely have bad experience with arguments. And so if you want to identify the bigots in any situation, then look for the screechers. Look for the people who are shouting everyone else down. Look for the coercion. In response to this the liberals say, “It is not like that at all.” “How is it not like that?” I ask. “Shut up,” they explain.
They want tolerance on the ballot the way Kim Jong-un wants to be on the ballot — he just loves those landslide victories. Nothing better than unanimous elections. Makes you feel warm all over. The problem with Jim Crow laws is that they cudgeled people to keep them from doing the right thing. The problem with the current application of “anti-discrimnation” laws is that they cudgel people to keep them from doing the right thing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The problem is that we should not entrust the power of the cudgel to cowards and idiots. The government is a cats paw for thugs and bullies, and is usually headed up by “profiles in courage” like Pence and Hutchinson, who can be counted on to go white in the face and weak in the knees whenever they are confronted by an angry mob.
I have been predicting this kind of nonsense for many years, and have repeatedly pointed out that it flows necessarily from certain incoherent principles that the secular state wants to regard as axiomatic and virtuous. Take, for example, “discrimination is wrong.” This needs to challenged every time it rears its little pinhead because discrimination is inescapable. The only question concerns the principles used for discrimination, not the fact of it. And when back in the day I predicted the orgy-porgy that was coming, a lot of Christians wanted me to shut up because “why are you making trouble like this?” Well, we are there now, and so I consider myself as someone who would be vindicated if anybody were still paying attention. There is no profit in being vindicated by the fulfillment of your prophecies if the fulfillment of those prophecies could only occur because of a widespread judicial stupor. When the court seers have their drunken heads on a table covered with vomit and filthiness, no one sits up suddenly in order to say, “Hey! Didn’t Isaiah talk about this?” (Is. 28:7-8).
So, then, what should our conclusion be? To refuse to glorify a detestable act is not sinful, it is both virtuous and courageous. This does not mean Christians believe that they have a responsibility to participate in a parallel economy, distinct from all “sinners.” The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness of it. We don’t get ethical cooties from standing on the opposite side of a cash register from a homosexual, or adulterer, or embezzler, or Republican congressman. If I can buy a roast from a priestess of Aphrodite (1 Cor. 10:25), then I can certainly buy one from a homosexual. And if we are on opposite sides of the counter, I can sell something to a homosexual. Fine.
So the professions in question, then, the current battleground professions, are the glorifying professions. They are the professions that say on their business card that “we make your event look good.” These are the photographers, the florists, the bakers, the caterers, the videographers, the graphic designers. Our job is to glorify what you are doing. The problem is caused when people demand that they use that expertise for an event that is perfectly appalling. It is like taking your chimp to the beautician, and blaming the beautician for the results. When there is social turmoil as a consequence, you can count on somebody suggesting that we fix everything with fines and sensitivity training for the beauticians. And that somebody will be part of the coexist crowd.
And even if these people were entirely wrong about it — which they are NOT — why the coercion? Leave the fellow alone, and quit trying to get your ham sandwich at the kosher deli.
So whatever they say (to the extent you can make it out under all the yelling), whether they like it or not, the current crop of progressives are the heirs of Jim Crow. They are the ones using the law to violate honest consciences. That’s just how they roll.