Ruth Institute Blog

Prominent writers recently wrestled with the following question: If a business declines to photograph a same sex wedding, does that automatically prove the owner is an “anti-gay bigot”?

Ross Douthat started the conversation with his op-ed at the New York Times which echoed the left’s mantra that the debate is over and same-sex marriage will soon win.  The only question remaining is, will gay rights activists honour freedom and “let the dissenters opt out,” or will they be pressured and sued into celebrating same sex marriages?

At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern promptly criticized Douthat for claiming the war was already won.  This is odd since this is precisely what the left’s talking point has been for months:  Same sex marriage is inevitable, so give up already.

Which Douthat did.

Stern also excoriated Douthat for portraying religious business owners as victims:

Douthat, like most state legislators who have defended “religious liberty” bills, explicitly cites that infamous trio: a florist, a photographer, and a baker, who claimed their Christianity required that they deny service to gay couples. There’s a reason these same three cases pop up time and time again: They tell a very human story of a small-business owner suddenly trapped in the labyrinth of a lawsuit, the victim of the gay rights movement run amok.

(Does Stern believe only gays have the right to play the victim card?)

For someone who argues against hatred, Stern’s piece is curiously full of contempt.  He calls Douthat’s opinion “homophobic apologia.”  But perhaps Stern is merely following the example of the highest court in the land.

The US Supreme Court did a grave disservice to both sides of the marriage debate when they claimed that everyone who wants to preserve gender-integration in marriage must be motivated by “animus.”  This only encourages gay rights activists to look suspiciously at supporters of pro-gender marriage.

Fortunately, many see through the Court’s animus argument.  As Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic noticed:

The Slate article is implicitly trafficking in its own sort of prejudice. The working assumption is that homophobia, anti-gay bigotry, and hatred are obviously what’s motivating anyone who declines to provide a service for a gay wedding.  That assumption is wrongheaded.

Keep reading.