Beliefs sincerely held

Rep. Emily Virgin rains on intolerance

Around the time Indiana legislators were debating their religious freedom act (if only I could make the italics bigger), our very own Rep. Chuck Strohm (R-South Tulsa/Bixby/Jenks) introduced HB 1371, a truly horrendous bill that would have allowed individuals and businesses to refuse service—here, in the Sooner State—to people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender and Jews*, as long as they claimed that interacting with them was against their religious beliefs. 

Think of it as retail discrimination—in the name of Jesus!

(*And of course Jews were not named in Strohm’s bill, but tell me how a baker who believes that Jews killed his Lord and Savior wouldn’t be protected under this law if he refused to cater a Bar Mitzvah?)

Just when we were on the cusp of taking our rightful place on the nightly national blooper reel, state legislator Emily Virgin (D-OKC) called the bet and introduced an amendment that flummoxed the bill’s proponents.

Any person not wanting to participate in any of the activities set forth in subsection A of this section based on sexual orientation, gender identity or race of either party to the marriage shall post notice of such refusal in a manner clearly visible to the public in all places of business, including websites.  The notice may refer to the person’s religious beliefs, but shall state specifically which couples the business does not serve by referring to a refusal based upon sexual orientation, gender identity or race.

Hit deep, and I don't think it's playable. 

Serving certain customers intrude on your personal relationship with God, does it? Fine. Just post a list of those who give you the willies on your front window so the rest of us can decide if we want to do business with you.

As it turned out, HB 1371 never got to the full House or Senate for a vote—much less to the desk of the twice-married governor who defends traditional marriage (and Virgin deserves at least a lion’s share of the credit). But I do wonder, in my dark periods here in Oklahoma (usually when state government is in session), how many business owners would have proudly posted a sign trumpeting their faith-based hatred.

Even so, for anyone scoring at home (and if you're not, you should really start), this is how you beat crazy. You strip away its veneer and hold the underlying malady and meanness up to the light. 

Besides, when you’re to the right of NASCAR, Walmart, diesel engine maker Cummins Inc. and Eli Lilly on an issue, you should be sent to bed without dinner. 

Keep in mind that the national Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993—used as a legal shield by Indiana, Arkansas and people like Strohm—was meant to protect individuals, such as Native Americans who want to use peyote during religious ceremonies, from the federal government. It was not intended, as the Indiana law was crafted, to allow owners of a Fort Wayne hotel the right to refuse a recently-married lesbian couple the honeymoon suite.

But now let us head to Washington and check in with regular visitors to the column—our two pillars of piety and purity, our two U.S. senators who, instead of warning against a religiously, arbitrarily segregated nation urged, “Onward, Christian shopkeepers!”

Sen. Jim Inhofe, who once proudly proclaimed that he’d never had a gay or lesbian member in his family, introduced an amendment to a federal budget bill that would protect those who discriminate based on “sincerely held” religious beliefs. 

What a guy, huh? That weasel word “sincerely” leaves one so inclined enough room to park and operate a segregated food truck.

Meanwhile, Sen. James Lankford, who (though a camp director in his previous life) once scientifically assured a confused nation that homosexuality was a choice, doubled down on those comments  (because who wouldn’t want to be gay in America, considering how well you’d be treated?) and compared discrimination against same-sex couples with buying humanely raised pork.

You heard right.

From an editorial he co-authored with Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.): 

“It is crucial that the same freedom of conscience enjoyed by the leadership of Chipotle remain equally available to business owners of faith,” they wrote. “Indeed, much more so, as freedom of religion is explicitly protected by the First Amendment. We cannot simultaneously laud the leaders of a business motivated by a commitment to environmental sustainability and discriminate against the leaders of a business motivated by religious belief.”

For the love of Sodom, Gomorrah and a burrito bowl, he didn’t just equate the treatment of the LGBT community with placing a meat order, did he?

Perhaps we should let Chipotle handle this one.

“It’s a pretty ridiculous comparison,” Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold told The Huffington Post. “Our decision not to serve pork that doesn’t meet our standards isn’t discriminating against any customers or group of customers.”

It's not every day you get to hear someone in corporate America say, “WTF!”

When the Indiana law passed, many—including Inhofe and Lankford—were shocked at suggestions it would be used to discriminate against gays and lesbians, even as Mike Huckabee intimated the LGBT community deserved it for plotting to destroy America. These are the same legislators, by the way, who said they would never frequent a place that discriminated yet have posed with smiles and waffle fries from Chick-fil-A. These leaders have also supported Hobby Lobby, a model Christian company dedicated to Chinese manufactured goods and restricting women’s access to reproductive freedoms that donated millions to an organization once run by Bill Gothard (who said in response to sexual harassment charges, “My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong”).  

But two men in love who want a sheet cake is the end of the republic.

I digress. 

Faced with the scorn of everyone outside the Fox News green room—not to mention the prospect of losing convention business—the bill’s proponents agreed to fix the discriminatory aspects they were shocked to discover in the bill. And now, even though the discriminatory aspects they were shocked to discover were discriminatory have been removed (but damn you, liberals, and your political correctness for making such a thing about it!), they still maintain that discrimination is constitutionally protected (see recent decisions from Arkansas and Mississippi) as long as it comes from one’s understanding of God’s word.

For though Jesus commanded, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” he didn’t say you had to serve them all pizza. 

For more musings about this red state giving Barry the blues, check out thetulsavoice.com/Barry