Mohler on reviving Jim Crow: He’s in favor

Nobody will be surprised to learn that Saint Albert favors adopting Jim Crow-like laws in order to perpetuate the degradation of gays. What surprises is that he actually attempts to offer a reasoned justification.

Several states are now considering legislation that would provide explicit protections to citizens whose consciences will not allow an endorsement of same-sex marriage. The bills vary by state, as do the prospects for legislative passage, but the key issues remain constant.

Has he read any of these bills? The Kansas bill, say? That one provides a broad license to discriminate against gays — to refuse service in restaurants, to refuse lodging, to refuse to gays even ordinary public services, such as the assistance of police. Mohler is being at least disingenuous here, if not outright dishonest.

But perhaps the strangest and most disappointing dimension of the current controversy is the entry of some Christians on the side of coercing the conscience. Writing in USA Today, Kirsten Powers accused Christians supporting such legislation of “essentially arguing for homosexual Jim Crow laws.” She explicitly denied that florists and bakers and photographers are forced to “celebrate” a same-sex union when forced to provide their services for such a ceremony.

Well, my wife and I recently celebrated the wedding of our daughter. We not only celebrated it, we paid for it. And I can assure you that we were expecting our florist and cake baker and photographer to celebrate it as well.

No. The baker, the florist, the photographer, the owner of the hall where the reception is held, the band or deejay … they are all vendors who provide a service or good in exchange for money; they are not celebrants; they are business people engaged in trade. Mohler knows that perfectly well; that’s why he thinks paying for it entitles him to expect them to smile.

If you hang out a shingle and offer to do business with the public, that means all of the public. You have left the privacy of your home or church and now occupy a public space — and the public at whose sufferance you do business has every right on earth to specify the conditions under which you do business. Degrading others for Jesus just doesn’t make it any more.

I should add, I suppose, that this works both ways. A gay florist would not have had the right to refuse service to Mohler’s daughter’s wedding on the grounds that Baptist dunderheads give him headaches.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • michaelinnorfolk

    Bob, you are correct. Some of these proposed laws are so wide open in their language that those who see St. Albert and those like him as modern day Pharisees could in theory refuse services, accommodations, etc. Ditto for Muslims and other non-Christians who hold the “godly folk” in low regard. Of course, we call all imagine the spittle flecked outrage that would follow the first time a knuckle dragging Christofascists had a door slammed in their face.

  • Bernie

    Bob – our favorite, TheOnion, did a bit on the Arizona law and the last bullet kind of summed it up succinctly (in their very sarcastic yet brilliant style) – ”
    Safeguards Arizona residents’ freedom to practice Jesus Christ’s teachings of love, inclusion, and tolerance,35369/

  • BobFelton

    Bernie — Right! I suppose what is most shocking to me is the baldness of their malice in combination with the fact that these are the *exact*same*arguments* and language that were used to justify JIm Crow. And Mohler takes exception to that characterization? The Civil Rights movement was nurtured in the black churches, and scores upon scores of white pastors who supported it saw their careers destroyed. I have a sort of fantasy: 50-years from now, Mohler’s grandchildren are pointing toward outliers such as John Spong and piously claiming it was the churches that established rights for gays.