David Brooks is not a good journalist, but even his latest article took me by surprise. He basically says that gay people getting married is okay, but only if they accept that businesses will hate them and refuse to serve them. I am not exaggerating.
Craig and Mullins were understandably upset [when they were refused a wedding cake]. As Mullins told Liptak, “We were mortified and just felt degraded.” Nobody likes to be refused service just because of who they essentially are. In a just society people are not discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
At this point, Craig and Mullins had two possible courses of action, the neighborly and the legal.
He goes on to add:
But the legal course has some disadvantages. It is inherently adversarial. It takes what could be a conversation and turns it into a confrontation. It is dehumanizing. It ends persuasion and relies on the threat of state coercion. It is elitist. It takes a situation that could be addressed concretely on the ground and throws it up, as this one now has been, to the Supreme Court, where it will be decided by a group of Harvard and Yale law grads.
To be clear, the homophobia of the baker is just a part of a “neighborly” dispute. The gay couple suing to protect their civil rights? “Elitist.” Confrontational. “Dehumanizing.” This is how David Brooks sees the world: LGBTQ people are tolerable, just as long as they don’t stick up for themselves.
Look, this isn’t the first time David Brooks has made this sort of argument. And it probably won’t be the last! It’s still condescending garbage.