The backlash against the backlash against Indiana's new religious freedom law

[Goferit]

Not to go all M.C. Escher, but is someone who protests against
intolerance guilty of intolerance?

That's the question posed by the backlash against the backlash
to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Exhibit A is
Memories Pizza of Walkerton, Ind., whose co-owner told a local
television news reporter, "If a gay couple came in and wanted us
to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no."
Explained Crystal O'Connor, whose family has owned the
restaurant for nine years, "We are a Christian establishment."

Her remarks circulated at the speed of the Interwebs, and not
long thereafter the restaurant was inundated with protests. And
as often happens on hot-button issues, some of the protesters
went too far.

For example, the Yelp page for Memories Pizza suddenly attracted
invective-filled reviews (plus a few racy photos of gay pizza
deliverymen) from people who probably wouldn't be caught dead in
Walkerton. The outpouring of approbation -- which included
threats to burn down the pizzeria -- was enough to persuade the
O'Connors to close their shop at least temporarily, with
O'Connor telling Glenn Beck's Blaze TV, "I don't know if we will
reopen."

As the kids say, so much hate. There's a bright, easily drawn
line between boycotts designed to change a business' practices
and those designed to destroy a business and render its
employees jobless. Regardless of what you think about the
O'Connors' beliefs, the threats against them cross that line.

The harder part -- and this goes to the heart of the debate over
the Indiana law -- is how to draw the line between righteous
boycotts and, well, intolerant ones.

The folks at TheBlaze TV were so outraged by how Memories Pizza
was being treated, including how its story was being covered by
much of the media, they started a crowdfunding campaign on
GoFundMe to support the O'Connors. By 5 p.m. Thursday it had
raised more than $284,000 from 10,193 pledges. Its original goal
had been a mere $25,000.

The comments by donors reflect at least three motives. Some
endorsed the O'Connors' refusal to bake pizzas for gay weddings.
Some expressed their support for business owners' freedom to
conduct their operations as they see fit. And some simply wanted
to help out a family they believed to be the victims of a
vicious public shaming.

As "Anonymous Dude" put it, "I am not a drone to shock reporting
or mindless social media immolation. You guys did not deserve
this. Good luck getting back on your feet."

We've seen this cycle repeatedly online. Someone's words or
deeds will unleash a torrent of denunciations and protests --
see, e.g., Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson -- that cause a
recursive backlash against the critics.

Where things get weird is when people protesting intolerance are
themselves accused of intolerance. Some of the GoFundMe donors
weren't objecting just to the threats and the hateful tone of
some of Memories Pizza's boycotters, but to the boycott itself.

>From the perspective of the boycotters, this is absurd. If I
refuse to sell you my products or services because I disapprove
of something about you, whether it be your race, your gender,
your age, your sexual orientation or your religion, that's
garden-variety discrimination. Here, O'Connor said she wouldn't
bake pizzas for a gay couple celebrating their marriage. That
hardly falls into a gray area.

The O'Connors' defenders would probably argue that it's not
intolerant to shun something you think is wrong. And to the
O'Connors and many of their supporters, gay marriage is wrong on
a fundamental, core-religious-belief level. To other supporters,
requiring people to do something that violates their beliefs is
wrong, regardless of what one may think about those beliefs.
That's why the GoFundMe campaign for Memories Pizza has done so
well.

But the same logic applies those who've shunned the restaurant
in response to Crystal O'Connor's comments. It's silly to accuse
the protesters of intolerance, as conservative pundit Timothy P.
Carney did Monday, because they don't want businesses to
discriminate against gays. Again, it's not intolerant to rail
against behavior you think is wrong. Otherwise, every protest
would be by its nature an act of intolerance, draining the word
of its meaning.

By the way, O'Connor could have avoided the controversy simply
by pointing out that her restaurant is dine-in only. It doesn't
make pizzas for anybody's wedding reception. Meanwhile, O'Connor
has said she has no problem serving gay people who come into the
restaurant, even though nothing in Indiana law or Walkerton's
local ordinances appears to compel her to do so. Nor would the
new state law change a thing on that front. From the
restaurant's perspective, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
is a non-issue. Or at least it should have been.

Follow Healey's intermittent Twitter feed: @jcahealey

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-indiana-
religious-freedom-boycotts-and-intolerance-20150402-story.html

The queers bit off more than they can chew this time. It might
even get a few of them killed.