April 3^rd

Yesterday I responded to many of the misrepresentations in today’s column from Cal Thomas. (I guess I should have waited twenty-four hours to write yesterday’s blog.) Let’s look at some of Cal’s fumbles in his current column: He begins his defense of Governor Pence and his infamous law by claiming that allowing public businesses to refuse service to certain people on the basis of the business owners religious beliefs is similar to refusing service to people without a necktie showing up to dine in an upscale restaurant. I’m sure Cal would never commit such a gaucherie but if he had he would quickly discover that most such upscale eateries maintain a closet of jackets and ties for patrons who arrive lacking them. If a gay couple shows up, their failure to conform would be difficult to determine and, if found out, impossible to remedy with a necktie.

Cal Thomas tells us that Swiss Guards insisting that you can’t wear shorts when visiting the Vatican, or restaurant signs saying “No shoes no shirt, no service,” are the same as Indiana’s law restricting access to public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. Really?  Here is a quote, “Should the government force any of these entities to violate their standards? That is the issue in Indiana, the latest front in the culture wars.” Cal Thomas believes businesses requiring dress codes to obtain restaurant service are equivalent to businesses requiring you to be heterosexual? Can anyone read this without gagging?

Then he gives us the usual, “Barak Obama voted for a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1998. Other states have similar measures…” Horse hockey! Notice the weasel words, “A version of” and “similar to.” Cal says nothing at all about the differences involved in these “versions” and “similarities.” His aim as usual is to befuddle, not enlighten.

According to Cal Thomas the problem can be laid at the feet of the left wing liberal establishment co-opted by the LGBT community for its own purposes…oh yes and aided and abetted by the left-leaning liberal press. This is the reflexively uttered excuse for any screw-ups the right wing has had to answer for.

As I wrote yesterday, the businesses objecting to this law are surely a mixed bag politically and they object because they worry about their bottom line. Walmart in Arkansas, Angie’s List in Indiana are hardly left wing and neither of them is likely to be swayed by issues not directly influencing their revenues. Neither is the Republican Mayor of Indianapolis who urged Pence to change the law before Indianapolis’ convention business dried up.

Cal Thomas is a columnist whose views are in the mainstream of the far right wing of his party, and, as usual, on the wrong side of history. If they prevail, and it looks like they will, Hillary Clinton, or indeed any other Democrat, has nothing to worry about in 2016.