Big surprise: Yesterday, conservative magazine National Review published an editorial in support of Arizona's anti-gay segregation law. It's condescending and it misses the point:
Gay Americans, like many members of minority groups, are poorly served by their self-styled leadership. Like feminists and union bosses, the leaders of the nation’s gay organizations suffer from oppression envy, likening their situation to that of black Americans — as though having to find a gay-friendly wedding planner (pro tip: try swinging a dead cat) were the moral equivalent of having spent centuries in slavery and systematic oppression under Jim Crow. Their goal is not toleration or even equal rights but official victim-group status under law and in civil society, allowing them to use the courts and other means of official coercion to impose their own values upon those who hold different values.
And it comes out in favor of segregation for everyone:
Those who do not wish to participate in gay weddings or other events could decline to do so — and those who believe them to be bigots could take their business elsewhere. In fact, one protester of the Arizona law has precisely the right idea: Outraged by the passage of this bill, a pizza-shop operator hung a sign in his door announcing that members of the state legislature were personae non gratae in his establishment. That, and not the micromanagement of secular divines in black robes, is the way to sort out this kind of social controversy.
So in National Review's official opinion, an America where anyone could ban anyone from anything at any time is preferable to the America we live in now? As far as National Review is concerned, the Oklahoma restaurant owner who won't serve "freaks" is the perfect conservative business model? Where does the segregation end?
Of course, as far as National Review is concerned, segregation shouldn't have ever ended. This is the magazine, after all, that published William F. Buckley's pro-segregation article in 1957 calling white people "the advanced race," and which then came very close to defending segregation laws in 2009. This article about Arizona is basically Buckley's pro-segregation argument, dressed up in some libertarian clothes for the 21st century. It's proof that National Review has learned absolutely nothing.