One of the more noxious and predictable genres of social conservative screed takes the form of whining that the only discrimination we really need to worry about is the failure to make special accommodation for the sensibilities of bigots. Perhaps the ideal form of this particular whine was served up at the American Spectator yesterday:
A Washington Post article this morning about openly gay military service inadvertently reveals the intellectual intolerance and closed-mindedness of the Left. The article also exposes the Left’s true agenda, which is to stamp out real diversity and to force everyone to submit to its “progressive” agenda. [...]
In practice, this means that the rights of cultural traditionalists and religious believers will be infringed upon and, ultimately, stamped out altogether. After all, as the Washington Post explains, everyone must be forced to “accept” the new orthodoxy. Everyone must submit to the Left’s superior Rousseauian will.
This is truly bizarre. Religious believers in the armed forces are also, of course, “forced” to “accept” serving alongside Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Jews, and a whole welter of other religious denominations. At the risk of dipping my toes into unfamiliar theological waters, it was my understanding that explicitly rejecting the Holy Spirit was a kind of paramount sin, and so presumably ought to be regarded by conservative believers as a more serious offense than mere open homosexuality. Yet I don’t hear anyone complaining that the rights of Christian soldiers are being trampled just by dint of their being required to serve along Zoroastrians, or that this is somehow tantamount to being compelled to endorse someone else’s religious beliefs. Probably in any given unit, there are lots of people who openly acknowledge many different types of conduct that a conservative Christian would regard as sinful. It’s only in the case of this particular sin that being forced to fight alongside the “sinner” counts as unconscionable oppression. It’s almost as though the opposition were grounded in something other than—and uglier than—pure adherence to religious convictions.