[Ed. – Does that include ‘intolerance’ toward deeply held religious doctrine?]
Conservatives argue that it’s a stretch to compare Jim Crow laws to limits on gay rights. “Sexual orientation is not race — and permitting what would most definitely be a very small number of observant Christians to exercise their right of conscience is vastly different from pervasive and state-sponsored racism,” wrote Matt Lewis for The Daily Caller. He makes a fair point, but Lewis shouldn’t dismiss the analogue as a self-serving search for “the moral high ground.” There’s more to it.
For me, it starts with the time I spent in Arkansas with Faubus, Bates and Clinton, several members of the Little Rock Nine and countless others touched by the 1957 crisis. Faubus began his career as a progressive Democrat who desegregated state buses and public transportation and considered the possibility of introducing multi-race schools after his 1954 election. A challenge from his right prompted Faubus to adopt a segregationist stance, which he disingenuously insisted was not a matter of race. With public opinion so strongly against the Supreme Court ruling in 1957, Faubus argued that integrating would undermine the safety of all students.