A Third of Republicans Think It’s OK to Refuse Service to Muslims

I’m never quite sure how seriously to take survey results, and today Paul Waldman points to a new PRRI survey that I really, really don’t want to take seriously. Here it is:

Thanks to a baker in Colorado, we’re all accustomed to the idea that conservatives think business owners should be free to refuse service to gay people if their refusal is based on religious belief. But apparently large numbers of them also think it’s fine to refuse service to Muslims, Jews, and African Americans.

If it’s religiously based, of course.

As it happens, there are a disturbingly large number of Democrats who also think this kind of discrimination is OK. But there’s an odd difference. Among Democrats, there’s apparently a single, smallish contingent—around 14-19 percent of the total—that thinks it’s OK to discriminate against anyone. But among Republicans, it varies. About 18 percent think it’s OK to discriminate against blacks compared to 47 percent who think it’s OK to discriminate against gay people. Jews and Muslims and atheists are in the middle. This suggests that, for whatever reason, there’s a liberal bloc that, on principle, thinks businesses should be allowed to discriminate however they want. Conservatives, by contrast, don’t think that. They endorse discrimination more or less strongly depending on how much they dislike the group in question.

So to circle back to the beginning, I wonder how seriously to take this? Obviously the Colorado baker case has gotten everyone’s attention, which is why the numbers supporting discrimination have gone up over the past five years. But does this also mean that this is, like so many other things, basically just a tribal question these days? That is, your answer is less about discrimination itself, and more about simply having the view associated with your side? I hope so. But I fear it might not be.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate