One of the primary arguments being used by the religious right these days is that it is tyranny to force Christians to do anything that violates their “sincerely held religious beliefs,” whether that means providing contraception coverage on insurance policies or provide services to gay couples getting married. To hear them tell it, this is a terrible attack on religious freedom. But is it? If they’re honest, their answer would be “yes, but only if I agree with the exemption.”

There’s a case in Wisconsin right now where someone is challenging the requirement to buy car insurance on religious grounds, saying that it violates their religious beliefs. So should they be exempted too? If the argument we’re hearing is coherent and consistent, the answer must be yes, right? After all, it’s tyranny to force someone to violate their religious beliefs, right?

Would they make the same argument for exemptions for Christian Identity followers? Should a business owner who is racist and justifies it with religion be allowed to refuse service to black people? Should a florist or a photographer be allowed to discriminate against an interracial couple and refuse to provide services for their wedding? Should a print shop owned by a religious racist be allowed to refuse to print signs for a civil rights rally?

How about Muslims? Somali cab drivers in Minnesota have declared it religious oppression that they cannot refuse to transport people carrying alcohol. Could they refuse to transport a woman not wearing a burqa? Or a couple that is not married, or a woman with a man who is not her relative? All of those would be sincerely held religious beliefs too. And if it is tyranny to force a Christian to violate their religious beliefs, why is it not equally so here?

These are exactly equivalent to situations in which such businesses have refused service to gay couples and events, and in every case the religious right has screamed about religious persecution. But I doubt the vast majority of them would say the same thing in any of these situations. Why? Because they don’t agree with those positions. And it’s only tyranny to force them to violate their religious beliefs, not anyone else.

These lines are not easy to draw. There are serious and legitimate questions about when the government can or should require someone to do something that violates their religious beliefs. Courts struggle all the time with where to draw those lines. And my argument is not that there should never be such exemptions given. My point is simply that this very broad cry of religious persecution doesn’t help answer those questions, and it’s not applied consistently anyway. It’s not a serious argument at all.