Certain pundits and politicians are repeating a particularly weak argument, suggesting either that Indiana's so-called "religious freedom" bill is justified because at least it is not as bad as Iran's treatment of homosexuals (as Steven Crowder implies several times in this video and Sen. Cotton repeated yesterday), or that opponents of Indiana's bill are hypocrites for supporting the nuclear negotiations with Iran, while refusing to do business in Indiana until the "religious freedom" bill is repealed.
Both versions of this argument are fraught with logical fallacies. The first is the logical equivalent of defending voter-suppression measures that disproportionately affect African Americans because at least we are not lynching them as we used to, or defending the wage-gap because at least we are not burning witches as we once did. Less bad is simply not the equivalent of good.
The second argument rests on a simple equivocation. Some are suggesting that, if opponents of the Indiana law refuse to do business with Indiana, and if they wish be be consistent, they should likewise object to Obama doing business with Iran (also here, and Ben Shapiro makes the same false equivalence here without explicitly repeating the equivocation). The problem here is an equivocation. That is to say, "doing business" in the first instance is literal (buying, selling and producing items to be bought and sold). In the second instance, "doing business" is a metaphorical turn of phrase. It intends sitting down at the negotiating table.
One is free to criticize negotiations with Iran (though I see no alternatives but continuing with sanctions, which do not seem to be having the desired effect, or going to war). But equating doing business in Indiana and "doing business" with Iran is the height of silliness (though perhaps I should not speak too soon of the height of silliness in this argument).
To be sure, it is hypocritical of Apple to do business in Iran while refusing to do business in Indiana, but you will notice that there is no equivocation here.
