Arizona’s governor, a Republican, recently vetoed
legislation that would have permitted residents “substantially motivated by a
religious belief” to refuse commercial services to potential customers.
Although no mention was made of homosexuals in the
proposed law, the apparent motivation was to protect those businesses that did
not wish to participate in such events as “gay wedding” by providing
photography services, for instance.
Assume that you believe that discrimination against
homosexuals is wrong, and I don’t (which, if it means I oppose same sex
marriage, is correct) because I consider its practice to be a religious
sin. Further, assume that your position
– contrary though it is to the doctrine of all major faiths - becomes law.
Where does that leave me?
In America, I’ll be relying on the First Amendment to the
Constitution which states in part “ Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Well, does that mean I can do whatever I want as long as
the activity is done in the name of religion?
What if I’m a worshipper of Satan who sanctions what others consider
evil conduct? And what if, like the
ancient Aztecs, I conduct human sacrifice to appease the gods in whom I believe? Or I am a 19th century Mormon
practicing polygamy?
Plainly, relying on the simple language of the Bill of
Rights alone is not the complete answer.
In reality, various practices of religion are permitted
when they do not offend the broad society in which they occur. And, of course, societal attitudes are
subject to change.
Venomous snake handling as a part of religious ceremonies
in Appalachia used to be tolerated and, although still practiced by a few,
legal proscription is the rule. The same holds for polygamy in Utah.
But, contrary to the wishes of the liberal media,
religious opposition to homosexual remains strong among tens of millions of
Americans. They are hardly a fringe
group like Satanic worshipers or snake handlers.
Their numbers alone give them the right to demand respect
and to invoke the First Amendment.
On another level, the conflict between the extension of
“gay rights” and those who oppose it, is in fact a clash over whose rights will
prevail. In the classic liberal (or
libertarian) sense, every individual has the freedom to do as he wishes so long
as he does not interfere with the life, liberty or property of another. He can chose with whom to associate and
discriminate against those whom he wishes to exclude.
A collection of individuals formed into a government
should operate by different rules. With
the development of modern society, equality before the law became an objective
and unjustified discrimination was outlawed.
In America, during the 1960s, the opposition to racial discrimination
was extended from the government to private citizens. Laws were passed baring racial discrimination
by individuals and companies selling homes,
serving food, offering accommodations, etc.
To be sure, the
previously existing rights of whites as individuals to discriminate against
blacks were eliminated. Accordingly, the
rights of the latter to go or do as they wished were expanded at the expense of
the prior rights of the former.
This observation is not mean as judgment on the wisdom of
the policy (although requiring a
colorblind economy undoubtedly promoted national cohesion) but it does make
clear that when government mandates private behavior, it restricts individual
freedom.
Such limitation may be justified when the target is
racial discrimination. Surely no
respectable person in this day and age endorses color bias. But can the same truly be said of laws aimed
at the foes of homosexuality whose position is endorsed by the major religions
around the world?
No comments:
Post a Comment