I want to go into the conservative reaction to the
Supreme Court’s ruling, effectively striking down any bans on gay marriage, and
the example I want to use is an audio clip from the NPR show, ‘Here and Now,’
because it’s just an awesome example of skillful word-smithing. I can’t use the
actual audio clip because it’s copyrighted, but I can use excerpts of what was
said. The person being interviewed was Jim Campbell director of the Center for
Marriage and Family with the Alliance for Defending Freedom. He said the
following:
“The court regrettably stripped All Americans of our freedom
to debate and decide marriage policy through the democratic process. Moreover,
the court overrode the considered judgment of tens of millions of Americans who
recently reaffirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and in doing so
the court went beyond what the Constitution says, beyond what the Constitution
requires, and took this issue away from the people.”
When asked by NPR host, Robin Young, whether he wanted this
debate to be in the court of public opinion, he said yes, and she immediately
(and justly) countered with the fact that, among the general public, a vast
majority do approve of same-sex marriage, especially among millennials. So the
court of public opinion seems to be trending against the opposition to gay
marriage, in that case. Here’s how he
argued around that. He said:
“The most important opinion poll is taken at the ballot
box.”
In other words, let’s decide this where gerrymandering
favors our side, let’s decide this where we can use voter I.D. laws and other
intimidation tactics to make sure that the young and minorities don’t get
heard, and let’s decide the issue that way. Disgusting, no?
He goes on to say: “The point that you are making is that it
appears, from your perspective, that opinions are shifting on this. And if
that’s the case, then we should allow the people to continue to discuss,
debate, and decide the issue for themselves.”
Brilliant! See what he did there? He first said, “It
appears, from your perspective (never
mind that it’s an opinion poll, not her perspective) that opinions are shifting on this.” Shifting my ass!
They’re moving decidedly and rapidly away from this man’s position! And yet so
engrossed is he in the absoluteness that his religion must be right, that he
acknowledges that there’s movement in
the debate, but can’t come to grips with the fact that it’s moving against him!
How about that!
Robin Young then asked whether or not religious freedom was
at the center of their argument he said it was.
“There are some instances where people are trying to operate
a business and trying to live consistent with their faith, and courts are
forcing them to either host or facilitate same-sex ceremonies, even though
doing so conflicts with their faith. So I do think that that actually is a real
issue. Moreover, one thing we do know
here at Alliance for Defending Freedom and one thing we are committed to is
that no one should be threatened or punished by the government simply for
believing and living consistent with the belief that marriage is between a man
and a woman.”
How? How are they being forced? That's the part I don't see.
Host? Where would they host? A Christian-owned banquet hall, perhaps? Maybe. But if gays and lesbians wanted to rent the hall for a party, such a business wouldn't object. It's only the marriage part they object to. But so what? If you own the hall, you don't have to attend, do you? Or you can hire out some other bartender/host. Big deal, right? It sure beats losing the business to someone else.
He then goes on to cite the standard jobs where someone’s
Christian faith and/or belief that gay marriage is a sin might cause that
person’s beliefs to be violated. Namely, a florist, a baker, a wedding
photographer, and although he didn’t include it, I will also include a DJ,
because at least one friend of mine who is a DJ says he will never do a gay
wedding no matter what the Supreme Court says.
So let’s take a good look at that, because this is really
where the proverbial rubber meets the road. What happens when, say, a devoutly
Christian wedding photographer or planner gets asked to help out with a gay
wedding?
Well, the nice and responsible thing for that photographer
or planner to do would be to say, “Look, I’m a devout Christian, and as such
gay weddings make me uncomfortable because they’re contrary to my religious
beliefs. But I do know someone (competitor, assistant, contractor) who would be
willing to do the photography for you instead of me.” In other words, that
person is willing to lose their business to someone else, or hand the actual
business duties to someone else, in order for the customer’s needs to be met.
That might mean that the proprietor loses that customer to a competitor, but if
one’s religion places such priorities over profits, then so be it. Let the free
market decide the matter.
Now, would that be discriminating against the gay couple?
Yes, maybe a little, but it isn’t turning the business away as such, either. Would
that be a violation of the gay couple’s rights? Well, if the only wedding
photographer willing to do a gay wedding charges an arm and a leg, maybe,
because the gay couple is forced to pay a lot more for the same service just
because the competitors are squeamish. That may happen, but the odds are rather
low.
My point is, there are reasonable
compromises which allow for the accommodation of both the anti-gay religious
beliefs of the proprietor and the gay-accepting religious beliefs of the
customer. There are numerous other examples of where something like this can
happen, whether it is a Seikh who religiously objects to drinking alcohol
selling you a case of beer at the convenience store, or a Hindu who objects to
the eating of cows serving you a hamburger at McDonald’s, there are plenty of
ways where we recognize that accommodating other people’s lifestyles is not the
same thing as endorsing them.
How about other examples?
Dressmakers? Who cares, they won’t be attending. Tux rentals? Same thing.
Florists? They won’t be in attendance, unless they have to set up the display
on the altar, and then they’ll be gone before the actual ceremony takes place.
Cake-makers? There isn’t a baker I can think of who wouldn’t be willing to say,
“Look, I can’t approve of your lifestyle due to my religious beliefs, but I
value your business, so how about if I sell you the cake and the icing for
writing the message on it separately? I’ll
even throw in the icing for free. (That’s only like, a buck anyway.) Of course!
Every baker worth his business would do that!
The objection is all imagined. Gay
couples have made peace with their god when it comes to the love they feel, and
that’s their religion, regardless of what label they use. But Christian extremists want the ability to
say, “I religiously object to your religious interpretation, and so I want the
right to try and shame you into changing your ways by refusing to do business
with you, and doing so in a rude way because there are some easy ways I could
compromise to accommodate having you as a customer, but I’d rather just say no
and label you ‘icky!’ Well, if so, fine. But at least be honest about it. This
is you trying to force your religion upon someone else's creed. And that’s not “restoration
of religious freedom,” no matter what else you may call it!
Bottom line is, the free market will
work this out, just as it always does. If your religion dictates the need to
attempt to force others to comply with your religion’s edicts, then there will
be some other vendor which will take your business, and that’s the way it
should be. If you’re a dick, you lose customers. And we really shouldn’t care
or be sympathetic that your religion makes you a dick.
Certainly, it’s none of the
government’s business.
Eric
*
