My previous post was apparently a bit controversial. Society programs us to think certain ways on certain issues. The same guy who demands his freedom on issue A is often unwilling to let you exercise yours on issue B. There’s a shortage of intellectual honesty.
The Constitution is an excellent philosophical and practical guide when individual rights are in question. I’m not interested in arguing the same sex marriage issue in this post, but IF there is such a thing as a legally recognized marriage between two members of the same sex, THEN individuals who pursue this course must understand that others might have serious moral concerns about the lifestyle. Those who object to the concept of same sex marriage are free to make their arguments in the public square, but they are NOT free to threaten or assault their opponents. But gay couples must recognize that when their lifestyle directly challenges a moral conviction, others should not be forced to engage in commerce they find offensive. Some tolerance is required on both sides.
It will be interesting to see what happens if a gay couple insists that an Islamic bakery prepare their wedding cake.
Pedro made an interesting point when he asked why businesses are not afforded the same rights as individuals? They should be, as businesses are merely individuals engaging in commercial activity. But the media and the political left constantly scapegoat firms as villains looking for opportunities to deprive employees of health care, pay people less than they should, and otherwise cheat the general public. But free exchange is moral and is largely responsible for the advanced society in which we live. Those running the country fail to understand this and are doomed to paddle upstream until they do.
Gay couples will stay away from islamic bakeries. This would create the ultimate left wing dilemma. A protected class would have to lose in this case. I’d put my money on the muslims.
Great points John. The problem usually stems from people failing to define what a “right” is. In one of my recent articles I make the point that because we are all created equal, person A’s rights cannot conflict with person B’s rights. If we end up with this scenario, then we have probably mis-categorized something as a right. The right to your property is clear. The right to be served, not so much.
What about the right for equality? what about treating ALL the people equally? I hope this is considered as a right here.
It is not equality when one pays a higher percentage of income in taxes than another simply because he makes more money. Would a black-owner bakery be required to sell a cake to a white supremacist couple getting married?
Equality? I’m all for it. You won’t ever have it though because those who benefit from inequality don’t want it. Here are some examples of equality. Take any reference to race off of every government form or application. Equality means that everybody is treated and judged based on their character, performance, and qualifications…none of which have to do with race. Get rid of affirmative action because it is only designed to give an advantage to one group of people, which is the exact opposite of equality. Eliminate all racial preferences and religious bias. So those who burn a Koran or mock Islam are free to do so, whether you like it or not….just as those who deface Christian symbols as an artful expression are defended as exercising their free speech. The ultimate anti-racist is one that doesn’t care what race people are, but that’s the very person that the left would define as racist because they don’t grant any special consideration to minorities. Do you really want true equality? I do. I don’t think a lot of folks that sling equality rhetoric around really want it at all. They want an edge, and they want the government to give it to them.
Why does the government treat people as unequals in order to make them equals? This is insanity.