Today I was completely shocked when I read an article by an openly gay woman, Tammy Bruce. In the article she defended Arizona’s religious freedom bill, that just got vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer. This bill would protect businesses if they chose to deny services to homosexuals. The main places where this applies is with wedding photographers and bakers who do not want to serve gay couples.
Many see this bill as allowance of direct discrimination against homosexuals. One person who holds this view is Jan Brewer. She did not feel like religious freedom was being restricted in any way, saying “I have protected religious freedoms when there is a present concern. And I have a record to prove it.” Forcing religious businesses to serve homosexuals was not a concern to her.
Tammy Bruce completely disagreed. She compared what people who believe homosexuality are going through is wrong, to what homosexuals have to go through, saying “Of all the people in the world who should understand the scourge of living under constant threat of losing life, liberty or the ability to make a living because of who you are, it’s gays.” She defends these businesses because she does not want to see civil liberties stripped from people, even if it might affect her in a slightly negative way.
I think that Tammy Bruce is right here. The first amendment guarantees religious freedom and freedom of expression without the government restraining them in any way. If a business does not want to condone the actions of an individual, based on their religious views, the business is guaranteed that right. Not offering service is their way of expressing their religion. Some people see homosexuality as ok, while others do not. If those who opposed the religious freedom bill wanted to show tolerance at all levels, they would tolerate the other point of view and not force their own views. Selective tolerance is not real tolerance, it is just the pushing of an agenda.
I would change one key part to this bill though. I only think it is ok to deny service to someone based on a specific action of theirs if the seller finds the action to be morally wrong and the service or good being provided would enable/help the buyer to do said action. For example, if a baker believed homosexuality to be morally wrong, he or she could refuse to bake a wedding cake for gay couple's wedding, since it would condone homosexual actions. However, if a gay couple went to the same bakery for a birthday cake, the baker could not deny that good since it does not enable or condone homosexuality. Along those same lines, if a Christian church approached a Muslim construction manager to build a church building for them, the construction manager could deny them that good if he or she felt morally compromised. A 7-11 owner could deny the selling of contraceptives to people who are not married if he or she believed that pre-marital sex is wrong. This would protect people's religious rights and rights to expression, while eliminating ignorant discrimination.
I would change one key part to this bill though. I only think it is ok to deny service to someone based on a specific action of theirs if the seller finds the action to be morally wrong and the service or good being provided would enable/help the buyer to do said action. For example, if a baker believed homosexuality to be morally wrong, he or she could refuse to bake a wedding cake for gay couple's wedding, since it would condone homosexual actions. However, if a gay couple went to the same bakery for a birthday cake, the baker could not deny that good since it does not enable or condone homosexuality. Along those same lines, if a Christian church approached a Muslim construction manager to build a church building for them, the construction manager could deny them that good if he or she felt morally compromised. A 7-11 owner could deny the selling of contraceptives to people who are not married if he or she believed that pre-marital sex is wrong. This would protect people's religious rights and rights to expression, while eliminating ignorant discrimination.
1 comment:
Interesting post JJ! I do agree with you in thinking that you cannot deny someone a service based on their views, but you can if the action is something you don't believe in. For example, if it was Trujillos birthday I would bake him a cake, but if he asked for a I Hate America cake, I would definitely not want o make him that cake. It really interested me that your first person who the reader got a view from in the blog was openly homosexual. Good job of addressing both sides.
Post a Comment