This past Monday professor Rosenberg took a bit of a detour in the class discussion. He pulled out a topic that I have been recently enjoying more and more because of the law aspect that this particular case brings. We discussed the issues of two laws colliding with one another. One of them being a constitutional amendment and the other being recently added to the liberties of individuals in America. The collision of freedom of religion and civil liberties is a topic that intrigues me mostly because truth, I really don’t know which side is correct.
We brought several different cases and discussed the scenarios of a priest, a baker and a dining hall and if they would be required to perform their duties if they were against the marriage that was to be carried out. It’s even more interesting because my religion has no tolerance for gay marriage and so it really is a conflict that I can personally visualize. Even after the discussion we had in class I still don’t know which side the law would favor with. In a case of racial differences however , for example, if a baker wouldn’t bake for a mixed race marriage, that I think is wrong and the baker must perform his duties. Because of the racial case I’m extremely interested in where the line is drawn. I can’t seem to figure out if the gay marriage should also have the racial point of view or it’s a case entirely separate. Where is the line drawn?
The right resolution to the issue should not depend on what your own personal religious beliefs are though, right? The question is to what extent should we protect a person’s religious beliefs when they conflict with a law?
Hi Eli I’m glad you brought up your honest opinion of confusion on the matter we discussed in class because I’m sure (if not all of us) were on the same boat as well, to the matter of who should be favored in the case of commercial services/businesses.
In regards to the your statement of who the law should favor, I don’t believe the law should favor either party. Personally, I do not believe in a religion that has as you said “0 tolerance” for gay marriages so I cannot understand your position in this conflict. The reason why there exists a law for freedom of religion and one for as you stated as “civil liberties” to me explicitly displays how neither of the two is greater than the other and so there shouldn’t be a “higher” law than the other. They exist to support both groups that they pertain to respectively to have some I guess you could say “governmental support” for they have just as much rights to express themselves for who they are and what they believe in. And the important term here is “express” because in the end we are all human beings. We all have our own beliefs, we all have our own personalities, and we all have ways to express ourselves to the outside world. The fact that these laws are here and established is to protect us from facing any discrimination solely because we are expressing who we are. Whatever we identify ourselves as, whether its in the category of religion, sexuality, ethnicity, race, etc. we are who we are and that is how we understand ourselves.
So with the case of the baker, he’s religious and he believes that providing his services to a couple that his religion does not support his personal beliefs that he expresses himself as, then I believe he should be allowed to dismiss this request. I think the key idea is to identify where he is coming from and in the case explained in class, from what I took it, it wasn’t from any malicious origin or discrimination to specifically gay couples, but because he felt uncomfortable to be doing something he knows that does not correspond to his belief. Now I know this could be a defense for anyone, but he has the right to use the defense of in his right to express his religion freely just like how the gay couple has the right to legally get married as their identities. If this endangers his rights to express his religion, then that is where the line is drawn if he were to be forced into making this cake. The word “discrimination” obviously comes up to mind when we are presented with a situation like this but the definition of “discrimination” is “the prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things”. The key word “prejudicial” obviously pertains to the word “prejudice” which is defined as a “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience”. In this case, this opinion is based on a reason and it was the conflict of the baker’s religion in regards to his profession so I don’t believe the baker is discriminating the gay couple if he does reject to provide his services to them.
In the context of mixed relationships as you mentioned later in your post, the line is drawn for me once you question the race as a factor to deny service. To my knowledge, I don’t believe there is anything about a mixed racial couple that violates or conflicts any religious belief but a matter of personal opinion (dare I say racist opinion?) and what one believes “is the right way to love”. Personally, I believe love has no boundaries nor labels. To why someone would believe that anyone has to be restricted to whom they fall in love seems ridiculous to me and whether they are gay, straight, mixed race, etc., that should not affect the reason why one would deny a service to that couple for being in love with the person they want to marry.