There are two civil rights at play in the dispute over same-sex marriage and the religious objection - one of which is the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. For a society which values civil rights, this makes the issue far from simple. Federal law and legal precedent already recognize that there are cases in which free exercise claims can trump generally-applicable laws - e.g. the Amish are not required to send their children to school.
Members of the creative professions forced to actively contribute to producing same-sex weddings are forced to act in a way that violates their religious integrity. It is important to note that we are not talking here about simply selling goods or value-neutral services like plumbing, but about services which involve personal creative contribution. An analogous dilemma might be faced by A Jewish tattoo artist forced to tattoo an anti-Semitic message.
And businesses do have a right to refuse services in certain cases, so long as the refusal is not arbitrary (hence, "No shirt, no shoes, no service"). Refusal based on the constitutional right to free exercise and the consistent historical teaching of all the world's major religions is not arbitrary.
Members of the creative professions forced to actively contribute to producing same-sex weddings are forced to act in a way that violates their religious integrity. It is important to note that we are not talking here about simply selling goods or value-neutral services like plumbing, but about services which involve personal creative contribution. An analogous dilemma might be faced by A Jewish tattoo artist forced to tattoo an anti-Semitic message.
And businesses do have a right to refuse services in certain cases, so long as the refusal is not arbitrary (hence, "No shirt, no shoes, no service"). Refusal based on the constitutional right to free exercise and the consistent historical teaching of all the world's major religions is not arbitrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment