When entering into a debate, it is beneficial to begin with the proposition that you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.
In 2015, however, this proposition has been turned on its head. In 2015, you are entitled to your own facts, but you are not entitled to an opinion.
The most egregious example of this popular trend, I believe, suggests itself in the hysterical reaction to Indiana’s attempt to pass a law providing its citizens with a legal defense for exercising religious objections to other laws they believe violate their First Amendment rights. Indiana’s law didn’t give people the right to discriminate; it merely modeled itself on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed near-unanimously by Congress in 1993 and signed into law by Bill Clinton. Without going into detail, the Indiana law would have followed already-accepted practices. It would have stated that government cannot enforce a statute requiring people to violate their sincere religious convictions unless it can also demonstrate a compelling interest, and that in applying the test it must do so in the least-restrictive means possible.
This is why, traditionally, America has exempted Quakers from military service. It is also why (one would suppose) the test might easily be applied to religious small business owners who would rather not cater same-sex weddings. I would assume a catering business would still be required, under the law, to provide cakes over the counter (thankfully). Catering the ceremony, however, constitutes participation, and therein lies the rub.
In a world populated with rational adults, accommodation can usually be easily maintained. In most cases, there are other means available for acquiring same-sex wedding cakes so that the wedding can go forward as planned and religious objections can also be honored.
It would greatly benefit this country, I think, to have a rational debate about the First Amendment and corresponding liberty of conscience principles. We need to consider more carefully how far government should go in compelling contractual agreements. Should the price of protecting our consciences really be the loss of our businesses?
If this is still a free society, the public square should remain a place for ideas to flourish. What good is having an opinion if you’re forced to keep it to yourself?
When the Indiana law originally hit, there ensued a great rush to judgment with very little knowledge about what the law actually said. Just as importantly, the law’s long-term implications seemed to mean very little to its critics, who characterized it vociferously as a mere attempt by bigots to discriminate against homosexuals.
The larger points of the legislation were incredibly missed, and I would say in many cases purposely so. The saddest thing of all, for me personally, were the misinformation campaigns waged by many in the media who knew better but buried the lede in order to promote a cause. This is not what I was taught in my college journalism classes; I was taught that it’s OK to have a point of view, but our primary job is to get the story right.
I get it. Right now it is politically incorrect for business owners to opt out of same-sex wedding participation. But beware of unintended consequences. If we can force religious Americans to go against their consciences for that, the tyranny of the majority is here. Who will we subjugate next?
↧
What the Indiana law really meant
↧
