Whether we agree or not, the courts
have ruled that same-sex marriage is allowed. The next question is,
“are citizens to be forced, as a condition of employment, to enable
same-sex marriage?”
This battle started long before the
latest Supreme Court decision. Photographers have been fined for
refusing to photograph same-sex ceremonies, and in Oregon a bakery
was ordered to pay $135,000 for refusing to make a cake for a
same-sex wedding. In Indiana, a homosexual group searched for a
business that would not cater same-sex weddings and finally found a
small-town pizzeria that would refuse such business. After
threatening phone calls, the establishment temporarily closed its
doors.
Are such refusals illegal
discrimination or are they protected by the first amendment to the
U.S. Constitution? That amendment reads, “Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof...” And the 14th amendment is
understood to extend that prohibition to the states. Note that this
is a “one-way” restriction, it prohibits government action but
places no restrictions on citizens or churches. And it protects more
than the right to worship; it protects the right to free exercise of
religion. Exercise means action. Citizens may act according to their
religious beliefs, unless such action harms others.
But what of the discrimination aspect?
Does the Constitution protect discrimination? That is not as simple
as it first appears, and there are two issues involved:
First, action vs. inaction. While the
law can prohibit discriminatory action, refusal to act is another
matter. Give race-based preference in hiring or promotion? That is
not only illegal but unethical. Give directions to a white
man but refuse the same help to a black man? You can do that, even
though you are a jerk if you discriminate in that manner. The law
does not mandate action, even helpful action.
Second, there is a difference between
discrimination based on what people are vs that based on what they
do. People are born black, white, brown etc. and may be born with
same-sex attraction*. That is what they are, discriminatory action
based on that can be outlawed. Those people have no control over what
they are (though there is some question about that for those with
same-sex attraction**). Discriminate on the basis of what people do?
We do that all the time. Lock up the thief, refuse banking services
to the meth dealer, even deny legal advice to the businessman who
wants to do something legal but unethical? No problem, if we fail to discriminate
on the basis of actions, we will not have an orderly society.
Both issues affect businesses that
refuse to support same-sex marriage. First, they are not merely being
asked to refrain from harmful actions, they are being asked to take a
specific action. Second, such weddings are a celebration, not of what
people are, but of actions that many regard as sinful. The same-sex
wedding celebrates homosexual actions, something all three major
religions in this country condemn.
Though we should not discriminate on
the basis of what people are, we must discriminate on the basis of
what they do. Indeed the Indiana pizzeria does that. Homosexuals are
welcome to partake of their pizza in the course of normal business.
However, the owners refuse to join in or support a same-sex wedding
which is a celebration of homosexual actions. That kind of
discrimination should be allowed.
*The question of what causes same-sex
attraction remains unanswered. However, the one thing that cannot be
the cause is pure genetics. There may be a genetic component, but if
it were purely genetic that trait would be naturally selected out in
a few generations.
**The question of if same-sex
attraction is inherent or can be changed is likewise unanswered. For
example, Glasser in his book, Reality Therapy, describes one
homosexual who changed and became a normal heterosexual man. Nor is
that the only example. The homosexual lobby would claim that people
who change were never real homosexuals but there is no way to verify
that.
