Say what you will about this Supreme Court, but one thing is clear: It isn’t boring.
The justices have shown a remarkable propensity to tackle the most controversial issues — abortion, guns — that other courts had shunned.
In doing so, they have sent the unmistakable message that they won’t be bullied or intimidated — no matter how many leaks, threats or outlandish protests — when rendering decisions.
Kudos for that bravery, given how many pressing issues deserve their day in court.
The latest court headliner involves a Colorado graphic designer who doesn’t want to create websites for same-sex weddings, but would be compelled to do so by the state’s public accommodation law.
She argues that the Centennial State’s statute prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation violates her freedom of expression, since forcing her to create same-sex marriage content conflicts with her religious beliefs.
The core argument many cite in opposing such laws is that they violate religious freedoms. In this author’s opinion, that has merit.
But in stepping back to gain a more encompassing perspective, the more applicable principle isn’t centered just on religion, but overall freedom of expression.
Consider:
• If a Ku Klux Klan supporter walks into a black graphic designer’s office and requests artwork emblazoned with “KKK,” a burning cross and a Black man being lynched, should the owner be forced to comply?
• A customer tasks a Muslim artist to create content with offensive depictions of Mohammad, with pork rinds as part of the “display.” Should he be legally compelled to do so?
• Should an artist incur legal penalties for refusing to design a picture with “Go ISIS!” and “We love Al-Qaeda!” on it, with smiling terrorists slamming into the World Trade Center?
• And perhaps most poignant, should a gay baker be forced to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple if he feels offended by their marriage?
If America is truly free and tolerant, the answer to all is a resounding “No.”
But unfortunately, the freedom to choose one’s own path, where individuals decide what’s in their best interest, free from cancel-culture intimidation and an overbearing government, is eroding.
Fundamental freedoms that have made America the most tolerant nation in history have come under blistering attack, often from intolerant loudmouths under the guise, ironically, of fighting intolerance.
Partly due to people remaining silent for fear of being labeled, and partly because many leaders flap in whatever direction the political wind seems to be blowing, numerous states have passed laws eroding freedoms.
Conversely, states that prioritize citizens’ rights over governmental overreach often face boycotts and protests.
Here’s a look, free from the red-meat rhetoric, on this important issue:
• To reiterate, these issues really aren’t “religious freedom” laws.
Instead, they are simply liberties guaranteeing Americans — all Americans — the right to make their own decisions; decisions, moral or immoral, according to what people, not a paternalistic Big Brother government, think is best.
Americans do not always make the right decisions, but more often than not, we choose correctly.
If deciding between history’s most benevolent people — who have shown a most remarkable tendency to rectify their mistakes — and a bumbling government on a quixotic social engineering quest, we should be casting our lots on the side of citizens. After all, we the people have earned the benefit of the doubt.
When you strip away the inflammatory rhetoric, these freedoms are about personal choice, not bigotry. And they have a legitimate place in America.
• Where do we draw the line with what is “discriminatory?”
What about ladies’ night, where women drink for free?
Seniors who eat at discounted prices?
Single-sex high schools and colleges? Single-race fraternities?
What about dating websites that cater exclusively to Christians, Jewish people, or other ethnicities?
Under the rationale of public accommodation laws, couldn’t those things also come under the heel of government intervention?
If things don’t change course, that might be where we’re headed.
Perhaps we need to re-visit the value of living our lives without getting offended at the drop of a hat. Not everything will be to our liking, and the sooner we realize that, the better.
• Both sides need a “live-and-let-live” mentality.
If a baker refuses to bake a specific cake, then patronize his competitor. Likewise, find an accommodating church or synagogue where you feel welcome.
This isn’t a hard concept. As a nation, we must jettison the self-pity mindset rooted in “everyone-owes-us-something” victimhood. Instead, we would be better off if we acted like reasonable grown-ups rather than complaining and suing whenever we get offended.
The way to change hearts and minds is through inspiration and education — not mandates. Tolerance, on all sides, makes America go ‘round.
• The free market can decide this issue.
One of three things will occur to business owners who won’t create products that offend their beliefs:
They will stay in business because a majority of people either don’t care about their stance, or agree with them.
They will go under because of the negative publicity, boycotts, and protests
They will change their policy — a choice made by the owners, not government — to be more inclusive.
If there aren’t enough businesses catering to the “excluded,” it won’t be long before some spring up that do, because that’s how the free market works.
A need becomes a business opportunity, and both sides come out ahead. No harm, no foul.
It is important to understand that customers are not being denied service outright because of sexual orientation; the issue is business owners rejecting requests to create specific products that conflict with their religious/personal beliefs.
Truth is, most business owners will likely keep politics out of the workplace.
They are in business to make money, and controversy is rarely good for the bottom line. So, given that relatively few business owners will turn people away, why is this issue garnering such headlines?
America is big enough, and tolerant enough, to accommodate everyone.
So let’s drop the divisive rhetoric, and respect the beliefs of those on both sides. That way, we can have our cake, and eat it too.
Chris Freind is an independent columnist and commentator whose column appears every week. He can be reached at CF@FFZMedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @chrisfreind
"freedom" - Google News
December 08, 2022 at 12:18AM
https://ift.tt/840DixS
Freind: Colorado case heard by the Supreme Court is about freedom, not discrimination - Main Line
"freedom" - Google News
https://ift.tt/oI6jvE7
https://ift.tt/jXkesEo
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Freind: Colorado case heard by the Supreme Court is about freedom, not discrimination - Main Line"
Post a Comment