Can you be forced to print material that goes against your
conscience? If you have a print shop, can you refuse an atheist customer who
wants you to print material that states that the Christian faith is a fairy
tale? Or can you refuse to print Gay-Pride promotional material? Well, an
ordinance in Lexington, Kentucky “ban[s] public accommodations
discrimination based on sexual orientation.” This means that you must print it,
even if it represents a denial of your faith!
The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) had wanted
Blame Adamson, owner of Hands On
Originals, to print T-shirts for their Gay-Pride event. According to GLSO’s complaint with the Lexington Human Rights Commission:
- When Blaine learned that it was a gay pride festival, he asked, “You know we’re a Christian organization, don’t you?” He then continued on to say that Hands On Originals would not print shirts related to a gay pride festival. He suggested that he could refer us to a different business who would print the shirts. Our committee member told them he would take that offer to the board, but that he felt that we would not want to do business with anyone who did business with Hands On Originals, based on their discrimination.
However, it seems that the Lexington, KY
ordinance is unconstitutional. It is in violation of the “Free Exercise of Religion”
clause:
- The Ordinance unconstitutionally compels speech, because it requires printers to print material that they do not want to print. Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed. (1977) and Keller v. State Bar (1990) reaffirmed that the government generally may not compel someone to give over money to a private or even quasi-public entity when that money will be used for political or ideological speech.
- Indeed, speech on T-shirts is as protected as speech in books. Under the GLSO’s view, a book publisher that is opposed to (say) Scientology could be required to print pro-Scientology books. Likewise, a printer that hates Nazi ideology could be required to print pro-Nazi leaflets in those jurisdictions.
Increasingly, Christians must defend their Constitutional 1st
Amendment rights. It is not enough that the Constitution specifies certain
rights. These must be upheld in court, and when we fail to do this, it can also
mean a failure to faithfully follow our Lord in all regards:
- Then they [the Sanhedrin] called them [the Apostles] in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:18-20)
Sometimes, to obey State ordinances is to disobey God. To
obey God may mean to disobey these ordinances, or at least to challenge them in
court.
Reading your post made me think of how easy it is to lose liberty. In a sense, political freedom is a habitual way of thinking. It is taken for granted because it has always been there. But if the habitual way of thinking lessens, freedom can become an afterthought.
ReplyDeleteHere is a quote from Justice William Douglas that I think is very important in this day and time.
"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness".
Larry,
DeleteI think the Douglas quote very appropos along with your concern. I haven talked to an atheist/secularist yet who seems concerned or cognizant. This is partially because they feel very much at home with our secular government. It suits them just fine, and so who cares if the rights of OTHERS are being threatened!!!
However, when the rights of one are threatened, the rights of all are in jeopardy, but many fail to see the big picture.
Daniel, would you also back a printer who refused to print material related to black history month, on the grounds that it would be against their white supremacist beliefs?
ReplyDeleteWould you support a printer who refused to print material supporting the equality and education of woman, on the grounds that it would be against their Muslim faith?
These sorts of issues can be tricky, and a blanket statement in support of conscience (when it agrees with your beliefs) is not very helpful at all.
Do you support pharmacists refusing to provide birth control to people? How about taxi drivers refusing to carry people with alcohol?
Your blanket statements, if upheld in the manner you seem to want, would lead to all sorts of situations which I doubt you would approve of, as the rule of conscience would apply to all sorts of beliefs, not just your particular set of ridiculous claims.
Most of these sorts of calls from people like yourself are, as I have pointed out to you on a number of occasions, simply howling about the loss of the unjustified privilege you feel your beliefs deserve.
Essentially, you are asking the question, “where do you draw the line?” On the one end, there is complete freedom of conscience which can lead to malicious discrimination. On the other, there is no freedom. Instead the federal government is totalitarian and dictates everything, and you and I are just pawns of an oppressive system, in which the State does all the discrimination.
DeleteIn short, I don’t think that there is any hard and fast place that we can draw the line, but I do think that there are principles that have served the West well, which should be preserved, and perhaps applied variously, if there can be demonstrated an overriding public concern.
There doesn't appear to be any hard and fast lines, as you observe, but you seem to want to privilege the application of these principles to your own beliefs, and refuse to accord the application of the principles to the beliefs of others.
DeleteYou accept, as reasonable, the bigotry displayed against homosexuals in your article, but would likely decry as unfair and discriminatory, the same sort of bigotry directed against Christians.
To do so is to ask for special privilege for your beliefs, a form of special pleading, which is not compatible with a pluralistic democracy (I hesitate to say "secular democracy" since you continue to misunderstand the meaning of "secular").
You are arguing against the nature of law itself. All laws privilege one behavior over another. They privilege the victim over the victimizer.
DeleteThis nation has traditionally privileged the rights of the individual accept where there were over-riding national concerns.
Daniel, you give no indication of where you believe the line should be drawn, or why discrimination against homosexuals is ok while discrimination against Africans or women is, I presume, not ok to you.
DeleteIs it simply down to religious belief, in that if the discrimination is based upon the religious beliefs of the individual, then such discrimination ought to be tolerated?
It is difficult to draw a line. Balancing the needs of the individual and the government is not always easy, but I have several guiding principles.
DeleteFor one thing, if people with disparate views are to live together, differences need to be decided justly. The most respected principle is “majority rules.” Sadly, today, we are confronted with growing injustice – the courts overruling the judgment of the majority by claiming that a vote is “unconstitutional,” while the constitution says absolutely nothing to that affect. This represents the tyranny of a few over the many; the tyranny of one religion over more traditional religions. Such tyranny can only further divide and alienate. In short, government should be about serving people, not people serving the few in power.
For another thing, laws are all about discriminating over certain anti-social behaviors. They shouldn’t be discriminating based on race.
Now, let me ask you something. It seems to me, as a moral relativist, you cannot possibly have anything coherent to say about what “should be” but only about what “is.” Aren’t you therefore being a bit hypocritical? You realize that you are expressing no more than just your subjective personal opinion, but you challenge as if you have an objective standard, which your paradigm cannot support.
Daniel, did you decide not to publish my previous response for some reason, or did it get lost somehow (sent to the "junk" folder)?
DeleteEither way, I'll reproduce it here:
-------------------
Mann: The most respected principle is “majority rules.”
Actually, a representative democracy such as you have is set up to try to avoid majority rules - it's called the "Tyrany of the majority" and it should be avoided. If we followed it then slavery would likely still flourish, women wouldn't have the vote and racism would still be entrenched in law.
Mann: the courts overruling the judgment of the majority by claiming that a vote is “unconstitutional,” while the constitution says absolutely nothing to that affect.
While I don't doubt the supreme court does rule poorly, I wonder what cases you are thinking about here.
Mann: This represents the tyranny of a few over the many; the tyranny of one religion over more traditional religions.
We've been on this merry go round before Daniel. Secularism is not a religion. It is an attempt at the only workable form of pluralistic society. While the government may over reach in some cases, to cease being a secular state would bring back the sectarian violence and oppression which has been a staple of non-secular pluralistic states (look at how non-Muslims are treated in Saudi Arabia, for instance).
Mann: In short, government should be about serving people, not people serving the few in power.
I agree with this sentiment, but I have my doubts that your complaints are warranted. In the past your complaints have been concerned more with a loss of privilege for your beliefs rather than any actual opression or discrimination, a loss of your ability to opress and discriminate against others.
Mann: They shouldn’t be discriminating based on race.
Why not Daniel?
African American's make up a disproportionately large part of the prison population.
Mann: Now, let me ask you something.
Shoot.
Mann: It seems to me, as a moral relativist, you cannot possibly have anything coherent to say about what “should be” but only about what “is.”
As I've repeatedly told you, I'm not the sort of naive moral relatavist you imagine me to be.
Mann: Aren’t you therefore being a bit hypocritical?
Not in the least. I can appeal to values and outcomes, for instance, in making claims about what we ought to do, rather than just what is - no hypocrisy, no incoherence, and no need for a deity.
Mann: You realize that you are expressing no more than just your subjective personal opinion, but you challenge as if you have an objective standard, which your paradigm cannot support.
I'm not "expressing no more than just your subjective personal opinion". I'm can express objective reasons based upon values and outcomes.
If you had bothered to take in any of the moral philosophy I've put to you over the last couple of years Daniel, you wouldn't continue to make such silly statements in public.
Sorry, It must have gotten lost….I certainly agree that there is no perfect government and that rule can devolve into the "Tyranny of the majority." However, free votes/elections are far better than none – far better than one man overriding a popular vote without any tangible constitutional basis.
DeleteYou are trying to take credit for historical secularism as you promote an entirely different product today. Present day Secularism - your Secularism, atheistic Secularism – is a tyrannical, totalitarian, monopolistic religion that is intolerant of traditional religions. It demands the public arena for itself alone. It is anything but neutral.
The secularism of the past insured rules of fair play and access for all. Please do not confuse the two. They are polar opposites, as I suspect your realize.
Meanwhile, you claim that you aren’t a “naïve moral-relativist.” However, you haven’t articulated any solid basis to distinguish your views from what you condemn.
Mann: However, free votes/elections are far better than none – far better than one man overriding a popular vote without any tangible constitutional basis.
ReplyDeleteA representative democracy which is then tasked with protecting and representing ALL of the citizens is better. These people need to avoid kow towing to the majority on issues, which is where you sometimes seem to have problems with your government - majority rules can be a bad thing.
Are you referring to something in particular when you mention "one man overriding a popular vote without any tangible constitutional basis."?
Mann: You are trying to take credit for historical secularism as you promote an entirely different product today.
I'm not trying to take credit for anything, and I doubt there is any significant difference between past and present secularism.
I do see that your belief system is given far less deference than in the past, and I suspect that it is this that you object to.
Mann: Present day Secularism - your Secularism, atheistic Secularism
Secularism is, by definition, basically agnostic. Present day secularism does not differ from past secularism in this regard.
Mann: – is a tyrannical, totalitarian, monopolistic religion that is intolerant of traditional religions.
So you've claimed in the past, but in doing so you've either equated religious beliefs with secularism (Secular Humanism is a religion, and is not related to secularism of society/government in any direct way that I can see, except that perhaps Secular Humanism advocates secular government).
Mann: It demands the public arena for itself alone.
It does not. There is no censuring of religious voices in the public arena - the recent ridiculous claims put forward by the Catholic Church and others regarding health insurance reform is a perfect example.
Mann: It is anything but neutral
It is neutral in so far as it needs to rely upon reasons that all can accept - it should not rely upon sectarian claims in forming legislation and policy.
You object because your sectarian claims are not given the deference you think they deserve.
Mann: The secularism of the past insured rules of fair play and access for all.
As does current secularism. You can believe whatever you want, but the government cannot believe whatever it wants. It should not be subject to sectarian beliefs.
Mann: Please do not confuse the two. They are polar opposites, as I suspect your realize.
I suspect it is you who is confused Daniel. You claim that some new "secularism" is rampant, but you have not actually demonstrated this. Your only evidence is the fact that your sectarian claims and beliefs are not given priority or deference by the government, but that is the essence of secularism - old and new.
Mann: Meanwhile, you claim that you aren’t a “naïve moral-relativist.” However, you haven’t articulated any solid basis to distinguish your views from what you condemn.
I've given you quite enough detail to understand my claims. The problem seems to be that you have a view of morality which requires God belief, and anything which does not conform to this a priori definition of morality you have is inadequate.
You would need to show me why my view of morality is inadequate, and since my own claims are similar to your own, with the difference being I appeal to things which exist while you appeal to the will/nature of a non-existent being, I feel that my claims are on a more solid footing than your own.
I’m bored. It is so patently obvious that the secularism of today isn’t neutral. I can point to the many decisions that have marginalized the voice of Christians – whether in terms of intelligent design or the mention of “Jesus,” but I think you already know these things. Why then should I subject myself to a frustrating dialogue?
DeleteRegarding the logical inadequacy of your moral position – I’ve stated my reasoning, but you seem to refuse to engage it.