Posted by:
tig
(
)
Date: February 26, 2015 12:00AM
So a friend just posted this link
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=33605041 and asked for feedback.
Mine follows. Was I too harsh?
Since you asked...I completely support individuals right to practice their religion and that any state limitations on an individuals religious freedom should be avoided. However, when an individual enters into the public sphere they need to be committed to performing the duties of their position. What is quickly becoming the analogous example is that of a bakery. So we will use that. If you bake as a hobby, you have the right to refuse service to anyone you like. When you enter the public sphere, you need to treat everyone equally. If you are a bakery that does not make cakes, then it is easy...you don't make cakes. Not for gay weddings, not for straight weddings, not for interracial weddings, or cross cultural weddings. You just don't make cakes. But if you do make wedding cakes then you need to make them for everyone.
You know the difference between a pregnant woman and a light bulb? You can unscrew a light bulb. For years I have heard individuals not support abortion on the grounds that you don't get a do over because you don't like the outcome (pregnancy). They make the claim that you made the choice when you decided to have sex. Well, when you entered into an occupation you agreed to provide that good or service to all equally. Your religion may not like, agree or support the idea of liars, thieves, adulterers and other sinners but the checkout person at the local Walmart has to treat them as equals.
I am unaware of any single instance where the government has told an individual what they must think or believe, or for that matter how they must act with regards to their firmly held religious believes. What they have done is to implement consequences for acting on certain beliefs that society finds repugnant.
You are free to believe that women are the property of their husbands to do with as they like. You are free to proclaim this belief at your home, in your church, or even in the media. You are free to treat your wife as property according to your belief, and she is free to acquiesce. However, if you try to sell her on ebay you are in violation of the law and will be punished accordingly if found guilty. Like the pregnant women above, you can choose your belief and your action but you don't get to choose the consequences.
Please don't misunderstand, if the government tried to coerce a church into acting against its beliefs I would fully support legislation to prevent that from occurring, but that isn't the case. Remember that. Irrespective of the civil rights laws, the church was perfectly within the law while it discriminated against blacks until 1978. I just don't think current proponents of this religious freedom movement can point to a single instance of that type of impact. What they can point to are cases like the one in this article. So lets explore that for a moment.
We have an individual that either does not like gays, disagrees with their lifestyle, or doesn't want to fulfill an assigned task. Take your pick. Because some of us may agree with his stance on this issue we are quick to label it as religious intolerance and demand laws to protect individuals like him from the repercussions of his stance. But what if this was a slightly different situation.
What if a family member were involved in an accident and was bleeding to death. The responding paramedic refused to perform a blood transfusion because they are a Jehovah's Witness and it is against their religion. Your family member dies as a result. Still ok with the religious defense freedom then? What if you go to a grocery store where there is only one check out person working, but they are Jewish so they refuse to sell you the pork products in the cart because they know that it is aiding you in living a sinful life, and refusing to check you out is their protected religious right. Are you ok with the embarrassment of the scene and the inconvenience? How about if a friend of yours is traveling late at night in a small town, its cold and snowy. They pull into the only hotel for miles and requests a room, but is refused because the owner is a member of the Church of the First Born and refuses to serve a N***** because of his deeply held religious beliefs. Still ok with a law that would institutionalize an individuals right discriminate under the guise of "religious freedom? I'm not.
Now, should the department have attempted to accommodate this officer? Perhaps. I don't know the history of the situation and the article doesn't expand on it. Could they have accommodated? I don't know. If it was a possibility and the department chose not to accommodate, then that is pretty sad. But I can understand as well why they would choose not to.
We've been taught that life is about agency. That we are free to choose, but that we are not free to choose the consequences. It amazes me how quick many of us are to want to limit the agency of our brothers and sisters all while attempting to wrap ourselves in the cloak of righteousness. Yet, when we take actions that others disagree with we seek to indemnify ourselves from the results of our actions. Webster would call that hypocrisy.
Apologies for the book. You did ask.