Skip to main content

Who's really free if religious freedom can impose upon the freedom of others?

When away from the workplace, people are free to believe as they so choose, no matter how discriminatory or inaccurate those beliefs might be. They're free to believe in God, worship the devil, pray to a stuffed rabbit they call Tiger. However, when at the workplace, while we're still free to believe such things, we can't use them to impose on the freedoms of others. At least, that's what I thought prior to the most recent wedding cake-bakery decision by the Supreme Court, which sided with Colorado baker Jack Phillips and his denial of wedding cake services to gay couples.

I'm sorry, but how can we legitimately call ourselves the "land of the free," a believer in the Constitution, if, in professional settings, certain groups of people aren't protected by the law? Jack Phillips is free to believe in the Christian religion, but like everyone else, he has to make some sacrifices when he steps outside of his home and into his workplace. We may be afforded the freedom of speech, but we can't all be yelling obscenities while at a meeting. Similarly, business owners can't be turning away people due to their age, gender, skin color, creed, or orientation. While the Constitution affords us the right to be bigots, the law tries to prevent that bigotry from preventing people to get properly served in the public sphere. Also, let's get real here: Organized religions have been around for how many hundreds of years? How many revisions have they undergone? How many interpretations are out there of their sacred books' scriptures? How can any one person know with absolute certainty that he or she is 100% in tune with their religion's increasingly flexible guidelines? Due to that, couldn't any person attempt to use that excuse? What kind of slippery slope could that send us down? "Excuse me, sir, but in the book of Two Corinthians, chapter 1, verse 2, I interpreted the scripture in such a manner that I believe it would be against my religion to serve you, so due to my religious freedom and the Supreme Court's decision, it's legal for me not to do so. Have a nice day." Is this "religious freedom" rationale more about people truly believing, that through an action, they're contradicting the word of God, or is it simply a ploy to excuse themselves of admitting, confronting, and improving upon their own bigotry? I'm guessing the latter, and I'm sorry, but if any one person or group of people is not afforded equal rights in this country, we'd be fools to believe ourselves to be, as the song suggests, "the land of the free."

http://time.com/5301461/colorado-baker-jack-phillips-supreme-court-gay-marriage-cake/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more