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/
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/
Comments
Post a Comment