Liberty’s Messy Business

Individual liberty and social justice become messy business when opposing belief systems present conflicts between two or more people.  Were we a homogynous society, guiding our lives by one understanding of truth, we would not have the conflict, but liberty would also be a mute point.  Adding private businesses into the decisions, and something as simple as documenting someone’s wedding in photographs and celebrating a couple’s union with a cake become collision points.  Every wedding has it disaster(s) without anyone needing to kick the leg out from the bride’s and groom’s head table.

In recent years, various states have either legalized “gay” marriage, or enacted legislation and voter referandums supporting “traditional” marriages.  The former appear to be gaining greater acceptance, if not by the general population, but also by various legislatures and courts striking down laws such as The Defense of Marriage Act, etc.  This seems to be a vindication of liberty for those who wish to join households with personal vows and legal recognition.

Yet, a backlash has begun to occur as various business men and women who provide wedding services choose to not provide services for marriages which they disagree with, whether on religious or philosophical grounds.  All of this challenges the concept of freedom of assocaition.

On one hand, having the freedom to marry (or not) someone requires freedom of association of those two individuals, as well as their social group.   The argument for gay marriage is that the individuals may select a partner by their own preferences, rather than being restricted to only choosing someone from the opposite gender.  I hope that they use a wide range of other criteria and characteristics too, but that is my personal bias.

On the other hand, why should a business man or woman be required to provide a service to all customers, verses the freedom to associate with whom one chooses for commerce purposes?  In cases in several states, wedding photographers and cake bakers have been taken to court with accusations of discrimination when they declined to provide services for gay marriage cerimonies.  Other companies have chimed in, warning politicians about financial disasters that might occur if they pass legislation that would allow someone to use “religious beliefs” as a means of justifying denial of services.

However, if a business man or woman can say “No” to baking a cake for lesbians, on religious grounds, could they also use this reason to deny services to other people.  Should a Catholic cake baker provide for a second marriage, or need to check with the church to be sure that the former marriage was correctly annuled?  Should a Morman photographer check on church roles to be sure that the couple has completed their mission services and are both virgins before snapping some shots?  Should an Humanist printer forget about printing announcements for all those religiously-delusional couples wanting to invite guests?  Should a kosher catering company refuse to set up the heating trays for a Jew marrying a Christian?  It does not take long to either become ludicrous in the examples, or show how quickly society fragments over a controversial issue.

The more critical issue, in my opinion, is not as much what the individuals chose to do, but how governments (local, state, federal) act.  There is a difference between allowing some activity, and requiring the same.  Allowing men and men, women and women to join in marriage, is different from reqiring that men and women marry.  Allowing a photographer to document a gay marriage is different from requiring that he or she sanction the ceremony.

I see two errors in our current social trends, as far as liberty is concerned.  First, I beleive that the government (at all levels) should get out of the marriage business.  Couples who wish to proclaim legal status should go to the court house, get a civil union, and post this in the records.  Marriage ceremonies are social rituals, which faith communities, family, and/or a group of freinds can gather for to observe according to their traditions.

Second, the gay community needs to brush the chip off of its shoulder.  Stop seeking legal status (e.g. discrimination law suits) to force people to accept and uphold their lifestyle.  Just as there are churches and ministers which accept them, there are photographers, hair dressers, dress/suit makers, cake bakers, catering companies, events locations that are interested in their business.  Start by using those who are friendly to them.  Over time, they will either not need those who squirm or blush at their marriages, or will find that those same business owners realize that business and beliefs do not always mix for profits.  Keep the government out of the wedding planner’s notebook.

I do not hold out for some utopian society in which everyone is accepted, or even lives with some degree of tolerance for different beliefs and rituals.  However, most hot issues become tempered over time.  I hope that in a few generations, we will be less concerned with who had what in their britches, as to the quality of their relationships and solidity of  their social connections.


About hermitsdoor

Up here in the mountains, we have a saying, "You can't get there from here", which really means "We wouldn't go the trouble to do that". Another concept is that "If you don't know, we ain't telling." For the rest, you'll have to read between the lines.
This entry was posted in Reflections and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Liberty’s Messy Business

  1. Barneysday says:

    Judging by your note to my blog, you might have guessed that I’d likely see things a bit different than you.

    In the past, the civil union argument failed, because civil unions had no legal rights, such as filing taxes jointly, owning property in some cases, inheritance issues, insurance coverage, even visitations in hospitals or health care inititives. It is only the legal rights, thus laws, that eliminated these problems.

    I think your 6th paragraph gets to the gist of the matter. If an owner can discriminate based upon religious beliefs, how does that not cascade into all sorts of beliefs, as you point out, but even worse. How do we not go all the way back to the racial discriminations of the 1950’s? If the door is cracked opened in the Hobby Lobby case, it will swing wide open into a host of other causes and arenas of discrimination, and ultimately isn’t that the issue? Or, is the racial discrimination of the ’50’s really ok, because of the “right” of free association?

    I don’t believe there really was a true case here, and the Supremes either made a huge mistake in taking it on, or is indicating that it is about to reverse 50 years of anti-discrimination rules. Or maybe there’s another possibility, and that is the Supremes are going to dictate that indeed this is a “christian” nation, and laws separating church and state are to be overturned.

    Whats your guess?

    • hermitsdoor says:

      Thanks for the clarification on the “civil union” status. I believe that our positions are similar, but I used terminology more loosely. By the concept of civil union, I ment a general idea of the government providing a legal means of two people contracting for the rights that you list. I would apply this to both heterosexual and homosexual unions, thus taking “marriage” out of the government’s role.

      Then those couples who follow a certain faith or social custom could celebrate their “marriage” with their faith community or social group, signifying whatever meaning they wish.

      Regarding the Hobby Lobby case, could an employer start hiring only workers who hold similar viewpoints to theirs? Tribalism, whether the Talaban or Tea Party, will be the downfall of society… unless you like jihad or laissez faire manipulated society.

      • Barneysday says:

        I think that your last paragraph says it all about the problems with the Hobby Lobby case, and the fears thats exactly what will result if the Supremes decide in its favor.

        The legalities of civil unions are the issue. Pat and I decided to marry 20 years ago only for the legal issues.We had been together for several years, bought property together, but had no legal standing with each others estates, or health issues or directives. She would not have even been allowed in some cases to visit me if I grew severely ill.

        So the “Marriage” in one respect, was a sham in one sense, only to achieve legal rights.

      • hermitsdoor says:

        Once we get past our youthful romantic ideals and religious premises about marriage, it is basically a contract. In writing this piece, I thought back to when we went to the courthouse to file for a marriage license. No one informed me of what “rights” I was getting into.

        Also, people and businesses have worked around the lack of rights in many case. Couple can jointly own property. Unmarried parents can work out child custody arrangements with lawyers and judges if necessary. Hospitals ask patients whom they wish to share medical information and this is put into the chart. Some businesses and health insurance companies include domestic partner benefits.

        What’s love got to do with it? (Tina Turner)

      • Barneysday says:

        Tina was right on!

This Hermit's Door is Open: Step in & Share Your Opinion

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s