The Case For Discrimination

Yesterday I wrote about the conflict between religious liberty and non-discrimination.  A recent example is Lorie Smith, a web-designer in the state of Colorado.  Smith creates websites for engaged couples promoting their upcoming wedding.  As an evangelical Christian, Smith cannot in good conscience use her talents and resources to promote something sinful, and that includes same-sex marriage.  Should Smith have the freedom to discriminate in the name of religious liberty, only creating websites that promote traditional marriage?  Or should the state have the power to limit religious liberty in the name of non-discrimination, coercing Smith to violate her religious beliefs?

Advocates for non-discrimination usually state their case like this:  Religious liberty is not a license to discriminate.  But there is a fatal flaw with this statement:  It is not true. 

Churches, synagogues, mosques, and religious schools and colleges discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation all the time and have been doing so since before the founding of our nation.  They have the freedom to not hire gay ministers or teachers, to not permit students to engage in homosexual behavior, and to excommunicate members for engaging in or teaching homosexual behavior.  So in reality, religious liberty is a license to discriminate.  This "license to discriminate" is not seen as bigotry, but as a necessary component of religious exercise.

Advocates for non-discrimination will argue that discrimination is allowed in these cases because these are religious organizations, but when it comes businesses that are open to the public, it is unlawful to discriminate.  But this raises two questions.

1. Why is discrimination an act of religious exercise when it is committed by a religious organization, but an act of bigotry when it is committed by a business owner? 
2. Where in the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does it say that religious liberty is limited to religious organizations?  Answer:  It doesn't.  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 

With this in mind, here is the case for discrimination (the case against non-discrimination laws).

1. Non-discrimination laws limit religious liberty to the four walls of the church (or religious organization).
2. The First Amendment does not limit religious liberty to the four walls of the church.
3. Therefore, non-discrimination laws are unconstitutional.

The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion.  Religious exercise is not limited to the four walls of the church.  Just as prayer and Bible study are not restricted to the church grounds, obedience cannot be restricted to the four walls of the church.  If religious exercise is not restricted to the four walls of the church, then religious liberty cannot be restricted to the four walls of the church.  Thus, non-discrimination laws are unlawful.