The Case for Religious Liberty
Right now our country is divided over the conflict between religious liberty and non-discrimination. On the one hand, the government guarantees the free exercise of religion in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. On the other hand, very recently some states have begun passing non-discrimination laws against gays. These two laws are coming into conflict when, for example, a baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to religious convictions, and the same-sex couple decides to sue the baker.
When faced with these conflicts the government has two options.
When debating advocates of non-discrimination, they often argue that a Christian has the right to be religious, but religion is not a license to discriminate. But behind this argument is an assumption -- that non-discrimination should automatically trump religious liberty. But why must religious liberty, the first freedom protected in the Bill of Rights, suddenly take a back seat to non-discrimination? In response it can simply be argued that a gay person has the right to be gay, but sexual orientation is not a license to limit religious liberty.
How can the state resolve this conflict? Should the gay couple be allowed to sue the baker for discrimination, or should the baker be allowed to decline gay weddings due to their religious convictions?
The way for the state to resolve this conflict is simple: Weigh the potential consequences of both decisions. As Jay W. Richards says, anytime the government is considering legislation it needs to ask, "And then what will happen?" Good intentions are not enough if the outcome is disastrous. Let's weigh the possible outcomes of each decision:
To put it simply, giving priority to religious liberty means a gay couple will have to find another baker, while giving priority to non-discrimination means that a baker will lose everything. Neither outcome is perfect. But which outcome is worse? Which would do the most harm? The answer to that question should drive government policy.
On the surface non-discrimination sounds nice, but when you consider the potential consequences of such legislation it becomes clear than non-discrimination laws do more harm than good. In the words of the great economist Milton Friedman,
When faced with these conflicts the government has two options.
- Option One, it can allow religious liberty to take precedence by prohibiting non-discrimination except for religious purposes.
- Option Two, it can allow non-discrimination to take precedence by protecting the free exercise of religion except for non-discrimination.
When debating advocates of non-discrimination, they often argue that a Christian has the right to be religious, but religion is not a license to discriminate. But behind this argument is an assumption -- that non-discrimination should automatically trump religious liberty. But why must religious liberty, the first freedom protected in the Bill of Rights, suddenly take a back seat to non-discrimination? In response it can simply be argued that a gay person has the right to be gay, but sexual orientation is not a license to limit religious liberty.
How can the state resolve this conflict? Should the gay couple be allowed to sue the baker for discrimination, or should the baker be allowed to decline gay weddings due to their religious convictions?
The way for the state to resolve this conflict is simple: Weigh the potential consequences of both decisions. As Jay W. Richards says, anytime the government is considering legislation it needs to ask, "And then what will happen?" Good intentions are not enough if the outcome is disastrous. Let's weigh the possible outcomes of each decision:
- Outcome One: If the state gives precedence to religious liberty and allows the baker to refuse to serve a gay wedding due to religious convictions, the outcome will be that the gay couple will have to find another baker.
- Outcome Two: If the sates gives precedence to non-discrimination and only protects religious freedom when it does not discriminate, then the baker will be sued, lose their business, face possible jail-time (Kim Davis), and be driven out of the wedding industry altogether.
To put it simply, giving priority to religious liberty means a gay couple will have to find another baker, while giving priority to non-discrimination means that a baker will lose everything. Neither outcome is perfect. But which outcome is worse? Which would do the most harm? The answer to that question should drive government policy.
On the surface non-discrimination sounds nice, but when you consider the potential consequences of such legislation it becomes clear than non-discrimination laws do more harm than good. In the words of the great economist Milton Friedman,
"A society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither equality nor liberty. And a society that aims first for liberty will not end up with equality, but it will end up with a closer approach to equality than any other kind of system that has ever been developed."
Comments
Post a Comment