Every now and again, a matter before the courts brings to the fore certain fundamental questions about rights and personal liberties as well as about discrimination and restarts a conversation around these. The case involving Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a gay couple who wanted to place an order for a custom wedding cake with the Masterpiece Cake Shop is one such. The cake shop declined to accept their order and the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. When the matter came up before the Supreme Court of the United States, the final ruling was in favour of the cakeshop owner. Needless to say, people have had some rather extreme reactions.
The gay couple's request for a wedding cake was declined by cake shop owner Jack Phillips who cited his religious beliefs for refusing to serve a gay couple. SCOTUS upheld the baker’s right on a narrow point. However, people have viewed this as ratification to an individual's right to decline service based on his religious beliefs.
While some look upon the decision as discriminatory, others feel that this upholds fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech and religion. Some commentators felt that his is important also because it upholds the rights of people to refuse service to those they see as racist and bigoted.
Many commentators argue that while upholding a person's religious freedom is all very well, where does one draw the line? Should a pharmacist for instance be free not to sell someone birth control devices because their own religion forbids its use? Can someone indulge in racial discrimination based on some other set of beliefs?
This rather savage video speaks about how religious freedom has become a convenient way to mask prejudice, discrimination and intolerance of other faiths and beliefs as well as lifestyles. The video satirically likens the ruling and the excuse of religious freedom used to frame it within, to religious extremism and terror as propounded by ISIS and the likes.
Many have expressed the apprehension that the SCOTUS decision will lead to more discrimination with impunity. It is a fact that religion has been and can be used as an excuse not just for discrimination, but far worse as well. There is the apprehension that this is the first step towards legalisation of discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
One commentator pointed out that this wasn’t really a ruling on a person's right to refuse someone service; but a ruling that the Civil Right Commission failed to give one party a fair hearing. So in a sense the ruling was narrow and based on a technical aspect of the matter. The SCOTUS did not really opine on the actual case at hand: whether a merchant has the right to decline to serve people based on belief.
Many feel that is a good thing that the cake shop owner was free to declare his views about the LGBTQ community. Because this informs people’s choice and leaves the community and those that support it free not to give the shop their business.
As this commentator points out, it is rather futile to force someone to work for you: what if they end up sabotaging the job or simply doing a poor job? In my humble view, I wouldn’t want anyone to reluctantly do a job for me. If someone is bigoted, my demanding that they perform a service for me regardless will not cause them to change their mind about their beliefs or their bigotry. So really, why bother? Meanwhile if others decide to punish open bigotry by withholding their business, I would secretly be very delighted indeed!
The bottom line is this: true freedom of speech includes the right to all kinds of speech - even the expression of bigotry, ignorance, hatred and prejudice. The baker exercised this right when he refused to serve the gay couple. The gay couple can exercise theirs by choosing to take their business to someone else and urging others to do the same.
Do you have something interesting you would like to share? Write to us at [email protected]
