Recent controversies surrounding “religious freedom” laws are poised to dominate the upcoming election. Many on the left hold the impression that these laws seek to deprive the LGBT community of equal rights, thus feeding their perception that not only are conservatives wrong on policy, they are simply wrong morally. But this position rests on a basic misunderstanding. By embracing the notion that these laws stem from sheer bigotry or homophobia, many on the left believe the “religious freedom” agenda is driven exclusively by social conservatives pushing a watered down version of theocracy. On the contrary, the religious freedom laws I (and many on the right) support stem from a classically liberal tradition. Rather than use government to reinforce discrimination, as many seem to believe these laws intend, a good religious freedom law will protect citizens from possible government abuses.
First, we should gain the proper context. Arguably the only wholly consistent view on this issue holds that a privately owned business may refuse service to anyone it chooses, for any reason whatsoever. If a neo-Nazi, for example, requests a swastika from a Jewish tattoo artist, few would argue he lacks the right to refuse the Nazi’s business. Yet while this belief appeals intuitively, it has troubling implications. Without certain laws dictating how a business may behave, there is nothing stopping a business owner from engaging in discriminatory practices. We know from the Civil Rights Era that this is not merely theoretical, and that extensive government action was required to curb businesses’ discriminatory practices. For this reason, many on the left — including Opinion writer Nora Walls — express understandable concerns that “religious freedom” laws open the door to a new era of discrimination against the LGBT community. They therefore cannot comprehend why Republicans so staunchly support these laws.
Once you reject this first view, however, the government in effect becomes the arbitrator of taste for society. In some instances, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this achieves positive results. But there are drawbacks. As I write this, the Denver city council is deliberating on whether to allow a Chick-fil-A to open because of its CEO’s past opposition to same-sex marriage. I’ll reiterate: government is now considering blocking the expansion of a popular fast food franchise because its owner holds the views even Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton held for the majority of their careers. Now, you might object that this is but one extreme case; that it still does not mean religious freedom laws are understandable. But I would argue the opposite; that this demonstrates the danger of entrusting government with too many arbitrary powers. As of today, a bakery in Oregon can be fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, while a bakery that refuses to bake a cake with frosting reading “We do not support gay marriage” faces (rightfully, in my view) no legal punishment. One doesn’t have to be a conservative to see why many find this absurd.
Thus the first view (a laissez-faire approach to the private sector) is ideologically superior to the second (unchecked government involvement) because it grants more freedom to the individual. “Freedom to discriminate, you mean,” will deride the critics, but that is beside the point. I do not temper my support for free speech because certain individuals proclaim sentiments I disagree with, and I do not intend to disavow my belief that individuals ought to possess ultimate authority over how they wish to sell their private property. “I detest how you conduct business, but I would defend to the death your right to make your own decisions” does not have quite the same ring to it as Voltaire’s classic line “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write,” but it stems from the same tradition of thought.
Nevertheless, it is unlikely Congress will suddenly scrap all laws prohibiting private businesses from practicing discriminatory policies. Therefore, religious freedom laws are necessary to protect against the types of government overreach currently evident in Denver and Oregon. Most importantly, however, these laws will not be licenses to discriminate; they are shields, not swords. They must be crafted carefully so as not to allow a baker to ban all LGBT individuals from her store. Rather, the purpose of the law is to protect the baker from damaging lawsuits or bankrupting government fines in the event the baker declines to participate in a same sex wedding. The left has won the culture war on legalizing same sex marriage, but that is no reason to roam the countryside shooting the survivors. While you may not agree with a florist’s beliefs requiring him to abstain from catering a same sex marriage, disagreement is hardly a reason to send agents of the state after his livelihood. This is the core of the religious freedom debate, and for many on the right, not just the social conservatives, it’s a cause worth fighting for.
Matt Winesett is a Viewpoint writer.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | YesterdayStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | YesterdayWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | 2 days agoLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
