Mike's Musings: You're infringing on my rights!
Now that I've publicly come out as gay, I feel I can write this without tiptoeing around the issue of my sexuality (what a relief!).
With the gay rights movement gaining more momentum by the day, a lot of gay marriage opponents are adopting an attitude that being criticized for expressing their views is infringing on their right to free speech. At first, it sounds reasonable. Shouldn't one be able to express their views without fear of retribution? Of course. But this "speech" is different because it is so hurtful.
First of all, being criticized for proclaiming that they think homosexuality is a sin, in the right context, is unfair. However, in the public forum, it is not. When Chris Broussard proclaimed that he felt that homosexuality is a sin on ESPN, the public was furious. ESPN issued an apology. An overreaction that infringed on his first amendment rights? Not at all.
The First Amendment says that the government cannot infringe upon one's right to free speech. That does not apply to private enterprises, or in this case, public opinion. Chris Broussard indeed had his right to say how he feels. And the public had every right to be pissed about it. While ESPN apologized, Broussard was not disciplined. Therefore, any proclamations that his First Amendment rights were infringed upon, in any form, go up in smoke.
But what about in any public forum? Should gay marriage opponents be able to say what they feel? Absolutely. But here's the thing. Homosexuality is not a choice (despite some claims to the contrary), so a person can't choose their sexuality any more than they can choose the color of their skin. Therefore, criticizing someone or discriminating someone based on their sexual orientation is the same as criticizing someone or discriminating someone based on their race.
I recall Brian S. Brown, the leader of National Organization for Marriage (who oppose same-sex marriage) complaining that he and others like them were accused of being homophobic. Homophobia means "fear of gay people," rather than simply not feeling that gay marriage should be legal. Strictly speaking, this is true, in a sense (although in a sense one has to wonder if they have a fear of homosexuality on some level). But there have been occasions where the definition of a word has evolved into a new meaning. A lot of people understand that "phobia" means "fear of," but it has become a catch-all terms for comments or actions that discriminate against gay people.
Similar comments are made about the same argument from a religious perspective. People claim that by not allowing businesses to hire or serve someone because of their sexual orientation, or even express their opinion about it, restricts their freedom to religion.
This is more tricky. While merely speaking out against it doesn't infringe on a person's freedom of religion any more than it does free speech, hiring or serving someone may.
In a religiously-geared business, such as a church or a faith-based organization, I say it is. I oppose forcing churches to perform gay marriages. It offends their beliefs, and while it may be socially backward and discriminatory to gay people, it's their right (just as it is a person's right to change churches as a result or to speak out against it). And yet, people used this argument to legitimize discrimination against interracial marriages. Still, I don't recall a church getting sued over refusing to perform an interracial marriage.
But for private, non-religious businesses, I say it is discrimination. Because if it is not a faith-based organization, it is not entitled to the same protections.
The same principle applies to every part of speech. Gay-affirming, anti-gay, pro-or-gay religion, what have you. Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should.
With the gay rights movement gaining more momentum by the day, a lot of gay marriage opponents are adopting an attitude that being criticized for expressing their views is infringing on their right to free speech. At first, it sounds reasonable. Shouldn't one be able to express their views without fear of retribution? Of course. But this "speech" is different because it is so hurtful.
First of all, being criticized for proclaiming that they think homosexuality is a sin, in the right context, is unfair. However, in the public forum, it is not. When Chris Broussard proclaimed that he felt that homosexuality is a sin on ESPN, the public was furious. ESPN issued an apology. An overreaction that infringed on his first amendment rights? Not at all.
The First Amendment says that the government cannot infringe upon one's right to free speech. That does not apply to private enterprises, or in this case, public opinion. Chris Broussard indeed had his right to say how he feels. And the public had every right to be pissed about it. While ESPN apologized, Broussard was not disciplined. Therefore, any proclamations that his First Amendment rights were infringed upon, in any form, go up in smoke.
But what about in any public forum? Should gay marriage opponents be able to say what they feel? Absolutely. But here's the thing. Homosexuality is not a choice (despite some claims to the contrary), so a person can't choose their sexuality any more than they can choose the color of their skin. Therefore, criticizing someone or discriminating someone based on their sexual orientation is the same as criticizing someone or discriminating someone based on their race.
I recall Brian S. Brown, the leader of National Organization for Marriage (who oppose same-sex marriage) complaining that he and others like them were accused of being homophobic. Homophobia means "fear of gay people," rather than simply not feeling that gay marriage should be legal. Strictly speaking, this is true, in a sense (although in a sense one has to wonder if they have a fear of homosexuality on some level). But there have been occasions where the definition of a word has evolved into a new meaning. A lot of people understand that "phobia" means "fear of," but it has become a catch-all terms for comments or actions that discriminate against gay people.
Similar comments are made about the same argument from a religious perspective. People claim that by not allowing businesses to hire or serve someone because of their sexual orientation, or even express their opinion about it, restricts their freedom to religion.
This is more tricky. While merely speaking out against it doesn't infringe on a person's freedom of religion any more than it does free speech, hiring or serving someone may.
In a religiously-geared business, such as a church or a faith-based organization, I say it is. I oppose forcing churches to perform gay marriages. It offends their beliefs, and while it may be socially backward and discriminatory to gay people, it's their right (just as it is a person's right to change churches as a result or to speak out against it). And yet, people used this argument to legitimize discrimination against interracial marriages. Still, I don't recall a church getting sued over refusing to perform an interracial marriage.
But for private, non-religious businesses, I say it is discrimination. Because if it is not a faith-based organization, it is not entitled to the same protections.
The same principle applies to every part of speech. Gay-affirming, anti-gay, pro-or-gay religion, what have you. Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should.
Comments
Post a Comment