So the battle over gay rights in this country is heating up again. I'm not even talking about California's Prop 8 right now. I'm talking about e-Harmony, the website matchmaking service. E-Harmony had resisted (a polite way of saying refused) offering services for same sex couples. However, after a lawsuit was filed, the group agreed to settle and provide gay matches for those that want them.
Showing the kind of level-headed open mindedness that has always marked her writing career, Michelle Malkin immediately branded the move the work of "tolerance bullies" for ensuring that "homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable 'right' to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony." While I find Malkin to be odious, I couldn't help but wonder about the points she raised. After all, e-Harmony is a private company operating within the bounds of the law. Malkin writes that this move is akin to ordering a vegetarian restaurant to serve steaks. It requires them to provide a service that they simply don't provide as a matter of business. This is compelling to an extent.
What tipped the scales for me, though, was to replace the operative word "homosexual" with "black." If e-Harmony refused to offer services for blacks (or whites or any other race) would it still even be debateable?
I don't think it would be. Long ago we, as a society, decided that even private businesses weren't allowed to discriminate based on race. That's why you don't see segregated lunch counters anymore. This isn't just some PC argument either. This is a fundamental issue of fairness and how we treat people in this country. If we wouldn't (and shouldn't) allow it based on race, then we shouldn't do it for sexual orientation either. It's just a question of fairness.
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Rights? What Rights?
Every so often the Bush administration does something to help us remember just what it is about the Bush administration that we really don't like. This probably counts as some sort of constituent service in their eyes.
The latest example I submit to you is that the Justice Department is apparently on the verge of condoning racial profiling as an investigative technique. My favorite line from the AP article is: "Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious."
That's right. The Justice Department is deciding that there doesn't need to be evidence or even allegations that a law has been broken to start an investigation. Instead, they'll look a profiles of traits that seem suspicious.
Wow. I know the Fourth of July isn't until tomorrow, but doesn't that just make you proud to be an American.
Yet again, the Bush administration is making it pretty clear that they'll ignore the Constitution anytime it seems like it might prove an inconvenience.
The latest example I submit to you is that the Justice Department is apparently on the verge of condoning racial profiling as an investigative technique. My favorite line from the AP article is: "Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious."
That's right. The Justice Department is deciding that there doesn't need to be evidence or even allegations that a law has been broken to start an investigation. Instead, they'll look a profiles of traits that seem suspicious.
Wow. I know the Fourth of July isn't until tomorrow, but doesn't that just make you proud to be an American.
Yet again, the Bush administration is making it pretty clear that they'll ignore the Constitution anytime it seems like it might prove an inconvenience.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Gay Rights and Religious Freedom
I never cease to be amazed by the level of alarmism that springs up anytime there's some sort of victory for gay rights. The latest example comes to us courtesy of the California Supreme Court's decision that the state has to allow gay marriage. This prompted the LA Times op-ed titled: Will Gay Rights Trample Religious Freedom? The piece ends with the author writing, "it is religious rights that are likely to be 'obliterated' by an emerging popular majority supporting same-sex relationships."
Really? Allowing same-sex marriage is goiong to obliterate religious freedom?
The courts have always held that you're allowed to believe what you want but that your actions must be in accordance with the interests of society as a whole. In other words, you can believe as fervently as you wish that human sacrifice is the path to heaven and there's no problem. Once you decide to start actually sacrificing humans, there's a big problem.
The same situation stands here. Churches can believe and preach that homosexuality and same-sex marriages are wrong. They can refuse to perform those ceremonies. However, the court has said that the churches that refuse to do so cannot dictate terms for those that are willing. Furthermore, the state must honor those marriages that do take place.
Rather than limiting the religious freedom of those churches that will not perform same-sex marriages, this ruling broadens religious freedom for those that are willing. That's not quite as catchy as claiming the obliteration of religious freedom, but it does have the distinction of being true.
Really? Allowing same-sex marriage is goiong to obliterate religious freedom?
The courts have always held that you're allowed to believe what you want but that your actions must be in accordance with the interests of society as a whole. In other words, you can believe as fervently as you wish that human sacrifice is the path to heaven and there's no problem. Once you decide to start actually sacrificing humans, there's a big problem.
The same situation stands here. Churches can believe and preach that homosexuality and same-sex marriages are wrong. They can refuse to perform those ceremonies. However, the court has said that the churches that refuse to do so cannot dictate terms for those that are willing. Furthermore, the state must honor those marriages that do take place.
Rather than limiting the religious freedom of those churches that will not perform same-sex marriages, this ruling broadens religious freedom for those that are willing. That's not quite as catchy as claiming the obliteration of religious freedom, but it does have the distinction of being true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)