Hi Randy,
Question I hope you could help me with:
There have been a few stories recently - both here in the UK and I think in the
USA too - about bakers who refuse to bakes cakes for gay couples who wish to
celebrate their weddings. What's your position on this? Some people say,
"Well, it's freedom of religion, so the government shouldn't force
Christian bakers to go against their consciences." People on the
other side, however, say "Well, you can't discriminate based on things
like race , gender, and sexuality. After all, do we really think society should
allow bakers to refuse to serve women and blacks?." I also heard an
atheist earlier say, "What about a baker refusing on religious grounds to
bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah or Holy Communion? Isn't that the same as
refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual couple's wedding?." I have
a pretty good idea of how to answer this (e.g., the Bible condemns homosexual
acts not orientation, so it's not the same as discriminating against race and gender
which are in-born) but would appreciate your input.
God Bless,
James
Randy:
Hello James,
I certainly am
not qualified to answer this from a legal perspective, particularly as it
relates to UK law (I just don't have the faintest idea of how it works!). I
can, however, philosophically evaluate the arguments as you've represented
them. Specifically, I'd want to address the argument of whether or not those
wanting to get married are analogous to gender or race.
As you have
pointed out, there's a difference in what the Bible addresses: in point of
fact, nowhere does the Bible address "orientations" where
"orientation" is something like a disposition to be attracted to the
same or multiple genders. But notice something even further: "race"
and "gender" are taken to be things over which one has no control.
Analogously, the argument is supposed to be that one's orientation is something
over which one has no control. Thus, if it is unfair to discriminate based on
factors outside of one's control, then certainly homosexuals apply here too. I
have a number of responses.
First, it's
not clear that it's always wrong to discriminate against someone for a
factor over which they have no control. Let me explain. Discriminate is
one of those words that has come to take on an almost wholly negative use, but
if all people mean by discriminate is "to eliminate by choice"
or something equivalent then we all discriminate based on a variety of factors
every single day; the vast majority of these are fairly innocuous. The WNBA
presumably does not allow males to compete on the basis of their gender; high
school locker rooms presumably are not co-ed, on the basis of gender (though
who knows, that might begin to change!); scholarships made available for people
of certain ethnic or racial origins are available to them based on their
ethnicity or race, and are not available to others based on ethnicity or race;
the examples can go on and on. And yet, most people don't take these to be negative
examples of discrimination based on race or gender, factors over which people
have no control. So if negative discrimination (the bad kind) is defined as
choosing against someone for a factor over which they have no control, then all
of these should be viewed as paradigmatic examples. Yet they are not. This
tells us there is something over and above the standard use that makes it
negative discrimination. That "over and above" factor is plausibly
intent or the absence of good reasons for the discrimination. If one has good
reasons for the discrimination, but intends to damage the one being chosen
against, then I think negative discrimination is at work. If one has a good
intent, but has no good reason for choosing against someone for a factor over
which they have no control, then this is plausibly an example of negative
discrimination.
Second, there
is a marked difference between what one is and what one does;
there is a difference between the orientation and the acting on that
orientation. While the homosexual may not be able to control, and may not have
caused, their same-sex attraction (though this is not at all clear, it's
incidental), they do control their behavior. Thus, in the context of someone
asking a Christian pastor, say, to perform a homosexual "wedding,"
saying "no" is not discriminating against them for a factor
over which they have no control. The reasoning is plainly not, "You
have a homosexual desire, therfore, I will not perform the ceremony." This
is because, presumably, he wouldn't perform the ceremony even if the
couple-to-be both had heterosexual desires. The factor that rules out the
Christian pastor performing the "wedding" is the attempted marriage,
a factor over which they have complete control. The only way to argue otherwise
is to argue that no one has control over their behavior, in which case even the
alleged negative discriminator has no control over his/her behavior, so that to
place blame on the negative discriminator is itself negative discrimination,
which seems crazy.
Third, notice
that many people speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. For
example, in contexts wholly unrelated to religious freedom and homosexual
"marriages," people will use "gender" as a malleable term;
that is, according to many of these same people, one can switch genders,
and hence, so long as all else is equal (finances and availability of doctors,
for example), gender is in fact a factor over which someone has control.
Of course, I don't buy that gender as a concept is so malleable, but they do.
If they do, then the prohibition on gender-based discrimination, at least in
the majority of the Western world (US, Canada, UK), is based on a mistake: it
is a factor over which someone has control. One must choose: either
gender-based discrimination that otherwise would be marked as negative has
warrant that is undercut, or else gender as a concept is not truly malleable.
Finally, I'd
like to go back to the first point about negative discrimination. What is
happening when the Christian, asked to provide a direct service for
specifically homosexual behavior, refuses? Is it negative discrimination? Let's
apply our criteria. First, does he or she have good intent? Of course, we
cannot know: perhaps she does have negative intent. But it's not charitable
(and it's question-begging) to assume this; it's more charitable to assume they
are being sincere, unless evidence to the contrary surfaces. So she doesn't
hate nor is she trying to prevent the behavior of the person; she simply
intends not to be the one to perform the task (the legal status of gay
"marriages" is an entirely different discussion). Second, does she
exert discrimination against a person for a factor over which they have no
control for no good reason? No, for at least two reasons. First, the gay
"marriage" to be is a behavior, and hence a factor over which they do
in fact have control. Second, she has a good overriding reason not to perform
the task: her conscience, informed by her religious beliefs, preclude her from
taking part in the task.
So, her reason
for not performing the task is not, "You are homosexuals," but
rather, "My religious beliefs preclude me from taking direct part in a
homosexual 'wedding,' because marriage is between one man and one woman; and
this is a homosexual 'wedding,' not between one man and one woman." Note
the overarching reason has only implications for homosexual behavior; it is not
itself about homosexual behavior. Her religious beliefs include that
marriage is between one man and one woman, and thus the discrimination is not about
homosexual behaviors, but rather is an implication from other religious
beliefs. This can be seen in two aspects. Suppose the woman bakes cakes. In the
first instance, a homosexual comes in and orders a cake for his partner's
birthday. She disapproves of his lifestyle, but makes the cake. Why? Because
she's not an active participant in something that violates her religious
beliefs (assuming she thinks celebrating birthdays is OK); the actions that her
religious beliefs would imply to be negative are not directly related to her
actions in making the cake. In the second instance, a man walks in and
announces he needs a wedding cake--five of them, in fact--one for each of the
women he's marrying in a ceremony. She refuses, even though the man is a
heterosexual involved in a heterosexual reason, for precisely the same
reason she refuses to make the homosexual wedding cake! This last part is
enough for me to believe that there's just no negative discrimination going on.
God Bless,
Randy Everist
Good answer. I think the racism and homosexuality comparison does fall apart. For skin color is benign but sexual behavior certainly isn't so race does no one harm, homosexual relations of bodies that are clearly not designed or for one another in conplimentariness can be very harmful. Sexual Behavior is also a choice, race however is not so that one cannot change their race even though many have changed their sexual dispositions or at least acts (i.e., former homosexuals exist). Homosexuality also is not a class or an identity but one is gay or straight by behavior and male and female by anatomy or biologyg (there is very good proof one is not born gay though we may be influenced by various factors). Laws should also be concerned about harmful behaviors and discrimate against them. All Laws do discrimate as they should againsr bad behaviors (I think your statement on discrimation is helpful and clarifies my statement). These are my thoughts anyway.
ReplyDeleteThanks, I appreciate it! Sorry for not acknowledging the comment earlier. :)
DeleteHoliday Months! I understand have a great one to you and yours (:
DeleteHi Randy,
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested in your take on cases where - as has happened in my home country (not sure about in the US) - Christian hotel owners have been prosecuted because they have denied a room to homosexual couples on the basis that in allowing them to have a room they'd thereby be an active participant in supporting the sinful activity of homosexual sex. Would you say that is analogous to the "baking a wedding cake" situation? Or would it be slightly different? It seems a bit different to me but I'd be interested in your take.
I think it's possibly a little different, though it could potentially be the same. Here's why: a hotel owner can, at least in principle, judge a couple to be married and thus not engaging in premarital sex, for example. However, there is no way a couple intent on sexual activity that is homosexual in nature can be acceptable to one's religious beliefs, even in principle. However, there is an important difference between this and a wedding cake scenario: in the wedding cake scenario, you as the baker know that the cake is for a homosexual union, by definition of the scenario. In renting out a room, you technically do not know this for sure by the definition of the scenario. Perhaps their orientation doesn't even come up, and even if it does, perhaps they are not a couple, and even if they are, perhaps no sexual behavior is engaged in. What makes the difference here is the definition. So, suppose instead that a gay couple announces themselves as such and describes to the owner actions they will take that are religiously objectionable should the owner allow them the room. In that case, I think the owner has a right (ethical right--I don't follow British law, so I don't know about legality) to refuse service--just as they would have that right if an unmarried couple came in and announced the same thing. Seeing as that would be exceedingly odd, however, and it's not in the definition of the scenario, I would not refuse such service in general.
DeleteOK, thanks Randy. Glad to know I was thinking along the same lines as yourself regarding this question :).
ReplyDeleteI've got a follow-up question: what would you say in the case of (for example) a taxi driver who is a Christian and picks up a customer who asks to be taken to a strip club? Do you think they should refuse since, some may say, they are in a way helping someone commit sin by driving them to their destination? Or do you think this is different to the situation of a Christian baker or - to be topical - the Kim Davis gay marriage situation?
ReplyDeleteThis is a good question! I think this may be different. Now, I haven't looked to see what I said above, but I at least now (and hopefully then) think that it's not the case that I'm saying the Christian baker has an obligation not to serve such people. Rather, it may be justified given conscience. I do think there is a disanalogy between this and cases of legal recognition of marriage or else being asked to perform part of the ceremony. An analogous case here might be asking the cab driver to accompany them into the strip club, or else (bizarrely) giving their blessing to such an act. There is a certain sense in which much about weddings, for example, involves celebration and congratulations. Surely the manufacturer of the napkins is not taken to be a congratulatory participant, but the officiant *is*. What about the photographer? I cannot say for certain, but it at least seems to me as though a wedding photographer is not merely transactional in nature. The photographer at our wedding needed to be involved, interacting, and indeed congratulations is natural. It would have been utterly bizarre, had we learned he objected to our wedding for some reason, for us to insist on retaining him (it would have been quite awkward), whereas, again in the case of the napkins, I wouldn't really care if the napkin maker disagreed with my marriage (I'd either get my napkins someplace else or just buy them and not think much of it).
DeleteIt's not easy to say what the right answer is, but people should have freedom of conscience in these areas.