Discrimination, Conscience, and Religious Liberty

A long while ago I was watching an episode of Miami Ink.  One of the tattoo artists, Ami James, was the only guy on staff when a woman came in asking for a tattoo of some Christian devotional artwork.  Ami, who is Jewish, said he did not feel comfortable drawing Christian devotional artwork.  He refused the job.

Now, one felt for the lady’s frustration, but what ought to have been done?  Do I want this Jewish man to be sued for refusing to draw Christian devotional artwork?  Do I want him hauled before court and facing legal penalties?  Do I want his business demolished?

For many people this is not a mental exercise – this is reality.  All it would take to ruin their livelihood is a single person coming in the door making a request they cannot fulfill in good conscience… with a finger ready to hit the “call” button to a well-lawyered advocacy group.

Today I want to point out a distinction people overlook in these cases.  When someone refuses a job in this fashion, what exactly is being discriminated against?

And also… to what extent are we willing to punish people for obeying their conscience?


Against the Person… or the Task?

Let’s back up to the Miami Ink case again.  We can agree that some form of discrimination took place; the young blonde lady was refused service.  The question is… what was the nature of this discrimination?

Was it because she was blonde?  No, the artist happily served blonde clients on other occasions.

Was it because she was a woman?  No, he also did tattoos on women.

Was it because she was a Christian?  Here it is tempting to say “yes” – but that still wouldn’t be the case.  He would not have objected if the same woman had asked for a butterfly, or a bird, or a picture of a relative.  He had nothing against providing service to Christians.

So what did he do?  He objected to the nature of the job he was being asked to do.

This distinction is incredibly important.  When a Christian photographer declines to participate in a same-sex union ceremony, it is often said the person “discriminated against gay people”.  But this knee-jerk response is not accurate.  The same photographer has no intrinsic problem with taking jobs regardless of the sexual preference of her clients.

However, when asked to participate in this ceremony – (and the photographer absolutely participates) - her conscience will not allow her to do it.  So she refuses the job … not because of who is asking, but because of what she’s being asked to do.


A Whole Different Ballgame:

The standard comparison people make in these instances are diners in the Jim Crow era refusing service to African Americans based on racial hatred.  In this instance the owner of the diner is refusing to provide any and all services to the person based upon some characteristic of the person.  But as we’ve seen, that’s not what is going on in the photographer case.

Rather, a different set of comparisons becomes more appropriate.  A different question emerges:  Should people be forced to do jobs they find unethical? 

One could pile up possibilities:

• Should a kosher deli be forced to carry pork?
• Can a cab driver refuse to take a woman to her abusive boyfriend?
• Should a conference hall owned by an African American be forced to rent for a KKK rally? 
• Should a fair-trade store be forced to carry shirts made in sweat shops?
• Can a sign or T-shirt printer refuse to print hateful propaganda?
• Should a health-foods store be forced to carry cigarettes?
• Should a children’s book store be forced to sell Playboy?
• Should a doctor be forced to euthanize a patient when asked?  
• Should a hardware store owner be forced to sell a rope to a person who plans to kill himself with it? (Because we have the right to die, ya know)

In general, should the State be able to force people to violate their own ethics and principles?  Moreover, do we want to live a place where – in the name of “tolerance” – we cannot tolerate people who have ethical commitments we disagree with?


The Necessary Disclaimer:

Now, we can imagine scenarios – such as life or death situations – where the State really ought to be able to intervene.  But that is why laws protecting religious liberty always contain provisos pertaining to situations involving the compelling interests of the State.

These discussions always attract people who claim that religious liberty protections will inevitably lead to bodies in the streets.  But such people are not being serious.  Common sense, and the law, can distinguish between the gravity of different situations.

To that end, a bill which states: “A state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest”  … is really reasonable.

This is especially true in light of the First Amendment, which reads:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

How could a person approve of the latter but not the former?


Freedom of (private, mental, behind-closed-doors) Religion:

Here is the hurdle in this conversation:  Many people view religion as a private thing that goes on inside a Church or inside your head.  It is a tall order to explain to such people the importance of religious liberty.  I might bring up the Free Exercise Clause in the 1st Amendment, but the retort is always the same:

“That’s fine for you.  But when it negatively affects someone else, it’s different.”

I’d offer this observation:  People often say they want a multicultural environment.  Perhaps they think this only entails having a more diverse palette of restaurant choices – or maybe some foreign music festivals.

Then they are shocked when they encounter a person whose cultural convictions cause inconvenience to them.  Suddenly the desire for tolerance and diversity turns into unapologetic supremacy.  A disturbing number of people are perfectly willing to say:

“It’s just dumb that you would feel that way, and yes, you should be punished for it.  Why don’t you catch up to the rest of us?”  

Folks become blinded to their own tyranny – to their own intolerant cultural superiority - because they have no empathy for their victims.  Because their victims are WRONG, damnit.


The King’s Loyal Servant, but God’s First:

There are those whose animosity to people of faith prevents them from seeing the great good of religious liberty.  To those, nothing can be said.

But to all else I’d leave you with a few questions:

• Is there anything in your profession which you could be asked to do, but you know your personal ethics would force you to refuse?   

• If you did find yourself in that situation, would you want to make that decision under the threat of losing your livelihood?  

• Also, how severely should people be punished when they refuse to participate in something they disagree with?  

• Would you be willing to carry out the sentence yourself? 

There are those who truly believe they are combating injustice and working toward a more just society by opposing religious liberty protections – but don’t they realize the human cost.  When you have taken away a person’s conscience, you have taken away everything from them.

If that is not valued here in the land of the 1st Amendment… where is there left to go?