Do High-End Brands Lead to High Profit Portfolios?
From the furor, the boycotts, and the threats launched at the state of Indiana last week, one might get the impression that Gov. Mike Pence, R, had just signed a law that effectively legalizes discrimination against gays and lesbians. After all, as the New York Daily News headline put it, the law "effectively legalizes discrimination against gays, lesbians."
This is nonsense and a cardinal example (pun intended) of the lack of respect for the truth among certain crusading liberal journalists and editors.
In the real world, Pence signed a religious freedom law that is similar to those of 19 other states, some of which also ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That should have been the first clue. The second is that the law Pence signed is not very different from the one in Illinois that Barack Obama voted for as a state senator.
The new Indiana law is modeled after the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires courts to subordinate government interests to citizens' First Amendment freedom of religion as far as is practically possible. When government argues it must infringe religious freedom (this could pertain to the military draft, vaccinations or any of a number of topics), RFRA holds it to a higher standard ("strict scrutiny") in court to justify its interest in doing so. Assuming the interest is both legitimate and compelling, RFRA makes the government show that it is using the least restrictive means possible toward religious practice and observance in furthering its interest.
Indiana's law is identical in this regard, but it also permits the free exercise of religion to be used as a defense in certain civil lawsuits. (It does not compel juries or judges to accept the defense at face value.)
You wouldn't know it from all the erroneous and ideologically charged media coverage, but none of these state or federal laws give anyone a license to discriminate. The devout Muslim owner of Harry's Halal Hamburgers in Hammond, Ind., has no more and no less right to refuse service to a customer he suspects might be gay than he did before the law passed.
But note that even if Indiana were to ban such crude discrimination by private businesses (like 32 other states, it currently has no such ban), it would not be incompatible with this religious freedom law. To work from the classic example, no one will win in court arguing that a devout Christian baker's religious freedom is being infringed if she must bake a cake for a gay person. But it is a very different matter if the state compels the same Christian to bake for a same-sex wedding – forcing direct and formal participation in an event that stands for and celebrates something she believes to be wrong.
One goal of the new-Left culture warriors is to eradicate this distinction, and along with it toleration of anyone who does not accept their version of secular egalitarian morality from the bottom of his heart. They are not satisfied with an America where same-sex relationships are sanctioned by law or treated with the same terminology as traditional marriage. Their ambition is to punish and exclude from society anyone who entertains the wrong attitudes about homosexuality. Any law that protects or bolsters believers' right to free exercise is thus counterproductive.
Same-sex marriage is the law in many states. But a substantial minority of Americans does not personally accept it as an equivalent institution, and many people believe homosexuality to be morally illicit altogether, and they have the same right as anyone else to breathe the air and live in society. They cannot simply be excluded from professional life or relegated to a lower social caste as a result of their beliefs, as some would prefer.
Yet there is rage over this Indiana law because the need to respect the rights of others is irksome to many hypocritical self-styled champions of civil rights.
Sent from my iPhone
No comments:
Post a Comment