Recently, Indiana Governor Mike Pence started a national media firestorm by signing a religious freedom law, which would allow businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbian individuals on religious grounds. Many politicians and writers condemned the law, arguing that it would inevitably lead to the instatement of discriminatory practices throughout the state.
One might think that any business owners hoping to prosper in a competitive market would be forced to fully engage their potential client base and that such discriminatory practices would not actually become widespread, as economic Darwinism would weed them out. But really this point does not consider the morality of the religious freedom law. Even if murder were completely nonexistent, we would still want it to be outlawed simply as a matter of principle.
So to evaluate the morality of this law, we need only look at whether it could permit immoral practices in principle. And while I believe that the religious freedom law would in fact permit discrimination, I maintain that it — or even something stronger — is morally necessary in order to protect the right of individuals to conduct their private affairs.
First, we need to understand what those who condemn the religious freedom law mean by “discrimination.” It is critically important to flesh out such definitions to avoid talking past one another. Linguistic distinctions are immaterial and create unnecessary antagonism where there often is no meaningful disagreement.
If someone says two plus three equals five and someone else says two plus three equals six, you would say the second individual is wrong. But now imagine the second individual uses the term “plus” to refer to what we call “times.” While you might find his definition impractical given our cultural context, you don’t really disagree with him regarding the original debate. In fact, when you come to understand each other’s languages, you realize that you’re not even discussing the same proposition.
Hereafter I will use the definitions of the social justice blog “Racism School,” according to which discrimination is “the moment a person acts on prejudice,” where prejudice is defined to be “an irrational feeling of dislike for a person or group of persons.”
Almost exclusively, homophobia in America stems from religious beliefs. I — along with most Brown students, I’m sure — believe religion is irrational, so denying a service on this basis would constitute discrimination.
Yet supporting anti-discriminatory legislation, which judges what are rational — and therefore acceptable — private behaviors is naive. Couched in different terms, this exact argument has been used to persecute gay and lesbian individuals, as well as other groups of people, throughout history and even in the United States today.
Abraham Lincoln once wrote that when you “familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage … you are preparing your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises.” This is not some dystopian fiction — look at our politicians. While we argue that private discrimination fosters a culture of ignorance and homophobia, presidential candidate and Sen. Ted Cruz argues that homosexuality fosters a culture of depravity and sin.
We should be exceedingly cautious when regulating the voluntary interactions between consenting adults — whether they are business transactions or sexual relationships.
Rights exist specifically to permit that which we, as a society, do not like. These principles apply to those with whom we disagree — especially to those with whom we disagree. As evidenced by the shutting down of the Ray Kelly talk last year, this is a point not well observed by many Brown students.
It’s natural to argue that, in the case at hand, we know we’re right about the immorality of discrimination and that Cruz is obviously wrong about the immorality of homosexuality. But this is not a logically convincing argument. In particular, it is no more convincing than if Senator Cruz were to assert that we were wrong and that he was in the moral right.
We use representative democracy to arbitrate these moral disagreements, but this is no more than a proxy for mob rule. It is individual rights that protect the minorities from the capriciousness of the prevailing majority.
Selectively protecting the rights of only those with whom we agree and supporting legislation that disenfranchises those with whom we disagree leads to a continual increase in government power and erodes personal freedom. History teaches us that it is prudent to err heavily on the side of permissiveness, lest we, or our children, someday find ourselves members of the minority.
Thus, the reasons for which Brown students support gay marriage should also encourage us to protect the rights of individuals to be left alone to discriminate in their private affairs.
Andrew Powers ’15 can be reached at andrew_powers@brown.edu.
