Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
British Judge: Christian beliefs have no legal standing
This article is telling of a future where "maybe" religious beliefs will have no place in our societies. 
A top British judge has ruled that Christian beliefs have no standing under secular law because they lack evidence and cannot be proven. Lord Justice John Grant McKenzie Laws made the declaration on Thursday (April 29) in throwing out a defamation suit by Christian relationship counselor who refused to offer sex therapy to gay couples.
Gary McFarlane protested that he was fired because offering sex therapy to same-gender couples violates his Christian principles.
But Laws said "religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." He added that to use the law to protect "a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified."
the rest of the article is here.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/british-judge-christian-b_n_559244.html
A top British judge has ruled that Christian beliefs have no standing under secular law because they lack evidence and cannot be proven. Lord Justice John Grant McKenzie Laws made the declaration on Thursday (April 29) in throwing out a defamation suit by Christian relationship counselor who refused to offer sex therapy to gay couples.
Gary McFarlane protested that he was fired because offering sex therapy to same-gender couples violates his Christian principles.
But Laws said "religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." He added that to use the law to protect "a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified."
the rest of the article is here.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/british-judge-christian-b_n_559244.html
0
Comments
Law cannot be seen to bend to something unconjecturable and illogical. Therefore, because the Law must apply to the populace and not to the individual, it must abide by certain parameters whereupon the logic and discernment of the law is measurable by seen boundaries, not unseen ones.
The Buddha exhorts the Middle Way - if you are a hardcore atheist who looks down on people who believe in a God/dess, perhaps you could channel that into compassion for others or equanimity for them instead of derision.
I have no desire to tell people what or who to believe in. Each to their own choices. I do not understand why others must force their views on everyone else - be they for or against a divine entity. But I'm sure the Buddha would not support those who claim to follow him from doing that.
Respectfully,
Raven
Hey Raven! I'm not sure I get your drift here. Who's saying that law is atheistic by nature? I cannot find that statement in the Lord Justice's findings.
I find it refreshing that a new age has dawned in our courts. It's way past time to let go of unwarranted assumptions about the alleged innate inferiority (badness) of certain people, based on Biblical proscriptions written millennia ago.
It is not evident that the hang-ups people have about certain matters are primarily grounded in their sacred scriptures in the first place. It seems to me that people select passages they like, in order to bolster up their positions.
I'm not sure that the good Lord Justice wasn't writing quite a lot between the lines:
Christian beliefs have no standing under secular law because they lack evidence and cannot be proven. Perhaps he was also stating that mere "beliefs" without looking around for evidence in actual human lives creates an atmosphere in which these "beliefs" cannot be tested ("proven"). One simply cannot "test" (prove) the unthinkable or unquestionable.
_____________________
If you want to live a callous and mechanical life, please don't ever question your prefabricated beliefs.
I apologise if I've misinterpreted him. Admittedly, I interpreted your tone with the smiley as leaning to that way. My apologise for misinterpreting you as well.
I wish this new age would extend to ALL aspects of the law. Hopefully we'll see that filter down. I do agree with you on that by the way.
Agreed.
I would hope then that the Lord Justice extends that also to Islamic, Judaic and other religious beliefs that are used as an excuse to avoid legal judgements.
Even though I am not a Christian, I was wary of this thread because it seems like we're going through a whole "believers bashing" phase with some of the recent threads. I apologise if I come across as "precious" about it.
Respectfully,
Raven
_____________________
If you want to live a callous and mechanical life, please don't ever question your prefabricated beliefs.
[/quote]
To me this is a bit of a grey area. If the counsellor is so staunchly opposed to same sex couples, he may wish to seek employment in a service or practise that is in line with his beliefs. I know myself as a trained counsellor, we were encouraged during our studies to align ourselves with practises or clinics that we felt were aligned with our ethics and beliefs. Granted, I live in Australia so it may be different elsewhere.
I really feel for the counsellor in this case as well as the couple in question. If it were me personally, I would make sure my employer knew my stance from the outset. Realistically, this may have severly limited the counsellor's chances of employment.
I believe this is why the Buddha exhorted us in the Noble Eightfold Path to include our employment in Right Actions. Trying to "walk the talk" is never easy
Respectfully,
Raven
Two religious beliefs factors from major world religions, Fundamentalism and Kindly
Religious Beliefs, are found to correlate with a variety of antisocial and prosocial traits
respectively. These correlations and related frequency data lead to the hypothesis that
Fundamentalism has evolved with the trait of warmongering to serve a species survival function
of periodic population reduction when stress on life resources is perceived as extreme. Kindly
Religious Beliefs predominate to support species survival in times of resource plenty by
promoting human rights, sustainable and ecology-conscious programs, and relationships with
other groups and nations characterized by cooperation, trade and other peaceful cultural
exchanges. Fundamentalism serves believers as a very comprehensive and unified worldview,
providing both general and specific beliefs in common across believers. In contrast, Kindly
Religious Beliefs are used only as a general core of kind and loving beliefs complemented by a
wide diversity of specific beliefs and tolerance for this diversity. Implications for political
recruiting in times of war and peace and for a possible Ameta religion@ are discussed.
the rest of the article is here.....
http://www.politicalpsychologyresearch.com/Docs/ReligiousBeliefsforWarandPeace31907PPRIversionRTF.pdf
Out of your experience of your extremes, find a middle path that avoids attachment to the worldliness of possessions, power and reputation on one hand, and the painful, vain, and unprofitable extreme of excessive asceticism on the other. Buddha was unusual in Indian tradition in that he renounced not only worldly ways but also extreme asceticism. He realized that instead of mental clarity and inner peace, the severe asceticism to which he subjected himself had impaired his health and dulled his mind. He formulated the Middle Way after having been brought back to health and hearing a story of a Lyre strung too loosely, too tight, and just right. You can find your own Middle Way in all things. Avoid being too extreme even in espousing the Middle Way itself.
W hat makes this case so important is that Lord Carey, an ex-Archbishop of Canterbury, and now, in retirement, one of the legislators in the Upper House. He chose to intervene with a particularly inflammatory demand that cases involving strongly-held Christian belief should be heard by Christian judges and juries. He has not, to my knowledge, suggested the same for Muslims, Hindus, Jews or, at worst, paedophiles.
This idea smacks of the old notion of "benefit of clergy" whereby ordained clergy could, until 1827, be tried in ecclesiastical rather than ordinary courts, often getting a lighter sentence. It is astonishing that Carey should remind us, tangentially, of this at a time when the Catholic Church is rightly being castigated for handling abuse cases outwith the normal police and court procedures.
An employee who refuses to carry out legitimate instructions from their employer has only themselves to blame if they are 'let go'. Their strongly-held beliefs are not any excuse in law.
The idea that a religious conviction can be used as a defence is, as the Law Lord said, unreasonable, particularly where a particular belief is not held by the total church body. The case in point, LBGT counselling, is one such area of controversy. I doubt if the churches would be happy if the courts were to rule on the legitimacy of the homophobic attitude of some clergy and laity of all levels. Within the family of Christian churches, we have communities which exist specifically to minister to people with non-heterosexual orientation and we are aware of the profound rifts within the Anglican Communion on this subject. If the Christian bodies cannot agree on their attitude, how can a court rule against an employer.
On a professional note, as one who practised as a counsellor, supervisor and trainer since the 1970s, it was always integral to our practice that, where we felt unable or unqualified to counsel a particular client, we would find an appropriate referral route. From what I know of Relate, an organisation with an excellent reputation and a long history, Mr McFarlane's supervisor would, I am sure, have asked him to take this route. There is, also, the problem of 'outcome-led counselling' but that's a matter of theory within the profession and its governing bodies.
The crucial matter here is not so much the 'strongly-held beliefs' of the counsellor but the intervention of a religious leader. Our courts cannot be under the influence of special interest groups.
By the same logic, I should be able to get a job as a butcher in a meat packing plant, refuse to carry out my duties because I'm a Buddhist, and my employer would be obligated to continue paying me a salary.
The counselor is refusing to see people based upon their sexual orientation, how is that not discrimination?
Well, for one thing, the situations aren't analogous. The issue here is whether someone is legally allowed to discriminate against a specific group of people (e.g., gay people) due to their religious beliefs.
A doctor opting out of a specific procedure doesn't necessarily imply discrimination, as is clearly the case with the counselor. Also, not all doctors can preform abortions, and the ones who can usually work at clinics where they're preformed; at least that's the case here. It's not like you can just go to your family doctor and get one. (And in the case of an emergency, I thinks it's wrong for a doctor to refuse to do something that will save the patient's life. They same applies to nurses.)
As for the pharmacist thing, I don't agree with allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions, and I think that seriously needs to be challenged, but it doesn't necessarily imply discrimination either.
Yeah, this is all about employer rights, nothing else.
It's like getting hired then saying your religion forbids you to work.
In addition, some doctors will carry out the procedure for medical reasons (the feotus has abnormalities or the woman has serious medical problems) but will not carry them out for 'social' reasons. In this case the woman is being discriminated for being poor, in an unstable relationship or for simply not wanting a baby. In this country abortions are carried out in general hospitals as well as in abortion clinics and GPs prescribe the morning after pill.
In addition, there is also an inconsistency in that there is at least one hotel in the UK which does not allow non LGBT people to stay, but hotel owners are not allowed to have a heterosexual only hotel. This is also inconsistent.
Personally I don't think that there should be a problem with LGBT people accessing all services, but it should be consistent across issues and people.
You guys, States-side do not understand the European Courts legislation on Human Rights - a law your government decided to opt out of.
This is what this ruling hinges on.
The Human Right to Freedom of Religion includes the following indivisible, interdependent and interrelated human rights:
The human right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
The human right to manifest one's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
The human right to freedom from discrimination based on religious beliefs or activities, or because of refusal to conform to a certain religion.
The human right to freedom of expression and of association.
The human right to conscientious objection on grounds of religious belief.
HOWEVER:
This legislation is trumped by the fact that This counsellor used his religion to discriminate against the rights of others, and had not made his beliefs or convictions clear BEFORE he began his career in counselling, or before he began counselling this couple. In this case, his religious beliefs were in breach of the rights of the couple, and he was effectively using his religion against them as a placid weapon of discrimination. Ergo, one law superseded another.
Because his intentions, beliefs and convictions were neither declared nor made clear from the outset.
Whilst this seems a tit-for-tat situation, it's critical to get situations like this right, particularly as the United kingdom is now a multi-national and multi-cultural nation. The Law here has to safeguard the varied interests of people from all walks of life, from all cultures and from all backgrounds. So the Law has to be unambiguous and impartial.
The Law has no interest in what a specific person's religion is. The law has to ensure it is practised freely and appropriately, to the detriment of no-one.
They have not actually discriminated against anyone, they're declaring their religious rights from the beginning. This is Freedom of expression.
their decision is in keeping with their beliefs but it has been declared from the outset.
The difference is that this counsellor had a professional duty to declare his religious convictions before commencing counselling.
The law is not there for the individual. The law is there for the good of society in general and for the collective conglomerate of certain social divisions.
If a regulation is implemented, it's because the law needs to work for the social good, not the individual.
He specialises in Human Rights and intends to become a Law lecturer, and this is a subject close to his heart. It fascinates him. There is nobody better qualified on this board to clarify this once and for all.
I'll ask him to pop in and do so......:)
You think that I should be able to refuse to serve black people, because I'm not a public employee...?
They make the place look irregular and untidy.
And mothers with kids. I'd ban them outright, noisy little brats...
Oh, and old people.... yuk! They drool!
Ok, so according to you, I can discriminate against these people, simply because I'm not a 'public employee'?
It's ok for me to do this, because discrimination is fine, is it?
Great, I'll try and see how that works for me. :rolleyes:
In that case the basis for the doctor's decision has nothing to do with who the person is, but is based on his opinion that the abortion isn't needed. McFarlane's decision not to provide services was based on who the people were, and had nothing to do with whether he thought they would benefit from relationship counseling.
If that's legal, it involves British law. Lord Fed has passed down the ruling that, as an American, I have no standing to practice British law. Personally I feel that the basis for her ruling is overly broad and that ignorance of the specific laws in question and general lack of understanding of the principles of British jurisprudence should not be a barrier to practicing law in Britain. But Brits are just picky that way. ;-)
Harmful discrimination occurs when you offer a service to one group of people, but deny it to another, _and_ the decision of who gets the service and who doesn't is based on factors that are irrelevant to the service. A doctor who performs abortions in order to protect a mother's life, but refuses to perform them otherwise is basing his decision on a factor relevant to the service; the abortion harms something the doctor considers to be a human being. A relationship counselor who refuses to provide counseling for for LBGT couples is basing his decision on irrelevant factors. The sexual orientation of the people who are seeking counseling has nothing to do with whether they need counseling.
If you refuse to provide a service under any circumstances, or at the other extreme if you provide the service to anyone who asks for it, you are not discriminating. You are treating everyone the same. If you are going to discriminate, the basis for discrimination has to be relevant to the service in order to justify the discrimination.
Obviously, there are going to be cases where even experts disagree over whether a particular factor is relevant or not. One of the roles of appeals courts is to resolve disagreements among trial judges over what is relevant. And since law is never perfect, you can probably find inconstancies in any set of laws dealing with discrimination.
no, British Law is prickly that way. Surely, if you wish to practice Law within a country, you'd have to know what the Laws are in that country?
As I stated, The UK ascribes to the European court and the Law of Human Rights. The USA doesn't.
In fact, within your constitution, there is a conflict, which is covered and addressed by The Law of Human Rights.
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Some religious factions have taken point one, muddled it up with point two, ant the result is militant extremeists and social havoc, because the second amendment is confusing and contradictory with regard to the first.
Wouldn't you say?
The Law of Human rights - which also covers the sitation in the OP - deals with this matter effectively.
As I stated, I'll see if I can get my partner to clarify.
"'No employee or potential employee will therefore receive
less favourable treatment due to their ethnic origin, age,
language, religion, political or other opinion affiliation,
gender, sexual orientation, marital status, connections
with a national minority, property, birth or other status,
family connections, working pattern, membership or
non-membership of a trade union or, unless justifiable,
disability.'"
(Please add a 'ha ha' afterwards.... I should get it, but I don't always....;)
The problem is not so much that the counsellor has been victimised for his beliefs.
It's that he practised discrimination on the grounds of his religious beliefs and this was unacceptable, because the Law over-rides religious view.
People are more than welcome to practice religious beliefs, providing they do not impinge or interfere with the Law.
For example, if people wish to practice their religion (and again, I'm not focussing on Christianity here, the law does not differentiate between religions either....) they're more than welcome to do so, but if it involves, say cannibalism, this wouldn't be acceptable.
Similarly, if a religious belief contravenes any other form of established law, the Law takes precedence.
The fact that this Counsellor cited his religious beliefs as the reason he could not counsel the couple, made him guilty of sexual discrimination.
Actually, I think the answer is yes. If you own a private business you should be able to refuse service to whoever you want. I you want a business that serves only Hispanic, left-handed, buck-tooth lesbians, then you should be able to.
The problem is people think all private businesses are public businesses.
As I have stated already, the Law cannot and never will be tailored for the individual. The Law is there to regulate and serve the populace.
Discrimination is against the law, wherever it is practised - in private institutions,
in public environments, in employment, in religious circles and in all walks of life.
Just assuming you're a married guy, if your wife came home and said he had been sidelined at work, and had a reduction in salary, simply because she was a woman, would you say, "Hey, your boss is a private employer, he can do what he likes...."...??
or if you worked for a private employer, and he decided to not promote you because you were too short - how would that sit with you?
If a business treats with the public and employs people under such law as exists to regulate such employment, the notion that it can be a "private" business does not seem to me to stand up. In the UK and Europe, as in North America, and as part of a long struggle and many deaths, discrimination on many grounds has been outlawed. The fact, as Fede points out, is that it is McFarlane who was discriminating ab initio.
How would you feel if he was to say that he would not provide counselling for Jews or Afro-Caribbeans or unveiled women?
However, what if the couple in question had been hetero but unmarried? If he still refused SEX therapy (which is to say that he might be in the business to help couples pre-nuptial and married) would it still be discrimination under the law? There is a fine line of distinction. Now, if he referred an unmarried couple to sex therapy but then refused a gay couple such a referral, that is gross hypocrisy and the guy does deserve to be fired. Mainly, is he staying within all the strictures of his religious beliefs when it comes to his profession.
I also have to disagree with assertions that the greater good outweighs individual rights. To me, it seems that eschewing individual rights in favor of the "greater good" only promotes further conflict. Forcing someone to deal with someone who they don't like for whatever reason only hinders efficiency and degrades the quality of production. Even though there are rulings in the US about segregation and discrimation, the fact is someone who isn't white doesn't walk into a service establishment owned by a member of the KKK, and neither does a white person walk into a similar establishment owned by a liutenant of the Black Panthers. Both business owners would probably comply with all laws, but you aren't going to get the quality of service. As for companies where the equality of pay is a problem, most companies of that size are going to be corporations or LLCs. There is no single owner, and so the right of the individual doesn't apply here.
Now, for anyone familiar with the US Armed Services, there is definitely an exception here. If you are a member of a discriminatory group, and you enlist wihtout the knowledge that you will be serving alongside members of other races, there is a problem with your school and your recruiter. At some point in time you should pick up that the military has been desegregated for decades and has EO policies in place preventing active discrimination. Not only that, but you chose to be here. No one twisted your arm and made you join.
As for that principle applying to the counselor in question, yes, he knew what kind of company he was going to work for, but would have advertising his beliefs reduced the chance he would have been hired? If there is no blatant evidence of discrimination in this matter, who would care about the complaint. Again, it comes down to eschewing individual rights. By telling him he either has to declare his beliefs when he applies, which could cost him the hire, or abide by these rules which contravene his beliefs, which would degrade his level of service, we have created more conflict. The easiest solution would have been to have another counselor who has no religious bias against homosexuality make the referral. Insead, Britain's High Court has now made a legal ruling that impinges upon everyone's freedom of religion, not one man's
No, you can do that yourself. If that's why you're not being paid enough, that's why there are discrimination laws to back you up.
If you're on low pay because the job sucks, or everyone else is on the same rate, or you're unskilled and earning the going rate - suck it up or find a new job.
You're talking utter nonsense.
Either you do the job you were hired to do or you don't. But I agree with your points about coercive measures to force a person serve another within a private business. If a marriage counselor believes homosexuality is immoral, why would a homosexual want to be counseled by that person? To force the counselor to serve everyone is a disservice to society. It actually destroys the greater good.
don't you know what this kind of reasoning have lead to in the past?
The counsellor wasn't being forced to offer sex therapy to a gay couple. He was told that unless he could provide services to all without discriminating against any group then he could not be employed. This is both reasonable, fair and within the law.
If I said that I would not teach girls with blonde hair or boys who supported Man U football club then I would deservedly be fired.
I'm Federica's partner, and she brought this thread to my attention. As this subject is of great interest to me, I thought I might add to the discussion by clarifying the legal position in relation to this case.
Freedom from discrimination on the grounds of religion is enshrined in Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights (given effect via the Human Rights Act 1998), which forbids discrimination in the enjoyment of such rights on grounds of a person's status, including their religion.
Specific protection against religious discrimination was provided by the implementation of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, which made discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, unlawful in the employment field, thus providing similar protection to that already available to those discriminated against on the grounds of sex, race and disability.
Relate counsellor Gary McFarlane gave his reasons for denying gay couples therapy:
I have the ability to provide counselling services to same sex couples,” “However, because of my Christian beliefs and principles, there should be allowances taken in to account whereby individuals like me can actually avoid having to contradict their very strongly-held Christian principles.”
On the question of direct discrimination, the Tribunal referred to the employers policy of Equal Opportunity and Ethical Practice. They considered the hypothetical situation of another counsellor who, for reasons unrelated to Christianity, was believed by the respondent (Relate) to be unwilling to provide counselling to same sex couples, and therefore in breach of the employers policy of providing counselling to all on a totally non-discriminatory basis. The Tribunal were unanimously satisfied that any other counsellor who had evinced similar concerns for reasons unrelated to religion and left the employer with similar uncertainty as to his or her commitment to what appeared to be the respondent's core values, would have been treated in precisely the same way. Therefore, they were satisfied that Mr McFarlane was not treated as he was because of his Christian faith, but because the respondent believed that he would not comply with its policies. They would have treated anyone else of whom that was believed, regardless of religion, in the same way. The claim of direct discrimination therefore failed.
The question of indirect discrimination was also considered by the tribunal. It was accepted that the employer's commitment to providing a service to all members of the community without any suggestion of discrimination on any basis, including that of sexual orientation, would put persons of the same religious beliefs as Mr McFarlane at a particular disadvantage when compared to other persons who did not hold similar beliefs as part of their religious faith. The real issue, therefore, was that of justification-could the respondent show that its action was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? The claimant relied on the Human Rights Act(HRA) and in particular Article 9 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion) and although it has no direct effect on this case, as the HRA normally operates between the state and the individual (vertical effect) the Tribunal or Court are obliged as an organ of the state, so far as is possible, to construe the legislation so as to give effect to the intentions of the Act.
Whilst the Tribunal recognised that the protection of religious belief is of fundamental importance, it stated that the other right (the right to give expression to one's own sexuality) was of equal weight and that one right did not trump the other. However, there needed to be very powerful arguments put forward to justify interference with religious belief.
Despite the argument being put forward by Mr. McFarlane that he should be able to decline to give counselling to same-sex couples and pass the clients on to a different counsellor, it was held that this was not practicable and that there would always remain a concern as to the effectiveness of the claimant as a counsellor if there remained a question mark over his commitment to provide the full range of counselling services to the full range of clients.
Whilst it was acknowledged that there were powerful arguments on both sides, it was unanimously concluded that the respondent ('Relate') had demonstrated that dismissal was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of its commitment to providing non-discriminatory services. The tribunal concluded that this was fundamental to the respondent's approach to the work that it does. Therefore, they had discharged the burden upon it and the claim of discrimination on the grounds of Religion must fail.
There is much I could go to say, but I'm not writing War and Peace here!
The UK and European Courts have consistently applied the law in relation to numerous other cases involving other religions, and therefore the argument put forward by Mr Carey that the Christian faith is being singled out and victimised is simply not true.
Is that a reasonable summary?
Actually, if a restaurant/club owner does not want to serve to a certain ethnicity/gender/race/class, I'm perfectly fine with that. If a very racist business owner refuses to allow a whole segment of society to do business with him, he firstly is hurting himself by missing out on possible income. His place of business then would become publicly stigmatized and ridiculed as it should be in our modern era.
If I was refused service at a business because of some unchangeable trait of mine, I'd probably be ticked and write a letter to the editor of a local paper complaining about the business owner, but that would be the end of the issue. I'd just move on and find someone else. The thought would never occur to me to fire him and have the government shut him down or impose penalties.
Why should the government impose fines or bother such a man? Society and public opinion already will react accordingly to discrimination.
I frankly don't see how this ruling is victory for liberty. If the man flatly refuses to service a certain segment of society, he should be left alone, whatever his reasoning. What is gained by shutting him down, firing him, or forcing him to service people he doesn't want to?
if this man's actions - governed by his own preferences, rather than any logical and legal impetus - were generally to be picked up by others and practices in general, then the efforts of all those people who fought for equality and non-discrimination would be completely in vain.
if people like him were permitted to continue to exercise their opinion, then society would simply return to a level of anarchy, where people simply left to do as they choose, would cause upheaval disruption and unrest.
Really, you need to think comments through before posting.
What you propose is ludicrous and a step backwards by 4o years.......
Can the kids walk around the city without seeing signs everywhere like "we don't serve "your race" in this establishment"?
If we lived in utopia, where everyone would be enlighten, i do agree that such laws (all laws actually) would be unnecessary.
A more just society, a more efficient, prosperous economy, a higher standard of living for minorities, less poverty...
When I was getting my economics degree, I learned that discrimination is a tax on specific groups of people, but it is a tax that society gets no benefit from. The money doesn't go back into the economy or buy anything of value. It just disappears.
Really...in 2010 America, how many closet-racist restaurant owners are just itching to turn away whole segments of society (ie. sources of income) from their eating establishments? And the only thing that stops them from doing so is potential penalties inflicted by the government? I find it extremely hard to believe that if discrimination laws were suddenly lifted, we would see "anarchy."
I'm not campaigning here to get rid of such laws, but they become nothing more than a nuisance when a business owner is harassed and shut down by the government simply because he objects to providing services to certain individuals. I have no problem with the man being publicly ridiculed or held in contempt by the court of public opinion, and even boycotting this counselor would not be totally unreasonable. But strong-arming in this way seems out of bounds to me.
Consider this scenario: Had a devout Muslim counselor been asked to provide services to a non-Sharia complying lesbian couple, and objected on religious grounds, would you all be advocating he be shut down by the government; decrying his ignorance as reminiscent of the 1960s struggles? Would you all be gleefully viewing his defeat as a victory for progress and another nail in the coffin of reactionaries? And would the judge have been so dismissive of a Muslim man's religious opinions?
I sincerely doubt all of that. But if you answered yes to all of these questions, then at least you are consistent. And if any of you answered in the negative to any of my hypothetical questions, well then you just have an axe to grind and should admit it.