Free people should be allowed free expression and free association
by Donna Rachel Edmunds
Yesterday the editor of The Libertarian Republic Austin Petersen wrote about Julie Borowski, the ‘Token Libertarian girl’ and her video about businesses who discriminate against gay couples. Borowski has come to the conclusion that businesses should be allowed to refuse service on the grounds that businesses run by bigoted owners would quickly fold under weight of public opinion.
The libertarian angle is, in reality, much more interesting than that.
I agree with her conclusion in general, but in this specific case her reasoning rests on a fallacy: that business owners who refuse to deliver goods or services for gay weddings are bigoted or motivated solely by hatred for gay people.
The parallel she draws is with racist people (she says ““I want him or her to be able to write on the front door ‘I hate Polacks!”). The comparison doesn’t hold water. Unlike her hypothetical racist business owner, who is bigoted, Christians who refuse to participate in gay weddings are motivated to do so because of their religion, not because of hatred. This is an important distinction.
Indeed, the Colorado baker who has kicked this whole debate off by refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple was happy to sit down with the couple to discuss their order, and even offered to bake brownies for the reception. However, he declined to bake the wedding cake itself because he felt that that constituted participating in the substance of the proceedings, in contravention to his religious beliefs.
The judge in the case included in his ruling the factual finding “Phillips [the baker] believes that if he uses his artistic talents to participate in same-sex weddings by creating a wedding cake, he will be displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible.”
Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus are people urged to hate or discriminate against other groups of people (like, for example, other races). Jesus himself made a point of ministering to people who were discriminated against by society at large. So the racist business owner could not be motivated by a religious belief. But the bible also describes marriage as ordained by God explicitly to bring men and women together in union.
It is entirely consistent with the teachings of Christianity to love gay people as fellow human beings, yet disagree with gay marriage.
John Stuart Mill argued that “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” The question for libertarians on gay marriage then becomes: can the government force one group of people to suffer harm through a loss of their freedom, if it is safeguarding another group against harm through loss of theirs?
A person’s answer to that may well depend on where they think the greater harm is being done here – whether it’s with the gay couple for the harm caused by the perceived slight, or with the baker for his loss of religious freedom, and on which side they sit. Either way the answer is only an opinion – and by ruling one way or the other, the government is taking a side in the debate.
The lawyer defending the Colorado baker had this to say to reporters: “American citizens should not have to live in fear of a prison sentence merely for disagreeing with the government’s opinion. All Americans should remain free to honor God in our lives and in our work. The government has no business threatening Americans with jail time for simply exercising their constitutionally protected freedoms of religion and speech. Every American, whatever you think about this issue, should fear a government that ignores the First Amendment in order to exercise this kind of power over its citizens.”
I think she’s bang on the mark. To my mind, where harm can be argued in either direction, the only course of action open to the government is to allow complete freedom of personal choice: gay couples who choose to marry should be allowed to do so, but Christian bakers who don’t want to support that marriage through their work should likewise be allowed freedom of expression.
Author Bio: Donna Rachel Edmunds is a UKIP candidate for the European Parliament and lives in Sussex, England.
7 comments