Over the weekend, Tim Cook wrote an editorial for the Washington Post laying out his feelings on Indiana’s recent passage of their Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Shawn posted a link to the editorial on Sunday. I just wanted to add a link to the original text of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The error of such logic is that his beliefs outrank the beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are in question. If I am a photographer, my religion prohibits me from providing my services to a homosexual couples “marriage.” There is no room for debate in this, and if I am required by law to provide my services where my beliefs prohibit it, I have lost my freedom to practice my religion.
In such cases, religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws are in direct conflict with no common ground on which to agree. Tim Cook only sees his side of this conflict, and it is evident that he either lacks understanding of religions that oppose homosexual marriage or that he disregards them as secondary to his beliefs. How wrong to say that this is neither a political issue or a religious issue, when it is quite clearly both.
I respect Tim Cook as the CEO of Apple, but his foray into political activism is misguided and misplaced.
I think this is a good point (or good set of points): the use of legislation (in either direction) to try to legislate morality always makes me uneasy for this reason.
However I don’t think Mr. Cook’s activism is misguided or misplaced: activism rarely is. Any given individual may not agree with Mr. Cook’s take on the matter, but enthusiasm for being actively involved is still a good thing.
I have lost my freedom to practice my religion.
Bullshit.
Let me ask this, if you replace homosexual with interracial, does that make it okay for someone to discriminate based on their beliefs? Or even replace it with african american? Is that ok?
I understand that it’s tough to balance something like this, but your beliefs don’t get to trample on someone else’s freedom.
Using religion as a shield for bigotry is shameful.
I don’t know…at what point has he trampled on someone else’s freedom? So let’s take the Indiana law, and that it will make some businesses legally not serve homosexuals. At what point is a given homosexual’s freedom limited? Is it when the ability to utilize every single resource marginally reduced? Is it when it has been reduced enough to put him or her at a market disadvantage? Is it when all alternatives to procuring a good or service have been completely shut off?
Somewhere there is the “right place” to balance all of this, where the business owner’s beliefs can be respected as well as the the lives and opportunities for (in this case) homosexuals. Perhaps that “right place” is to move all the way over to one side of the debate rather than a middle point (I’m not sure that isn’t the right place, in fact).
So back in 60’s and before, you had some restaurants that said whites only. Now was it ok that they refused to service african americans? Or what about schools that were segregated? There were restaurants and schools that provided service to them, but that doesn’t mean it was okay for those that refused to so laws were passed to prevent this practice.
How is it any different for homosexuals?
Just cause there are other options, doesn’t mean that it’s okay for businesses to choose to discriminate.
I think that’s an appropriate example to call out why the bill is wrong, and a good framework to put it all in. I don’t doubt there are still those that would wish to have the right to continue to keep blacks out of their businesses, and perhaps would cite religious beliefs as a means to that end.
Somewhere there is a point where a person should have the ability to opt not to interact with homosexuals, blacks, Jews, Muslims, Cathlolics, whatever, at his discretion. A basic liberty of choice, even a wrong-headed choice. Where is that boundary? Where do we draw the circle and say, “Inside this circle you make your own rules, and outside this circle you don’t.” How big is that circle?
I would expect that within a person’s home he has that right: “It’s my property, I get to make the rules!” He would probably try to say that the same is true of his business: “I built this business, I own the building, it’s my property, so my rules.”
The debate isn’t, “What you think is wrong.” That debate long ago solidified into its factions, and I don’t think there’s much to do about changing either side’s views. The debate is about where the boundary is.
What if a Satanist group wanted to hire me to photograph a Black Mass? Would I be in my rights to refuse service then? Would I be in my rights to refuse my service to somebody who wanted me to photograph pornography? There is no difference between these situations and the situation where somebody wants to hire me to photograph a homosexual “marriage.” All three are equally offensive to my religious beliefs.
I take you point on race, but I believe this to be very different so I do not think it is OK to refuse service based on race.
What if a Jewish group wanted to hire you to photograph a bar mitzvah? Can you discriminate against them? Satanism is a religion as well, you may not agree with it, but it is protected as well.
Pornography is not a race or a gender or another way the government has protection for people.
A person’s sexual identity is no different than race. So if you feel you can’t discriminate against race, then you can’t against sexual identity.
How do you differentiate the difference though? As others have pointed out, people can point to religious beliefs as as a reason for refusing service for an interracial marriage.
No, people cannot refuse service based on race (interracial marriage), at least not in the US. We already dealt with that in the 60s. It probably still happens, but it is against many federal, state, and municipal civil rights laws, and the people involved can be brought to task for doing so.
I can’t believe we have to go over all of this again in 2015. What happened to civics courses in school? Sheesh.
You’ll have to excuse my ignorance as I did not go to a US school (but still interested in the subject) so thanks for the enlightenment.
Still I find it interesting that as you say there are laws against refusal of service and now we are talking about laws allowing refusal of service.
That’s because we had laws – heck, we had a whole Constitutional Amendment – prohibiting the free exercise of religion before we had any anti-discrimination laws. This is because these two sets of laws are often in direct opposition to each other as in the example I provided.
JohnK
There is a pretty simple solution to the fact that “In such cases, religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws are in direct conflict with no common ground on which to agree.” Learn to be a decent human being and abandon the use of religion to justify disgusting, discriminatory beliefs and acts. Tim Cook’s “foray into political activism” is respectable, inspiring and downright just and decent. And if “Tim cook only sees his side of the conflict” it is because it is the only reasonable and ethical side to see. Frankly I think he sees your side and has enough moral character to recognize its odious nature. If you think there is any justification in denying others civil and human rights based on your religion, I can tell you that you are firmly on the wrong side of history.
The circle is your private life, not the public business you run with the full protection and support of publicly-funded services, regardless of your libertarian beliefs about the value of an unregulated “free market.”
Civics was probably one of the first things to disappear in the post-Reagan wave of public-school budget cuts. It’s one of the reasons why we’re seeing so many middle-school-level Ayn Rand arguments here.
No, we had that discussion before and as the civil rights laws were being passed. They’ve been tested over and over and tweaked along the way, so that most cities have their own anti-discrimination laws now that ride on top of federal and state laws.
It’s pretty much set. These attempts to reinstate bigotry openly would be cute and quaint if they weren’t ignorant and hateful.
Which I why I generally mention “in the U.S.” when I discuss this stuff, especially in forums where many people are likely not U.S. citizens. 🙂 Race relations in the U.S. and how it makes us view things in other countries, much less our own, is a huge mess. Sexual orientation and gender issues are even more a mess. Personally, I’m looking forward to moving to the Netherlands or somewhere when I can finally do so. Fatigue from arguing the same battles over and over and over…
I agree. But to the extent that other people don’t, I think that is the debate to focus on.
There’s no debate here. There are only some people trying to claim full rights as citizens and other people sticking fingers in their ears and claiming the sky isn’t blue.
“I don’t want to serve Negroes or Jews sitting at the lunch counter. Personally I’m not prejudiced, but that’s just what God wants me to do.”
We’ve been down this road before, haven’t we?
In every generation of every country, and in every century.
“In such cases, religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws are in direct conflict with no common ground on which to agree.”
I think we can all agree on ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’