Wedding Rights – Defining Discrimination: Part 1

We have heard a lot lately about the conflict between civil rights and religious freedom. One of the most prominent cases in point is Barronelle Stutzman’s refusal to sell flower arrangements to Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed for their wedding, which is now being appealed to the Supreme Court. One side talks about embattled religious liberty, and one side talks about the struggle against discrimination. I think we are misunderstanding one another, and if we are to have a productive discussion on the topic, it’s time we went back and decided what, exactly, is at stake.

I’m talking about the meaning of tolerance. Because I think we’re defining it two different ways, and getting it backwards, and that’s part of the reason we’re having so much trouble communicating.

• Tolerance means accepting other points of view as equally legitimate
• Tolerance means respecting other people’s right to have their own view, right or wrong

The first definition isn’t tolerance at all. Tolerance does not mean recognizing someone else’s view as good or legitimate; that’s backwards, it misses the point of tolerance. The point of tolerance is having enough respect for another person as a person to treat them with respect no matter what their view is, and this only comes into play when you think their view is wrong. You don’t tolerate your own opinions; you can only tolerate those you dislike or disagree with.

We tolerate ideas. We respect people. When we mix the two up and equate the person with her idea or behavior, we’re in danger of losing both respect and tolerance. If we insist that, if Jeb respects Sally, he must agree with everything she does (when we all know your real friends are the ones that rein you in sometimes), then either Jeb ends up not having his ideas tolerated, or Sally winds up disrespected. Jeb yells about his freedom of belief, and Sally screams about her rights as a person, and they get nowhere, because they’re talking past each other. One side says it’s defending freedom, and the other side calls it a hate group.

This distinction between ideas and people is important because it means that we can tolerate other opinions without tolerating disrespect for people. And we need this, because while we must be able to insist on respect, we should not be able to force other people to believe what we think is right, no matter how strongly we believe it. This is very, very important. This is what respecting other people as free willing beings is. This doesn’t mean we can’t regulate behavior, but we mustn’t force someone to believe something. Besides, how would you even do that? They’re not going to change their minds just because we threaten them into it.

Also we must be very, very careful to recognize the role of reason; Kant was right, we need to respect this, or society breaks down. If someone can articulate his reasons for believing something – including religious reasons – you cannot ignore that reasoning and claim that he has his beliefs for some unrelated reason, some psychological or hormonal reason, that ought to be ‘fixed’. This destroys our ability to listen to other viewpoints and have a productive conversation, and in time opens the door for ‘rehabilitation programs’ that are actually brainwashing. I’m not saying this is going to happen – that would be a slippery slope fallacy – but I’m saying that this is why we need to form our characterizations carefully.

Of course, there is also a legal argument here about the moral status of a business owner. I am not a government or poli sci major; when we move out of the realm of the law of nature and into that of the law of man, I’m out of my comfort zone. Honestly, I’m not sure how the law of man plays out here; I think that’s a gray area where rational people can disagree – provided we can disagree respectfully.