Free To Be You and Me

I continue to be honestly puzzled by this line of rhetorical attack.  Do these folks saying this really believe it, or are they just casting around for a political argument to use in their cause and latch onto one that seems parallel — "No, it's not about you being discriminated against, it's about me being discriminated against."

The basis for the argument seems to be: If other people are free to do something I don't like, that is an imposition on me.  It's usually cast in religious terms (since that's the legal objection here): If other people are allowed to do things that I disagree with because of my religion, my religious beliefs are being discriminated against.

Which is just downright zany.  Orthodox Jews, on that basis, would be able to claim that laws that allow the consumption of pork by others are discriminating against them.  Laws that don't block hospitals from blood transfusions would similarly discriminate against Seventh Day Adventists.  Defense budgets and war resolutions are clear discrimination against the beliefs of Quakers.  And (haven't heard this one before, but I'm sure I will), if the law does not prohibit abortions and contraception, then Catholics are clearly being targeted religious discrimination.

Can they see how backward that argument is?

Now, one might claim that marriage equality laws are different because, as a society, we are all being "forced" to recognize the civil marriage between two people of the same gender.  And not just on Christmas card lists, but in terms of legal benefits (and responsibilities), insurance coverage ("That spousal coverage represents discrimination against my beliefs!"), etc.

But the above examples don't fall far from that. As individuals in an interlocked society, we are forced to "recognize" (often through government) a variety of things that we individually might object to.  Livestock farmers, including those who raise pigs, can and do receive various state and federal agricultural funds and subsidies, paid for out of the taxes of those Orthodox Jews.  Seventh Day Adventist tax money goes to state and federal medical care programs that provide transfusions. Quaker tax money, obviously, pays for everything from nukes to drones.  And Catholics pay taxes that, in rare cases, end up providing abortions.

We live in a society where people are allowed to do things that others might object to, morally or religiously. And not just allowed, but are recognized by society and by law as doing so.  When Celebrity X marries Celebrity Y, just in time for Celebrity X's new movie, and then they divorce 6 weeks later just in time to tie into Celebrity Y's new album, we roll our eyes — but nobody claims the marriage wasn't real, or shouldn't be legally recognized, or that to do so violates their personal religious beliefs (or, for that matter, that it somehow destroys the meaning of their own marriage).

Along those same lines, conservative Christians live in a country that recognizes all sorts of marriages that fundamentally differ from their own religious beliefs about marriage.  Buddhists can get married in Buddhist religious ceremonies.  Hindus in theirs. Muslims, of course, too. Even though those marriages take place without any reference to Jesus, or readings from the Bible, or seeking blessings from the Holy Spirit, _Southern Baptists are required by law to recognize them as legal, legitimate marriages,_ with nary a claim that it's a violation of their religious freedoms.  When Rajiv returns to work after the honeymoon, Billy-Bob who employs him still has to cover his new spouse, even if Rajiv and Trupti prayed to Lakshmi instead of the LORD during the ceremondy. 

"But Dave," one might say, "it's the civil portions of those marriages, as licensed by the state, that we legally recognize, regardless of the heathen religious trappings."  Correct.  But, then, that's what we're talking about in marriage equality law — civil marriages, regardless of the religious (if any) ceremonies associated with them.

"But Dave," one might continue, "That's the point. An action doesn't have to have a religious component in order to be objectionable to my religious beliefs. I don't care if a murder is committed in the name of Jesus, or Kali, or for a big stack of $50 bills — I religiously object to that murder."

But you don't claim that someone committing a murder is discriminating against you religiously.  And if a murder occurs that the current law and legal system decide was not murder, your disagreement with the verdict or the loophole or even the entire rationale ("She was a cop and claims she had reason to believe the kid was carrying a gun" / "He was a soldier acting under orders"), claiming that your religious beliefs were violated by that not being considered a murder would get you laughed off the front page.

But make it about gays getting married, and suddenly this whole "reverse discrimination" thing goes viral.

Dolts.

Reshared post from +David Badash