I once heard some of my classmates arguing about
discrimination in hiring practices. One of them, John, stated: "If a
business doesn't hire women or minorities, people are going to hear
about it and it's going to go out of business. But the government
doesn't have to step in."
It took me a day or so before I figured
out what exactly bothered me about that statement. It was this: That
tactic does not work. If it did, then why are we even having this
discussion?
The free (often black) market can do some good things (other than create drug addicts and give guns to gangsters), including provide power to those in countries where it is unavailable or prohibitively expensive.
But there are some things that it cannot do, and one of these is
punishing those who take advantage of or discriminate against others.
I have been reading a lot lately about the many battles of same-sex couples seeking wedding cakes from bakers
who turn out to be against their marriages. In some of the comments on
these articles, I have seen the occasional appeal to the Free Market as
the righter of wrongs. In an ideal world, perhaps it would be. Yet the
fact that discrimination is an issue at all is enough to convince me
that it cannot do it alone.
The Free Market:
The free market alone is not going to put bigots out of business. Otherwise, why didn't the Greensboro Woolworth's
go out of business as soon as it was rumored that they refused to serve
racial minorities at their lunch counter? If the Free Market and
word-of-mouth was enough to put Woolworth's out of business, there would
have been no need for sit-ins and protests, and it would not have taken
six months of such protests for the lunch counter to finally serve non-whites.
It's
not a billy club of government to make people be basically decent to
others. Would those who think the Free Market is a moral agent have
people who are discriminated against just wait around for their rights,
until others stop discriminating against them?
The Law:
In practical terms, I actually believe that any proposed
anti-discrimination laws will only change things for bakers and other
providers of products, who have a storefront. A provider of a service or
someone who fills orders from home or by mail can always hide behind
the excuse of being too busy.
I still am in favor of these laws
100%, however, because no one should have to be preached to, and by, of
all people, someone they were ready give hard-earned money to. Like with
sexist or discriminatory hiring policies, the providers of these
products and services will have to find a legal, credible excuse.
It might be uncomfortable for some people to cater, plan or
photograph a gay wedding, just as it was uncomfortable for some white
people, at one time, to have minority families move to their
neighborhoods. They were then forced to see them and treat them as
people, as equals to their white friends. They did not have a "safe
space" in their neighborhoods to voice racist or segregationist opinions
and assumptions. Yes, there are still problems for people of color even
today, sometimes significant ones, but it was a huge step in the right
direction.
I hope that the day comes, in my lifetime, that a similar thing happens for LGBTQ people.
When
an anti-gay wedding photographer understands that she is merely doing a
job, and that her work does not necessarily mean that she approves of
the couple for any reason (she may not approve of a younger woman
marrying an older man, or a mixed-faith couple being "unequally yoked," for example, yet probably would still take the photographs),
that would be a huge step in the right direction. When an anti-gay
wedding planner understands that it is unprofessional and illegal for
him to comment on the nature of the couple's (or even polyamorous
group's) relationship, that will be a huge step in the right direction.
And when an anti-gay landlord or hiring business owner understands that
she must at least provide a plausible excuse, and that her real reasons
are hideously unprofessional and oppressive (or, in her mind, at least
seen as such), that is not ideal, no, but at least it would spare
someone a self-righteous sermon from a stranger who knows nothing about
them or what kind of person they really are.
The Bigots:
What bothers me most of all about those who wish to discriminate is not that they hold such (most often religious) views about others' lives, but that they don't seem to want LGBTQ people near them. The Christian business owner doesn't want to interact with a lesbian employee. The Muslim landlord doesn't want to interact with a gay couple as tenants. The anti-gay photographer doesn't want to take pictures of a same-sex couple, or look through her lens at two women or men kissing.
They don't want to look at these people, they don't want to see these people, and that is a very dehumanizing thing.
What they want is a form of segregation. They want LGBTQ people to live in the other part of town, or at least in another apartment building. They want them to find work in other companies (with which many of these bigots would not do business because of their owners or welcoming attitude towards gay employees), not theirs.
They don't want to "reward" or "support" any "lifestyle" with which they disagree (and instead of minding their own business, they often want everyone else to share their values, too). They don't want to deal with differences among people. Some of these discriminatory people (those who oppose gay marriage rights) even want being gay to be penalized by society. Being gay in America can be very difficult, in many ways, and they want to keep it difficult. They want people to lose privileges or have to jump through extra hoops to be able to "sin." They believe LGBTQ people are bound for hell, and yet they still try to make their lives hell on earth.
This is what breaks my heart about the issue of gay rights. This is why we cannot allow these bigots to make others' lives more difficult than they probably already are. Even if it would cause anti-gay people momentary discomfort, no one should have to be told that they are not good enough, morally, for one of "God's people" to make them a generic wedding cake.
When these same people try to hide behind the excuse, "Let the Free Market decide," it is really just code for "Let's maintain
the status quo." I cannot honestly see the proponents of unbridled
capitalism shopping according to social values of tolerance, acceptance,
taking care of the environment, or human and animal rights, at least
not when they can save money otherwise. (Anyone who feels differently, or
is one these conscious shoppers, feel free to prove me wrong in the
comment section.)
And why do they want to maintain the
status quo? It is usually because they benefit in some way already,
probably at the expense of others, and stand to lose their benefits or
privileges, such as the "right" to discriminate against homosexual
clients.
Or they are simply tired of hearing about
other people's (very real and significant) problems, or they think that
others are ridiculous for talking about their own experiences, because
these Free Market cheerleaders cannot see discrimination if it does not
apply to them. (Many will say that they are not homophobic, sexist,
racist, ablist, etc, but their unwillingness to listen to or take action
on other people's problems speaks volumes.)
The Cakes:
Yes, some people might be uncomfortable "participating" in a same-sex marriage, but we are talking about a job;
a wedding planner or photographer is not involved in the wedding in the
same way that the family or bridesmaids are. If someone would not quit
their job over having a gay boss, then they have no right to refuse a
job for this reason. It is not "glorifying" something one disagrees
with, to do one's job.
I remember reading once, in a book I have long forgotten the title of, about a Christian woman who once got up early and worked for hours to help her Muslim neighbor prepare a special dish for a Ramadan celebration. I imagine that the Christian woman herself partook in this special meal, as inviting her would naturally be the neighborly thing to do. I recall wondering at the time whether a Christian could help support the observance of a Muslim feast, and thinking that I "should" disagree with her actions. I knew, however, that they were motivated by love for her neighbors.
Cannot Christians follow the example of the apostle Peter, who partook in a religiously "unclean" meal with Gentiles, something forbidden by his own Jewish religion? Can they not pray over their cakes and food, that those who eat of it will find God? If it is, in fact, all right, according to the New Testament, for Christians, at least if their faith is strong, to eat food that has been sacrificed to idols, why is it not all right for food that has been dedicated to the Lord to take part in a ceremony with which Christians disagree?
In other words, if Christians, who do not worship Satan or idols, can eat the devil's food, why can't "sinners" eat Jesus' cake?
What do you think of this? Leave a comment below, or send me an email at: atheistjourneysblog@gmail.com
Follow or tweet me here: https://twitter.com/atheistjourneys
No comments:
Post a Comment