When will Americans learn what freedom is? It seems evident to me that my fellow citizens struggle with the idea of allowing their business-owning neighbors to make decisions in which, I believe, they are entitled. Specifically, the recent passage (and subsequent amendments) of religious liberty bills in Indiana and Arkansas have attempted to protect and prevent abuse of something that has been a long-standing principle in our capitalistic society: discrimination as a right of the business owner.
In a recent article for The Reflector, Joseph Kerstiens posed a number of hypothetical questions in an attempt to differentiate between discrimination and non-discrimination by businesses.
“For example, would it be discrimination based on religion for a Muslim artist to refuse to create an inappropriate sculpture of Muhammad for an anti-Islamic faith organization? Or would it be discrimination based on race for an African-American chef to refuse to provide services for an all-white KKK meeting? No, not at all,” he said.
Unfortunately, it is apparent Kerstiens did not properly define discrimination. While the word is used as a catch-all term for unjust prejudice in society as a whole, it is also defined by Merriam-Webster to mean “recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.” So, when he poses the hypothetical question of whether or not it is alright for a Muslim artist to deny a commission to make a piece of art which mocks Muhammad, Kerstiens incorrectly implies it is not discrimination. In this scenario, the artist is unlikely to advertise himself as being available to create any piece of art. The artist’s service is not a general service, therefore he is free to pick and choose — that is, to discriminate which commissions he accepts.
Kerstiens’ next hypothetical scenario also draws an incorrect conclusion. Not only does he say it is not discrimination for an African-American chef to refuse catering services for a KKK meeting, he is also implying it is legal. Both are false. Because a catering service is a general service, it would be illegal discrimination for an African American caterer to deny service to an interest group like the KKK. In fact, according to The Tribune Herald, a Georgia court ruled in favor of a local KKK chapter in a lawsuit against a bakery. The owner of the bakery, Elaine Bailey, refused to bake a birthday cake for the chapter after the Grand Wizard Marshall Saxby placed an order. The bakery was found guilty of illegal discrimination. These examples demonstrate how legal discrimination varies from illegal discrimination.
CNN recently posted an online article titled “The big gay wedding cake quiz,” which details nine scenarios of legal and illegal discrimination. After taking the quiz, one would find there is also a distinction between public and private discrimination, e.g., choosing not to invite someone to a birthday party held in a public place because of his or her ethnicity is not illegal and is different from refusing to serve someone of a different ethnicity in a restaurant.
All of this leads me to this question: who decides what is right and wrong? Presently, there are laws in place that protect certain types of discrimination while disallowing others. These laws vary widely state-to-state and some are even implemented at the federal level. Are they actually necessary? In particular, if a business owner wants to refuse service to a same-sex couple because of the couple’s sexual orientation, why should the government strip the business owner of that choice? And if that baker is forced by the government to serve the same-sex couple after litigation, should the couple expect to be met with a friendly face?
This may inherently seem illogical, but allow me to reason why allowing business owners make discriminatory choices is simply the better way. Do not doubt I fully support equal eatment of people of different ethnicities, religions, genders, sexual orientations and litary service, but the right of a business owner to discriminate has been one of the backbone tenets of capitalism.
In its regular “Weekend Update” segment, popular comedy show Saturday Night Live tackled the Indiana religious liberty bill. After discussing the bill’s recent passage, anchor Colin Jost commented on its effect.
“You’ll be able to tell which stores are supporting the new law because they’ll have these helpful little signs,” Jost said.
The image of a “going out of business” sign appeared on screen, followed by the audience’s laughter.
The people of Indiana and Arkansas decried these bills as legal discrimination — which is entirely accurate, if we all agree on the general definition of the word. Permitting business owners to make their own decisions is an important freedom. While I may not support businesses that actively refuse to serve people of a particular skin color or sexual orientation, I will loudly speak out in favor of their right to do so. The people in the communities where these business owners live will respond — some in support, others in protest. Capitalism will have its way in these communities, and business owners will learn what discrimination is — not because the government tells them what is allowed, but because of the people in the community they serve.
