Re: GOP senators reintroduce bill to protect opponents of same-sex marriage
I read the entire link. Can someone explain what's going on here?
The subject line says those who "speak out" against gay marriage, but the body of the article says this:
The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) would bar the federal government from taking any action against individuals who discriminate against same-sex couples or others based on "a sincerely held religious belief."
The bill would also protect those who discriminate against marriages not recognized under federal law or individuals who engage in sex outside of marriage.
Speaking out against something is a wonderful American privilege. Discriminating against them is not.
What exactly am I missing here?
Don't we all "discriminate" on a daily basis?
We chose who we prefer to associate with as friends, who we prefer as marriage partners, what we want to eat, where we go to shop, what we choose to say or not say depending on who we are talking to, etc.
I think it is foolish to discriminate publicly on the basis of race, sex, etc., but by the same token I find this hard to reconcile when talking about someone's individual liberty.
How can we say one is "free" when they can be compelled by law to labor for another, or to associate with another they do not wish to?
Doesn't a "free market" allow for competition and alternatives?
The whole argument seems a bit strange. "You are violating my rights when you refuse to sell your goods to me for whatever reasons."
If a baker says he does not wish to sell you a cake, for whatever reason...why not just find a baker who will?
I can see some restrictions if the dealer in goods is the ONLY dealer within reasonable commuting distance, and the population too small to provide reasonable alternatives.
I can also see laws protecting against discrimination in hiring practices, and publicly funded situations like education, etc.
I can also see rational public responses like boycotting a product if it's business practices are based on unfair discrimination.
But otherwise forcing a person to labor for you? I just don't see it.