It is interesting to note how the MSM and blogosphere react to a person who objects to serving in the military or war because their conscience does not permit them too, as opposed to a person who, for example,
does not wish to create art that is objectionable to them.
Dale Carpenter at
The Volokh Conspiracy lists a number of cases (summarized from an
NPR report) where organizations (or individuals) were challenged for not giving homosexuals equal treatment.
He then goes on to to say,
They show that there are indeed antidiscrimination laws that apply to
those who provide services to the public. They show that these
antidiscrimination laws sometimes require individuals and organizations
to do things that these persons and organizations claim violate their
religious beliefs.
Dale lists 4 cases: one pending before a state supreme court, 2 petitioned in front of an ironically named "Human Rights Commission" and one decided by the Supreme court of Vermont.
Dale's summary suffices for the Vermont case,
*Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil
union ceremony. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious
liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need
to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who
would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not
allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Dale says,
I am very wary of introducing a system of exemption for public officers
serving the public with taxpayers' money and charged with administering
the law
Yet he does not recognize that such a system has existed for centuries.
Furthermore, he says,
I think religious accommodation to private persons and organizations
should be generously provided, even where not required by the
Constitution. At the very least, accommodation should be made where it
can be offered without harming the protected class.
I think my issue with his article really stems from this section in his conclusion.
Matters are more complicated when religious persons and organizations
provide services to the public or ask for public funds while at the
same time requesting to be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone
else.
Yet, the concept of conscientious objection is exactly that. An Individual or Group asking to be exempt from the rules that apply to everyone else on the basis of conscience or beliefs - and still be allowed to provide services to the public (or benefit from public funds).
Why aren't individuals or organizations permitted to object to an activity - and refuse to actively participate in it, when our culture has a longstanding practice of allowing just that?
Conscientious objectors have been permitted, for centuries, to avoid serving in various military organizations or conflicts because of their religious beliefs. The implications are two fold, one is the state has no authority dictate the conscience of an individual and the second is that the individual would probably not perform well if compelled to do so. Wikipedia entry
here.Why is it that today, governments are eroding a person's right to conscience, especially since there are precedents that argue for that right and have done so for millenia?
The right to conscience is getting pretty short shrift today, as evidenced by the cases decided by "Human Rights Commissions" - which have held in nearly every case, that the right to not be 'discriminated' against trumps the right of an individual (or group) follow his conscience.
I guess, if we are willing to throw some religious or conscience objections under the bus, we might as well throw them all - after all, it is only a matter of degree.
