Do Religious Freedoms Violate Gay Rights?

Ethics & Gay Rights

The author of this report seeks to explain and fathom the current debate that is going on as it relates to gays and other "non-traditional" couples like lesbians, transgenders and so forth getting married much like heterosexual couples in the United States have done for centuries. The author of this report shall be truly ethical and say up front that she supports gay marriage but she will justify that belief through evidence and good ethical standards throughout this report. The main focal point of this report will be the recent legal fracases in states like Indiana that have tried to (or have) passed laws that allow LGBT people to be discriminated against on the grounds of religion as stated in the United States and/or elsewhere. While many point to the First Amendment's freedom of religion when it comes to saying that gays should not be married, there are plenty of other parts of the Constitution

Ethics Examined

When it comes to the United States Constitution, it has the luxury of being the supreme law of the land. There is the presumption and assumption that if the United States Constitution says "x," then that is what should be done. However, there are two glaring issues with the United States Constitution when it comes to the current scrap relating to gay marriage. First of all, there are legal case precedents not to mention actual clauses in the United States Constitution that seemingly contradict each other. The second major reason is that freedom of religion is one of them and the equal protection clause if the other. The third, and most important reason, is that the United States Constitution has construed wrongly and immorally in the past (Cornell, 2015).

As for the first and second item mentioned above, they can probably be conflated. There are seemingly several parts of the United States Constitution that are being twisted and bent by any number of people. There are three in particular that need to be looked at from an entirely ethical point-of-view. First of all is freedom of religion. There is a marked difference between having a personal freedom of religion and foisting that on someone else. One common real-world case that is cited is the plight of the gay couple that wanted to get married. They went to a bakery, like most married couples are won't to do, to have a cake made. Upon discovering that the couple was a gay couple, the couple was told that their business was not wanted and that they should go to another bakery. While this would be enough to confirm that another bakery would indeed be better, the couple ended up making an ethical and court case out of it. As would be predictable, the couple cited freedom of religion. However, there are other rulings and parts of the Constitution that complicate this stand. First of all, there is the equal protection clause to the United States Constitution. This states that everyone should be protected equally under the law. In other words, if a straight couple can get a cake at that shop then a gay one should be able to get a cake there as well. As one might guess, the same argument is made in regards to gays getting married. Perhaps the argument about services for marrying couples can be complicated by looping in priests and other people, but the basic argument is there (Cornell, 2015).

Second of all, there is the fact that Supreme Court precedent mandates a separation between church and state. What this means for gay couples and those that would rather not serve them is that religion should not be serving as a basis for what happens during business transactions. While it may not make logical sense for a gay couple to want a cake from an anti-gay cake shop, it does make sense that the cake shop should make the cake without refusing service for sexual orientation reasons alone, let alone issuing slurs and nasty comments. If a random person is in front of their house and a gay couple asks them to make a cake, then that is all well and good because the person is not operating a business under the purview of the government. Since the government is involved, they have to ensure and enforce equal access for all. However, the government has to enforce and create its rules based on equality for people of all religions and beliefs unless religion is truly the main thing at hand. For example, if someone asked the cake-maker to depict Christ in a desecrating manner, then that could be refused because the person ordering the depiction is making religion the issue…not the seller (ACLU, 2015).

The third and final pivot point mentioned above is that sometimes the Constitution and the people who interpret it get it wrong. One needs to look no further than "separate but equal" to know that (SI, 2015). Other times, people misconstrue what the founders believed, what they did not believe, what they intended and what they did not intend. However, people can be forgiven, at least a little bit, for not knowing that some of the infusion of God was created and added after (if not much longer after) the country was created and formed. For example, "In God We Trust" was not put on coins until just before the Civil War. It was not the official motto of the United States until the 1950's. Indeed, "e pluribus unum" was the motto created in the days of the Continental Congress and the days thereafter. As such, people that point to God should remember that it is personal freedom and not a blank check to act unethically or prudishly to those that are different than them. Just because a person makes a cake for a gay couple does not mean they necessarily agree…it is just a business transaction and should be treated as such. That couple is going to be gay irrespective of what the cake maker does or does not do and creating a literal court case out of it, or even just a confrontation, is unethical and improper (Treasury, 2015).