Fashion Designers Are Boycotting Melania Trump. Shouldn't Bakers and Florists Have the Same Right?
Free association should not be for powerful liberals only.
As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom, and respect for all lifestyles, I will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next First Lady," wrote fashion designer Sophie Theallet in an open letter this week.I don't think someone choosing not to volunteer their services or donate their product to someone is the same as a business denying service to a paying customer. If your job is to bake cakes, then bake cakes. It's not your job to judge what's on my cake or what I'm using it for...especially if what I'm doing is legal. Doing your job is not condoning a lifestyle or violating your morals. If your faith leads you to oppose same sex marriage, then that should result in your marrying someone of the opposite sex and only officiating marriages of opposite sex couples. So unless you're the minister, refusing to do your job just makes you kind of a jerk. And being a jerk in the name of your morals makes you kind of a hypocrite.
People magazine reports Theallet, who has designed and donated clothes for outgoing First Lady Michelle Obama numerous times over the last eight years, may not be alone: "A source tells People, 'This has already been going on for months. Designers wouldn't lend to Melania, Ivanka or Tiffany, so they either bought the items themselves or wore Ivanka's brand. ... There was a lot of shopping their own closets.'"
Personally, I applaud Theallet's design to disassociate herself with the next occupant of the White House. I see Donald Trump as a shameful human being with few redeeming qualities as a leader and even fewer as a person, and if I were a business owner, I too would decline to serve his administration.
Likewise, I support Bruce Springsteen's right to cancel his concerts in North Carolina in protest of the state's transgender-bathroom policies.
Both are examples of associational freedom—the right to make decisions for yourself about how and with whom you spend your time and energy. This includes the right not to take on a client or project that elevates, in your view, a value you disagree with.
The problem is not that Theallet was willing to dress Michelle Obama and isn't willing to dress Melania Trump (which is, like it or not, a form of discrimination). The problem is just how many people don't seem to think that same freedom should be extended to bakery owners, photographers, and other wedding vendors who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
As Theallet put it, "we consider our voice an expression of our artistic and philosophical ideals." I suspect Barronelle Stutzman, the white-haired grandmother who owns Arlene's Flowers, feels the same way about her craft. But instead of assuming a live-and-let-live attitude on the matter, Washington state has systematically worked to destroy Stutzman's business unless she agrees to take part in a celebration to which she is morally opposed.
There's been a lot of discussion since Trump's victory last week of the apparent disconnect between rural and urban America—between wealthy elites and those who live in what has become less-than-affectionately known as "flyover country." This is a vivid example of that chasm.
Rights cannot be just for those who will use them to uphold the values you agree with. They must also be for those who will take positions you can't fathom for reasons you can't stomach. Free association, and the freedom to live out your convictions expressively in how you make a living, cannot be reserved for rock stars and fashion designers and other powerful liberals, while being denied to regular Americans.
"As a family owned company, our bottom line is not just about money," Theallet writes in her open letter. "We value our artistic freedom." Hear, hear.
On the flip side though...if someone didn't want to bake a cake for me, I would probably just go somewhere else. I don't understand why that's so difficult. Discomfort with same sex marriage doesn't make someone a bigot. It makes them a human being who has perceived marriage as it has pretty much been universally accepted until recent years. I don't think it helps garner sympathy or open the doors of communication if you respond defensively or angrily and demand acceptance. Yes, your right to marry is protected by law. But be honest...it is a complete diversion from the social norms that we've all grown up with. I dare say that anyone who is not straight went through a process of understanding and embracing their sexuality. It wasn't like flipping a switch. Don't dismiss or take for granted the process you went through; society needs that as well. It's a difficult pill for many people to swallow, and the more you try to shove that pill down people's throats, the more it comes across that the acceptance of and respect for your perspective/freedoms take precedence over theirs...making you look like a hypocrite.
Freedom seems to be a euphemism for "I don't need to listen to or consider anyone else's point of view. I am 'free' to ensure my own personal comfort at the expense of my neighbors." Or...to quote Eddie Murphy:
But the problem with this type of mentality is that we all are in this together: Individual divisiveness only weakens the strength of the whole (family, team, company, neighborhood, country). St. Paul sums up my philosophy nicely in the twelfth chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians (NIRV):
If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, shouldn't we forge ahead WITH one another instead of IN SPITE OF one another? As long as we keep rejoicing in our neighbors' failures or cutting them off at the knees, we continue to injure ourselves.
14 So the body is not made up of just one part. It has many parts.15 Suppose the foot says, “I am not a hand. So I don’t belong to the body.” By saying this, it cannot stop being part of the body. 16 And suppose the ear says, “I am not an eye. So I don’t belong to the body.” By saying this, it cannot stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, how could it hear? If the whole body were an ear, how could it smell? 18 God has placed each part in the body just as he wanted it to be. 19 If all the parts were the same, how could there be a body?20 As it is, there are many parts. But there is only one body.21 The eye can’t say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” The head can’t say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 In fact, it is just the opposite. The parts of the body that seem to be weaker are the ones we can’t do without. 23 The parts that we think are less important we treat with special honor. The private parts aren’t shown. But they are treated with special care. 24 The parts that can be shown don’t need special care. But God has put together all the parts of the body. And he has given more honor to the parts that didn’t have any. 25 In that way, the parts of the body will not take sides. All of them will take care of one another. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it. If one part is honored, every part shares in its joy.
If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, shouldn't we forge ahead WITH one another instead of IN SPITE OF one another? As long as we keep rejoicing in our neighbors' failures or cutting them off at the knees, we continue to injure ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment