Helen Keller once wrote that the highest result of education is tolerance, and if you ask the average American if he or she believes in a tolerant society, the answer will likely be yes. However, many Americans disagree with what a tolerant society looks like. This difference in values oftentimes leads to conflict over major social issues facing society.
One example of this is phenomena is the issue of same sex marriage. It has been roughly a year since the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v Hodges that marriage equality is the law of the land. While it was certainly a well deserved victory for the LGBTQ+ community, Obergefell undoubtedly fell short of solving many problems associated with the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights, specifically, in outlining which exemptions would be granted for those who object to gay marriage on religious grounds.
In the aftermath of the Obergefell decision, many states from Indiana to Arkansas began to introduce Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. While each of these laws differed in scope, their authors shared a common purpose: to allow religious people to refuse to perform acts that they see as a violation of their faith. The rise of RFRA laws across the country has prompted a highly partisan debate over the future of nondiscrimination laws and the right of conscience.
While most people agree that government discrimination should be outlawed, many states including Alabama have no protections in place that protect LGBTQ individuals from discrimination by their own government, meaning many state and local governments can legally discriminate on employment based solely on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
On the other hand, some states have expanded nondiscrimination protections to not only government services and employment, but also to private sector industries. The results of which have in some cases forced religious bakers and photographers to ignore their convictions and participate in gay wedding ceremonies or go out of business.
Those at both extremes of this issue believe they are working to create a more tolerant society, but each couldn’t be further from the truth. The answer to this complex issue should be rooted in property rights.
First off, government discrimination is completely unacceptable, and laws should be passed that affirm everyone’s right to be treated equally by their government. This includes expanding employment protections to public sector LGBTQ employees.
However, the owners of private businesses have every right to do whatever they wish with their business because it is their property. They should be able to engage in or refuse to engage in commerce with whomever they choose. While the contemporary restrictions on private property may appear to be fairly applied, that has not always been the case. There was once a time not long ago when the government actually demanded that the service industry racially segregate their businesses. Similarly, homosexuality was actually illegal for most of our country’s history. For these reasons, we shouldn’t let the majority decide what beliefs are acceptable enough to deserve protection.
On the other hand, the community has the right and the responsibility to boycott businesses that engage in discrimination. Recognizing property rights does not mean that we have to accept bigotry. Rather, it means we cannot use force to stop it. We can simply take our business elsewhere and vote with our patronage, the result of which would undoubtedly encourage most businesses to accommodate everyone.
True tolerance can only be achieved when all ideologies, hateful or otherwise, have the right to compete in the marketplace of ideas and we, as consumers, can put our money where our conscious is.
