Wednesday, October 2, 2013

The Pain of Discrimination

In August, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an Albuquerque photography business violated state antidiscrimination laws after its owners declined to snap photos of a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony. Similar cases are pending in Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington, and some experts think the underlying legal question—whether free-speech and religious rights should allow exceptions to state antidiscrimination laws—could ultimately wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supporters of gay marriage argue that the businesses objecting to working on same-sex ceremonies face an uphill battle, as courts are likely to view the cases as a matter of civil rights. They say the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the issues in question on several occasions when it rejected arguments against laws requiring businesses to serve African-Americans.

Let's understand something very basic in American society since the 1960s. Discrimination based on a person's race, color, creed, gender, national origination, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION, is illegal and will not be tolerated. People who wish to do business in this country are permitted to do so, but not at the expense of violating any other person's civil rights. Keep in mind, we are a pluralistic and polylithic society, and we all are members of a protected class under the Civil Rights Act, as amended.

For example, I am a white, Catholic, Irish/Sicilian American, olive complexion, straight male. Would anyone discriminate against me? I don't think so. Yet, as a visual, someone may not like the way I look to them but since people don't give white men any problems, I would not feel the discomfort others do.

Is that right? Absolutely not! Our Framers understood basic human rights when they signed onto "all men are created equal", while dealing with that blot on our history called slavery. They left it to their posterity to fix the wrongs of the time, which by itself was a struggle until the 1960s to finally remove that scourge from our society forever. We are still trying to fix the hiccups, but we know it will get better.

So, why do we want to fight this battle again against another protected class? Don't we have more important things to concern ourselves  with than what two people do in a bedroom and are legally permitted to be married as any heterosexual couple? Does it really affect us? Not really, so why do we want to force specific "acceptable" lifestyles on others?

The time has come to finally rid ourselves of our disdain for people not quite you, me or the next person. Ultimately, at some point, one day those of you who feel it's ok to discriminate against others may just find yourself in the uncomfortable position of being denied your civil rights.

Then, you will finally realize the pain you have inflicted on your fellow man, or woman, and will have no one to blame but yourself. And, good luck with that! 

1 comment:

  1. I normally just read blogs, but I felt the need to reply to this one because I see some inaccuracies. You are only looking at half the picture. Sure, there are laws against discrimination, but that is a two way street. One's rights end where another's begin. The viewpoint of this article completely ignores the freedom of religion and one's religious beliefs. The bible clearly states that we should oppose the homosexual lifestyle and you cannot force the Christian/Catholic church and it's members to go against their beliefs to appease another group. Under our constitution, homosexuals do have the right to have their union recognized by the government. However, they do not have the right to force a religious institution or it's members to recognize their union. You cannot force the church to marry homosexuals and you cannot force a Christian/Catholic photographer to take pictures at a homosexual wedding if it goes against their religious beliefs. Again, we all have freedoms and rights, but one's rights end where another's begin. This really should be a non issue. After all, isn't this even recognized by liberals as 'coexisting'?

    ReplyDelete