As a sweep of religious liberty bills land on the desks of American governors, the liberty of US citizens is also landing in the hands of these government officials. Some states have passed them into law, others have vehemently rejected them. As of March 30, Democratic Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe vetoed the religious freedom bill. If McAuliffe’s intent was to crush discrimination against one group of people, then why is it beneficial to discriminate against another in order to do so?
The proposed bill focused on protecting religious groups and businesses from punishment if they refused to provide their services to members of the LGBT community. In addition, the bill excused businesses from having to provide certain healthcare options centered around premarital sex to their employees. The response to the prospective legislation came as no surprise as Gov. McAuliffe stated that he would never let the bill pass.
After the event, he stated that the bill’s claims were redundant under the First Amendment, and generally unconstitutional as well as plainly discriminatory against queer individuals under the guise of protecting religious freedom.The characteristic that makes America so cool is that you have the choice to be who you want to be, do what you want to do, and believe what you want to believe. And more recently, marry who you want to marry, which should have been added to the list a long time ago considering this country’s claim to fame is liberty, but that is a discussion for another time. I believe it can be generally agreed upon that this is a fantastic ideal to base a nation on. Ii cannot promise the happiness of every person though, as it also needs to allow for prejudice - to a certain extent. Attempting to make hatred illegal is downright futile, and in and of itself a form of hatred towards those who wish to express this hate. In order to truly have freedom, there is no separating the good from the bad; you have to allow for both.
Obviously, not all forms of discrimination can be acceptable in a functioning society, let alone legal. There must be official limits kept in place. For example, if you hit a transgender woman for shopping at Victoria’s Secret, your discrimination has threatened the wellbeing of another person and you have crossed the legal line. You have officially attempted to void that person's human rights. On the other side of things, if you do not want to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian couple at your bakery, whose rights are you threatening? You are not placing the couple in danger, taking away their choice to get married, or ability to shop somewhere else. If making the choice of who you serve due to religious reasons is taken away from you, then you are the one being discriminated against
At this point, it is key to note that the negativity of discrimination towards any group is not what is being discussed here. Hatred is most definitely a poisonous thing and will most likely damage a business' reputation as well as its customer base. In fact, I could go on forever talking specifically about why prejudice against queer people is hurtful to society and oneself, but again, this is besides the point. All forms of non-endangering expression must be accepted in order to maintain true freedom in America, prejudice and support alike.
