You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.
Take it from a dude, who happens to be married to a dude, who knows from personal experience, the whole gay marriage thing is a no-brainer from a classical liberal perspective.
It goes a little something like this: if you believe in individual rights — meaning that every citizen of a country should expect the same legal privileges and protections, whether or not you agree with their choices — then, great stuff, you’re on the right path.
We apologize, but this video has failed to load. Try refreshing your browser, orEnjoy the latest local, national and international news.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Don't have an account? Create Account
Sign in without password New , a new way to loginIf you are a Home delivery print subscriber, unlimited online access is included in your subscription. Activate your Online Access Now
Article contentBut before you join that conga line in celebration, there’s a catch: all of this means absolutely nothing unless you’re willing to tolerate somebody else’s personal opposition to it.
No, I’m not kidding and, no, this isn’t a device to test your concentration levels. It’s something called a consistent principle and is frequently the undoing of well-meaning (but ultimately misguided) progressives, who falter and then fall into authoritarianism.
Let me explain why …
Part of being a true, classical liberal is accepting that many people have fundamental objections to homosexuality because of their religious faith. You might not like their views — hey, you might even think they’re pretty old-fashioned — but that’s irrelevant. Like you, these people are entitled to their own outlook.
It only becomes a problem if they try to stop you from exercising your equal rights under the law.
This is something that relates back to the First Amendment, which clearly sets out the importance of freedom of religion and assembly for everyone . . . including those you disagree with. This is what it means to be equal. No special treatment for anyone.
PlatformedThis newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Thanks for signing up!A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Platformed will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
Article content Advertisement 3 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article contentThink of it this way: I wouldn’t force a Jewish painter to take commissions of Hitler imagery from a Nazi sympathizer. And I’d bet you wouldn’t either. Nor would I make it mandatory for a historically black church to hold an event for white supremacists. This isn’t rocket science, people.
I also wouldn’t take legal action against a Christian baker if the baker politely refused to create my rainbow-themed wedding cake. (For the record, we had a simple lemon and rosemary cake at the wedding, baked by my mother-in-law. Sorry to break the stereotype.) Unfortunately, as we witnessed in the legal case against Melissa and Aaron Klein — the now-infamous wedding cake bakers, or non-bakers, as it were — progressives have decided that if you don’t run your business the way they want you to, they will take legal action against you. Without relitigating that whole affair, it’s important to note that the Kleins didn’t refuse service to the gay couple, they just refused a custom order of a cake.
This is a crucial distinction, because refusing service based on immutable characteristics might’ve been a violation of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex and national origin. Although sexuality is not specifically mentioned here, there could’ve been a legal case to be had. (And it should be noted that there are several other laws currently in place, such as the Equality Act of 1974, that protect people based specifically on sexuality.)
Advertisement 4 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article contentThis overreaction is precisely the sort of irrational behaviour we’ve been witnessing from the overzealous left in recent years. Its adherents want any form of dissent to be classified as a criminal act and punishable by law, even if that means making somebody unemployed, which is illiberal, and thankfully illegal, for now.
In a liberal society people have the right to hold different beliefs than yours. That right is what we must protect above all else.
Look at my friendship with Ben Shapiro, for example. He’s an Orthodox Jew who doesn’t personally agree with gay marriage because of his devout faith. In fact, he flat-out describes my lifestyle as a sin. Surprise, surprise, I disagree with him on this view, but this isn’t a problem for me because (A) we accept that our different opinions are of equal worth, and (B) he’s not trying to overturn the law or infringe on my rights.
Likewise, I’m not forcing his synagogue to host a lesbian commitment ceremony against its religious principles. Nor am I forcing him to shack up with a dude and listen to Tina Turner playlists on loop. Yes, I’m more of a Tina guy than a Beyoncé guy. Sue me, gays.
Advertisement 5 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Article content
I view my disagreement with Ben this way because my rights as an individual don’t trump somebody else’s, just like that person’s freedoms don’t supersede mine. See how it works? It’s mutually beneficial for everyone involved.
It’s our responsibility as free-thinking, self-determining people to pursue our own happiness without forcing others to bow to our beliefs. Especially when it might come at their expense.
This concept is so easy to understand that it’s a piece of (gay) cake.
Excerpted from “Don’t Burn This Book: Thinking for Yourself in an Age of Unreason” by Dave Rubin. Copyright Dave Rubin. Published by Signal, an imprint of McClelland & Stewart, a division of Penguin Random House Canada Limited. Reproduced by arrangement with the Publisher. All rights reserved.
