Good for the gander?

I am not a Kantian. However, a couple of the summaries above had me thinking of some of the events of the last couple of months. And, in particular, in a libertarian oriented democracy like ours, the third saying is a very powerful summary. “If you should be free to do something, then so should everyone else.” Most Americans would strongly support that type of statement. A freedom that only a few have is not a freedom, but a tyranny, would say most Americans. Thus, if we advocate that we can take an action, then be careful that someone later does not advocate that they can take the same type of action.

Before I proceed, let me point out that we all agree that this type of thinking does not apply to every facet of life. For instance, I am free to drive a car because I have a driver’s license. If you do not have a driver’s license, I am not violating your rights if you do not get to drive. If I were a nurse, I would be allowed to do things that a non-nurse would not be allowed to do. But, Kant is not talking about matters such as professional training, etc. Rather, he is talking about the field of moral choices, in which moral freedoms should be held in common. And, in a society like ours, in which explicitly religious arguments may not be used to approve laws, the word moral really means ethical. If I can ethically do this, then someone with whom I morally disagree may have the ethical right to take the same type of action. What do I mean?

Over the past few months, we have had arguments about the rights of employers. Because of the increasingly libertarian bent of our country, many have been arguing that employers should have the right to do almost anything they want in certain areas. For instance, at least one state legislature approved a bill allowing a vendor to refuse to serve people whose behavior they find morally repugnant. Thus, the principle is that an owner should be able to hire only whom they wish and have as customers only whom they wish. But, this principle can be applied by anyone in the USA, right?

This week, HGTV cancelled an upcoming TV show based on the fact that the twin brothers involved are against gay marriage and express other conservative Christian doctrines. It has been interesting to read on various news sites how they are trying to say that somehow this is not right while at the same time defending the right of an employer to employ whom they wish. But, this points out a problem that challenges those who wish to disapprove the laws that force any business that serves the public to serve everyone.

You see, if a Christian can refuse to hire or serve an LGBT person, then is it not equally true that a TV channel can refuse to hire Christians? If the first is not a type of discrimination, then the second is not a type of discrimination either, is it? This is the reason why many in the USA today are not impressed by conservative Christian social arguments. The idea that conservative Christians should be free to do something which people who do not agree with them cannot do seems unfair to an American. Worse, when conservative Christians argue that the history of this country shows that their views have a privileged standing in society, they trigger a strong cultural reaction. The strong cultural reaction is that you have no right to tell others what to do or not do.

To some extent, conservative Christians are in a difficult position. If we argue for the right to not serve others based on our religious beliefs, then we will have trouble arguing that others must serve us despite their beliefs. If we argue for a type of cultural supremacy, we will have trouble having our case accepted. In fact, the more we argue that the Bill of Rights gives us certain rights, the more others will argue that they have the same rights. Arguing original intent will not work, as the Treaty of Tripoli clearly states that the, ““government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion … .” Thus, those conservative Christians that argue for special rights will not find themselves in any type of winning position.

The more that conservative Christians argue that they have the right to use their beliefs to not serve, not hire, not rent, etc., the more that they will open the door for others to say the same thing. Thus, the more that conservative Christians adopt a libertarian philosophy, the more that they will find it used against them. Thus, I will argue that it is time for Christians to find a different philosophical approach. I will address this issue at another time.