Equality and Freedom

Well this is an interesting situation: for the tl;dr, a Christian couple who own a bed and breakfast in England were fined for refusing to let a gay couple to rent a room together. Despite the couple's insistence that they simply refused to let any unmarried couple co-habitate, the judge determined that their policy was aimed strictly at gays. Given that gay marriage is illegal in England, one can certainly see how that decision makes sense.

But to make a long story short, I don't agree with the decision. As much as I disagree with the elderly couple on their stance, they have every right to hold it. Granted, the legal situation is more difficult because of gay marriage's status in Britain (one more reason to extend true legal equality), but it's still their right to deny service to any customers they may choose. Let the market do the judging: couples could stay there if they support the policy, and those who disagree can stay away. It's not as if there isn't a viable alternative nearby; if that were the case, then I would likely be shifting my position. And obviously, that only holds for private businesses, as public institutions have no right to discriminate.

The conclusion from this argument, however, is that all public institutions must be open to all, including marriage, adoption, etc. This is the tactic usually employed to allow legal discrimination: gay couples can't wed, and certain services are made available only to married couples. Well, what is this if not forcing someone's beliefs onto me? It's obviously a hypocritical move on the part of the religious right, and the time is really here for them to own up and start being honest. You have every right to hate in your private lives, but you can't use the government as a tool to force me to follow those same beliefs. Otherwise, if the Right continues to mix their private beliefs and public laws, they're going to eventually have to accept limitations on their beliefs, even in their private lives. You don't want that, and I don't want that. Why don't those who shriek of forced progressive values stop forcing society to live by their own antiquated beliefs?

Dusting off the blog: Clint McCance

Wow...it's been so long since I tinkered here that I couldn't remember the url off the top of my head. Lazy much?

Anyway, back when I made my first half-hearted attempt to start my own electronic rants, I never really gathered much steam. Now, though, I have a lot on my mind, and what better way to say it? I'm gonna start with something very close to my heart: Clint McCance's rants, and especially what they mean for free speech.

First off, a source, so that you know what I'm talking about: this video by Anderson Cooper does a great job.

Ok, yes I obviously feel very strongly about this issue because I'm a gay man (and counter to stereotypes, I am in a very fulfilling and monogamous relationship), but that's not really the thing that's been ticking me off. What got me going was seeing some of the comments on stories related to this. After quickly filtering through the obvious stupidity or trolling and ignoring the Bible thumpers trying to ram their religion down our throats, I came across a number of comments lamenting the death of the right to free speech. It is to those people who might complain about this supposed death that I really write this post.

Do you know what it means to have freedom of speech?

From what I've seen, the resounding answer is "no." Freedom of speech means that you can say what you want without having to fear reprisal from the government; nothing is an illegal topic. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from public opinion. Indeed, just because you are protected from the government (and rightly so), it doesn't mean you are protected from the opinions of your fellow citizens. In fact, just as you might have a freedom to say what you think, I have a freedom to voice my opinions of you because of it.

With great freedom comes great responsibility, and so with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to accept the repercussions of what you say. Clint McCance said things that are absolutely abhorent, and now he must own what he said and face the public scorn that he is (rightfully) receiving. Moreover, as a public official, he must accept that what he has said has shaken the public's confidence in his ability to serve as a member of a school board. Just as he has a right to say what he did, we as the public have a right to say we don't want someone like him in public office. So no, the outcry over his statements is not "trampling over his free speech"; it is merely holding him responsible for what he has said under his rights for free speech. No one is suggesting he be arrested or that he broke any law (and as much as I disgaree with him, I would disagree more with such a call), and that's the only way his rights would truly be broken.

Say what you want, but be prepared to be judged for what you say. You cannot have one without the other.

Perhaps this is symptomatic from what is wrong with our country (conservatives especially, though I am likely biased): we demand the rights, but refuse the responsibility. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.