- Position‹3 of 4›
- No, service cannot be refused on religious grounds
In a secular society with non-discrimination laws, all citizens must abide by those laws
The argument
The principle of non-discrimination is the building block of many developed nations. Every person, regardless of creed or race or gender, ought to be treated equally. For this purpose we institute laws that make it illegal to fire, hire or refuse service to people on the basis of who they are. Given that we hold this principle of non-discrimination in high regard in both our courts of law and personal lives, it makes sense for these principles to be prioritised when we have such disputes. It is a poor state that watches helplessly as swathes of its population are mistreated. These non-discrimination laws/principles should therefore be respected by everyone - regardless of religious affiliation.
Context
Most Western liberal democracies organise themselves as secular nations. As such, the laws they write and the protections they assure their citizens are meant to uphold their liberties regardless of, and often in the face of, religious sentiments.
Premises
Counter-arguments
It could be argued that discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs is an equally important question in this discussion. If a Christian or a Muslim were to be refused service because they were people of faith, that would be unacceptable. It would also be unacceptable to force Christians or Muslims to feel that they are not equal citizens because of their religious beliefs.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The description of non-discrimination law is accurate and stops short of the conflict at issue. Religion is itself a protected characteristic under the same statutes, so the dispute is between two protected grounds rather than between law and private preference. [Rejecting P2] 'Must take priority' is asserted where an argument is required. Legal systems generally balance competing rights rather than ranking one categorically above another, and the courts that have heard these cases have largely done exactly that. [Rejecting C] The conclusion settles by appeal to authority what the position needs to settle by argument. That the law says so does not establish that it should, and it makes the case hostage to how the law happens to be decided — which in several jurisdictions has gone the other way.