The law is the highest authority

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 — and the argument's first point is that this is not merely an aspiration but something these societies have already chosen to make binding. For this purpose they institute laws that make it illegal to fire, hire or refuse service to people on the basis of who they are. The wording of such laws is deliberate: they turn on a person's identity rather than on their conduct, precisely because identity is the thing someone cannot alter in order to be served. The second step concerns which principle gives way when two of them collide. Given that the principle of non-discrimination is held in high regard in both the courts of law and personal life, it makes sense for these principles to be prioritised when such disputes arise. A religious objection to serving a particular customer is a request to be exempt from a rule everyone else is bound by, and granting it would make the protection conditional on the beliefs of whoever happens to be behind the counter — which is to say, no reliable protection at all for the people most likely to need it. The consequence of not prioritising the law is stated plainly: it is a poor state that watches helplessly as swathes of its population are mistreated. A state that writes non-discrimination into its statutes and then allows private conviction to override them in practice has the appearance of protection without its substance. These non-discrimination laws and principles should therefore be respected by everyone, regardless of religious affiliation — not because religious conviction counts for nothing, but because the law is the authority under which every party to such a dispute has agreed to live.

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.