Religious freedom is uniquely important

The argument

Many people’s religious beliefs are the reason they refuse service to a same-sex marriage ceremony. For these people, their religion is the core of what they believe in and is at the heart of how they see themselves as people. The argument turns on that fact about identity: what is at stake for them is not a preference or an opinion that could be set aside for an afternoon, but the framework by which they judge everything they do. Being a part of a ceremony that they believe to be deeply immoral and sinful is for them a burden of immense weight that would cause them great distress — distress that is greater than the requirements of tolerance. Proponents press the point in the believer's own terms rather than an outsider's: on the view held by the person being compelled, participation is not merely distasteful but spiritually ruinous. It would be akin to violence to force a baker to bake a cake that they believe will condemn them to an eternity of suffering. The conclusion is reached by weighing the two harms rather than by denying that either is real. On one side is a couple refused a service; on the other is a person made to act against the conviction that organises their whole life. The first party can obtain the service elsewhere, while the second cannot obtain another conscience, and the injury in that case is not to the plans for a day but to the person's integrity. Therefore, the right of the baker to religious freedom is more important than the right of the same-sex couple to that cake, because the pain caused through an assault on religious freedom is greater than that caused by a refusal of a service, even a service as intimate as a wedding cake.

Context

The majority of people refusing service to LGBT couples do so because of religious beliefs. How do we reconcile the right of the baker or the florist to their religious freedom with the right of the newlyweds to non-discrimination.

Premises

Counter-arguments

There are two responses to this argument. Firstly, what is it that makes religious belief so specially protected. Many of us hold beliefs we care deeply about, yet do not get the same protected status in the eyes of the law. Secondly, even if religious beliefs are special, we often don't allow them to be enforced to the point of harming other people. For example, if a religious community were to say that they wish to self-flagellate, we would be alright with that. However, if they were to ask for permission to flagellate all citizens in service to their beliefs, we would say that is too much harm to be causing. We think that religious rights are enforceable only insofar as they do not harm others.

Rejecting the premises

P2. There is something especially potent about the harm we cause people when seriously violating their religious rights. There is nothing special about religious rights - we all holds strong beliefs that we cannot weaponise against others. P4. This harm will always outweigh the harm caused to someone who is refused a service. This isn't always true. More importantly, how we weigh those harms.