A concept that is not difficult to
grasp … but seems difficult for some courts and legislators to carry out … is freedom
of conscience extended to all people. If
you’re a cake artist, a floral artist, a photographic artist or another
creative professional, you’ve seen the news and felt (rightfully so) that your
freedom is in danger. If, however, you
are a fashion designer, you’re probably feeling pretty good right about now.
With the election of Donald Trump, one
of the latest controversies comes from clothing designer Sophie Theallet, who
recently wrote that she “will not participate in dressing or associating in any
way with the next First Lady.” In
explaining her decision, she invoked her deeply-held belief in ‘individual freedom.’ “As a family owned company,” Theallet
explains, “we value our artistic freedom and always humbly seek to contribute
to a more humane, conscious and ethical way to create in this world.” She considers her and her family’s work to be
“an expression of [their] artistic and philosophical ideas,” and the leftist
elite are quick to agree. But why do
they become so skeptical when the person asserting artistic freedom is a floral
artist whose views they don’t like?
The mainstream media covered the
decision of Ms. Theallet, with no hint of accusing her of bigotry. This is, after all, a matter of conscience
and freedom, not bigotry.
As Mary Katharine Ham writes, at The Federalist: “But these are the same
arguments the left and media have dismissed from Baronelle Stutzman, a Washington
florist who thinks making custom bouquets for a same-sex marriage doesn’t
comport with her personal beliefs. In
appealing to the state Supreme Court after a three-year legal battle, Stutzman’s
lawyer argued this week that arranging flowers is artistic expression protected
under the First Amendment. Stutzman — a
Southern Baptist — would have been more than happy to sell prearranged flowers
out of the cooler because that was ‘not custom expression.’ ”
In other words, the exact same logic
applies to both the fashion designer and the florist (and the baker and the
photographer). Off-the-rack dresses,
pre-arranged flowers, and other similar “pre-expressed” products are not a
problem; nobody is going to stop the president-elect’s wife from purchasing a
dress from any given fashion designer.
If, however, you believe that Ms.
Theallet has the freedom to opt out of providing creative expressions for the president-elect’s
wife, then it strains the imagination to find a reason to force Mrs. Stutzman
to provide custom, creative expressions for an event to which she has an
objection.
Rev.
Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain
(Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor,
Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel
If we truly had a free market society we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with these issues. Government feels compelled to make laws outlawing discrimination and we all feel that it's about time but it destroys the free market and steals liberty from Americans. If someone doesn't want to provide a service or sell a product for whatever reason so what. Is he discriminating? Maybe, but what business is that of the government? If someone doesn't want to sell me a product, I'll take my business somewhere else. When someone else is getting all the business maybe mister discriminator will get the hint before he loses so much business he has to close his doors. I believe God wants us to love our fellow man but that doesn't mean we have to agree with them when it violates our conscience.
ReplyDelete