On a lazy Sunday evening, I channel surfed and came upon an episode of This is Life with Lisa Ling. I’ve watched several episodes before, and I found them to be deeply interesting. Lisa Ling does an amazing job of covering the topics objectively, without judgement. Somehow her compassion and humanity permeate each episode, independent of topic. She presents the topics in a way that we see and empathize with the people, not merely flatten them and bucket them into a particular category.
This particular episode, “Interracial Love” (Season 9, Episode 2) talks about the stigma and challenges of couples of different races. I, a Chinese man, coupled with a Caucasian woman, found this episode especially interesting. Naturally, one story covered how a father broke ties with his son, because he married and had children with a Black woman. It showed this relationship open up over the course of years. I found this story both deeply distressing and quietly optimistic.
Moreover, other stories similarly broke my heart, like the one where a couple was bullied out of their home. The words “Nigger Lover” prominently painted on remnants of their burned Ripley, TN home, a city that alleges to be “The City of Hospitality”. However, one story became the beacon of light, the figurative lighthouse in a stormy sea.
Learning about the Bahá’í
This show introduced me to a religion by the name of Bahá’í; it was a refreshing take on the practice of faith. They view having ethnically diverse marriages as a means to overcome hate and even achieve world peace. It focuses on unity, the oneness of mankind. All other faiths are respected, they’re just different ways to access the same deity. They adorn their church walls with Star of David, Christian Cross, and the Star and Crescent of Islam.
This story follows a young Bahá’í couple, their ages 19 and 23 upon meeting; they both come from multi-ethnic families. Their story is endearing if not perhaps a bit saccharine. As a religion, they aspire unions to be ethnically diverse; though this isn’t a strict requirement, it’s an aspiration. They each from different ethnic backgrounds, so they easily meet that standard. However, they also require the consent of all living parents. Dawning (23, the bride) and Aarya (19, the groom) approached their parents. His mom felt he was too young at 19; they were disallowed to marry.
It took two additional years, his graduating from school, and accepting a job. Upon crossing those milestones, Aarya’s mom finally gave her blessing. They respected the roots of their faith and navigated it to a tactful and happy conclusion.
Distinction between your faith and others’ sin
Let’s say that there are certain activities that you consider sinful. For instance, you frown upon masturbation and seeing exotic dancers. You choose to follow your faith and do not engage in those activities. It’s your right; it’s a free country. However, if you should happen to enable others in what is a sin to you, but not to them, are you transitively engaging in sin yourself by being complicit? If you’re a cashier at a drug store and know that the woman at the checkout is buying batteries for her vibrator and lubricant to get her jollies, can you refuse? If you’re a teller at the bank and know the man at your window will use all those singles at a strip bar, can you tell him no? It’s their right; it’s a free country.
If this scenario seems strangely obtuse to you, why is the refusal to bake a cake (or cater a wedding) when the couple is gay even a thing? “Oh, that’s different…” Why is it different? In this country, we are not allowed to discriminate job candidates based on race, religion, or gender (sexual orientation and gender identity included). Similarly, if you own a restaurant, you cannot refuse to serve anyone based on any of the above criteria. Yet for some magical, mystical reason serving food for a wedding instead of in a restaurant is different, based on ‘strongly held beliefs’. Remember, this is not your sin; it is their sin.
I’ll state for the record, that I strongly disagree with the premise of refusing to make a cake (or cater) a gay wedding based on your ‘strongly held beliefs’. However, if we’re going to set foot on that path, let’s explore where that path leads us.
The pesky ‘freedom of religion’ clause
Our constitution grants us freedom of religion. It is literally the first sentence in the first amendment; I don’t think that’s an accident:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
We listed this freedom before freedom of speech or expression and even the right to bear arms. Yes, it is that important. On most days, I’ll argue that this includes the freedom of lack of religion, but I’ll forgo that particular discussion today. Today, we’ll simply assert that all religions hold equal standing under the Constitution, and hence all ‘strongly held beliefs’ based on those religions should be equally respected.
Let’s take a hypothetical. Imagine a young couple, Dawn and William become engaged; they’re both Christian and Caucasian. As they plan their wedding, they find a fabulous caterer, Lisa. It’s precisely the food that they want. They’ve even gotten the menu down to the minute details. Over the course of the planning, Dawn mentions that she is estranged from her father, who was only 17 years-old when she was born and left. She knows precisely who he is and where he lives but chooses not to contact him, nor did she tell him about the wedding.
Here’s the complication… Lisa is Bahá’í and as such, her ‘strongly held belief’ is that both Dawn and William require the consent of all living parents. Dawn did not and as such, this is not a wedding that she feels comfortable catering. Let’s be very clear, neither Dawn nor William are Bahá’í. There’s no rhyme or reason for them to adhere to this rule. However, this is a violation of Lisa’s faith. Does this sound like a reasonable application of the very same ‘strongly held beliefs’ clause?
“No, that’s different.”
Why? When we really think about it, both scenarios bear striking similarities:
- Caterer practices her faith according to her beliefs.
- Couple practices their faith according to their beliefs.
- Couple violates the standards of caterer’s faith. However, providing services to couple does not, in and of itself, violate the caterer’s faith.
- Caterer chooses to refuse service based on ‘strongly held beliefs’.
When we ponder about it, these two scenarios differ in only two ways. First, it’s the nature of the ‘strongly held belief’. One instance center around the genders of the couple, the other around parental consent. However, the SCOTUS ruling was so profoundly vague, that it may include just about anything anyone finds objectionable. Second, it’s the origin of that belief. One source is Christianity, the other is Bahá’í. However, here in the United States, we practice freedom of religion (first amendment and all), and therefore we do not hold any religion (Christianity) in higher standing than any other (Bahá’í).
Do you maintain that refusing to cater a lesbian wedding is permissible when the other is not because our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values? You are wrong; go back and read that very first sentence in The Bill of Rights. Pick patriotism or faith; you can’t have both. You can’t claim to be a proud American and on the same breath assert that your faith has higher standing than others’ in the eyes of our government. To assert that any one religion has higher standing than another is, by definition, un-American.
In closing
If that episode of This is Life piques your interest, it is available to stream on Max.com (season 9, episode 2). While all episodes are deeply interesting, this particular one struck home to me.
Lastly, this particular post marks the 100th post on this blog (or so the WordPress dashboard tells me). As such, I’ll subtly tie back to my very first post that also discusses the freedom to practice your faith. I’ll ask again in earnest, why is polygamy illegal?