Christian Mingle Should Be Free To Discriminate
The religious dating site ChristianMingle.com is now required by law to accommodate for gay and lesbian users.
Despite being a Christian dating site, the matchmaking network is no exception to California’s anti-discrimination laws, ruled Judge Jane L. Johnson of the Superior Court of California. The legal resolve comes from a case first brought to light in 2013 by two gay men who felt excluded due to the site’s position on same-sex dating.
There is an obvious lack of common sense present in this case.
California’s anti-discrimination law should not be used by the Left as a mallet to beat Christian, or any other kind of, businesses over the head. Preventing discrimination in the economy is a nice theory, but when put into practice it strips away the rights of business owners in choosing what transactions they are apart of.
But why has the Left gone after ChristianMingle.com right here, right now?
If the Left is interested in ridding discrimination from shops, stores, and online dating sites, why are they not going after every business that has a “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” sign? That is discrimination – albeit discrimination against people without shirts and shoes, but discrimination no less. Where is the outrage?
The reason that the Left has gone after ChristianMingle.com, and not those who refuse to conform to a simple dress code is because LGBT folks fall into the Left’s sacred category of oppressed people. This is why the same activists who are up in arms about the ChristianMingle.com case often fall silent in the aforementioned scenario. This list, however, often proves problematic in cases when both the accused and accuser are members of this victim group; for example, if a gay owner of a flower shop refused to be a part of a Sharia Law-practicing Muslim’s wedding.
Aside from this inconsistency from the Left, certain terms need to be defined when discussing whether or not there is a place for discrimination in society. First off, there is a difference between private sector, and public sector employment. In the public sector (government jobs, or otherwise public institutions), discrimination should be, and rightfully so, routed out and prevented. However, in the private sector (businesses, etc.), discrimination should be legally able to take place.
As a writer for National Review, and Editor-In-Chief of the DailyWire, Ben Shapiro puts it, “The only color that capitalism cares about is green.” Although referring to racism, Shapiro is arguing that if a business owner refuses to serve someone out of prejudice, someone else will accommodate that denied customer, due to market demand. This same principle applies to this case; if ChristianMingle.com chooses to not serve gay users, some other dating service will, and will most likely make a killing.
Perhaps the best way to convince the Left that stripping away the rights of business owners is immoral is by offering the following scenario: would the Left force a transgender caterer to work a GOP event? Obviously not. The inconsistency of Leftists on this issue has been a nuisance to say the least.
There seems to be a double-standard drawn by the Left on the issue of business rights. Under Leftism, victims such as gays would be free to discriminate while non-victims such as ChristianMingle.com would be required to cater to whoever the government rules as deserving.
In simplest and most concise terms, the issue here is not religious freedom, it is freedom in general. Being able to deny service to someone is not just a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim right, it is a human right.