Two Rights, Someone's Wronged

This blog posting has been percolating for a while now. I've been mulling it over, desperately trying to arrive at some enlightening conclusion which brings peace and harmony to the universe. Alright, that might be a bit much but I have been trying to resolve the issue within myself. But that isn't the purpose of this blog. I don't need to have all the answers. This blog is meant to show my journey as much as my conclusions.

Anyway, I recently came across another article that directly relates to the original topic and decided that maybe it is time I start sharing these thoughts on here so that perhaps others can help me come to a conclusion.

The article I came across is the report of a settlement between eHarmony.com, a dating website, and Eric McKinley. Let me fill you in on some of the background and details of this.

eHarmony.com is a website that caters to Christian singles looking to form a lasting and committed relationship. With the traditional Christian aims, it deals only with matching up heterosexual couples. In 2005, Mr. McKinley was less than happy with that fact and filed suit in New Jersey claiming discrimination by eHarmony against homosexuals.

After three years, eHarmony has settled. Full details of the settlement can be found at www.onlinedatingmagazine.com. The short version is that eHarmony will be forced to conduct additional research in order to provide the basis for the new website they will be putting up that will match people of the same gender. They are also going to have to pay to advertise that site in ways that target homosexuals.

What bothers me the most about this, and what Michelle Malkin points out rather well, is that eHarmony never discriminated against homosexuals. Anyone could join and be matched according to the parameters of the service eHarmony offered. She drives home this point wby making a couple of comparisons: "This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services."

eHarmony's troubles don't end there, though. California currently has a class action suit pending against eHarmony where the plaintiff's don't have to "prove actual injury to obtain damages, just that they visited eHarmony and were denied service."

Why force a Christian man who wants to operate a specific business model to change that entire business model and to operate a business that now conflicts directly with his religious beliefs? It isn't as though there aren't any dating websites that not only include but are specifically targetted at homosexuals. There are plenty out there. So why focus on this one dating service focused specifically towards heterosexuals?

eHarmony is hardly the sole example of this. One of the first articles I encountered about this type of issue was the account of a photographer in New Mexico. Elaine Huguenin and her husband own a small, family run photography company and declined to take a job photographing a lesbian commitment ceremony on the basis that it conflicts with their religious beliefs as Christians. They were sued by the prospective client and were forced to pay more than $6,600 to the prospective client.

In California, a case was recently won by a lesbian couple in which they sued a doctor for not performing artificial insemination for them. He refused to perform the procedure based on the woman's marital status and indicated that he would not perform an artificial insemination on any woman who was single. He referred her to another doctor and paid the difference in cost. This was a non-essential, non-lifesaving, elective procedure that would have cause the doctor to act in direct violation of his conscience and morals, yet the state of California says he had no right to refuse to do the procedure simply because his it would have violated his religious convictions.

NPR has compiled a host of other examples that include:

• Catholic Charities ceasing adoptions in Massachussets for refusing to facilitate the adoption of children to homosexual couples.
• Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, an Orthodox Jewish private university, that was forced to allow same sex couples into its married dormitories, despite the fact that homosexual marriage hasn't been established in New York.
• A mental health counselor who was fired for refusing to counsel a lesbian on how to improve her lesbian relationship because it violated the counselor's religious belief.

So now that I have laid all this out, let me get to my dilemma.

I personally find all the above examples repugnant. They elevate certain people's "rights" above the "rights" of others. The government has stepped in and demanded that these people act in a way that directly violates their religious beliefs. Suddenly the right to practice one's religion has been demoted and cast aside to make way for non-discrimination.

These homosexuals and many more like them are clamoring for "their right" to obtain services from anyone they choose, even if those services, such as the case in eHarmony, aren't offered by the person or company. But what about my rights? My right to practice my religion free from government intrusion which would include the government dictating to me that I must conduct my business in a certain way that violates my core beliefs.

It is at this point however, that the comparison to racial discrimination often enters the conversation. I firmly believe that discriminating against someone because of the color of their skin or the country they were born is is a disgusting practice. But I see a distinct difference between racial discrimination and what I have described above.

None of the above cases involved discriminating against someone purely because they were a homosexual. Simply, the people above didn't want to engage in behaviors that could be seen as advocating and condoning homosexuality. They didn't want to further that cause, encourage people in that lifestyle, or do something that would legitimize their pursuing homosexuality.

Put simply, racial discrimination was largely about the individual. And certainly some homosexual discrimination has been about the individual, but none of the above cases fit that. This is about behavior and lifestyle. And not just any behavior and lifestyle, but one that a significant number of people feel is immoral and wrong.

There has to be a way to stop people from discriminating against an individual while not forcing them to act in violation of their religious or moral convictions by doing things that legitimize behavior.

How can we respect both "rights?"

I'm not alone

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks that you should be informed before you vote (see my Nov. 3 entry). John Stossel has an article up at ABC News' online site asking whether some people have a civic duty to not vote.

Good read. Check it out.

Volunteerism you can't turn down

Needless to say, I wasn't thrilled with the outcome of Tuesday's election. Then again, I wouldn't have been thrilled even if John McCain was elected. I wasn't a big fan of either of them. Now, I am not going to sit here for the next four years and insist on seeing President-Elect Barack Obama as nothing but horrible. However, I refuse to adjust my beliefs for the sake of appearing "unified." I stand by my principles and beliefs.

When it comes to President-Elect Obama, many of my concerns revolve around his policies which favor big government and increasing government involvement in multiple aspects of the people's lives. This expansion of government power is in direct opposition to my increasingly Federalist beliefs around national government. Let the states govern the people and keep the Federal Government to the minimal role it was originally assigned.

President-Elect Obama and I differ on this. He seems to support expanding Federal powers. A prime example of this comes from his new website: http://www.change.gov. On the "America Serves" page, he outlines his intention to impose compulsory community service on the youth of America. I quote:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

This is a federal government site outlining his plans for his time as president. He will compel students to serve. Using the word "require" seems to indicate that this isn't an initiative to create motivation for people to do things on their own. This is a government mandate that he intends to impose.

How is it that he advocates the government be completely hands off with what a woman does to her own body regarding abotions (including the horrendous practice of late term abortions), but then feels that he can tell you exactly what to do with yours in the realm of how you spend your time and what you choose to do or not do to better your community?

The last concern I will raise about his compelled service initiative is the idea of where that service will take place. In the same paragraph, President-Elect Obama says that he is going to institute new national service programs including "Classroom Corps...Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps."* I'd bet that his hours requirements aren't going to be an on your honor system where you can volunteer where you like. You'll probably be required to volunteer in one of the "Corps" or in another approved program. And if some programs are going to be approved, others won't be and I wonder greatly who gets to decide what causes are worthy of the government's blessing for this service program.

The second problem I have with his thinking along those lines is that President-Elect Obama has chosen to start surrounding himself with like-minded individuals. Take for example, his first executive staff appointment: Representative Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.

The Examiner reports about the fact that Rep. Emanuel co-authored a book entitled The Plan: Big Ideas for America. In that book, he calls for compulsory national service by all Americans between the ages of 18-25. He calls for an elistment of all people among those ages for a three month "basic civil defense training." The report also highlights the fact that Rep. Emanuel insists that such service isn't "a draft" but that he then goes on to say that "[s]ome Republicans will squeal about individual freedom."

I would certainly hope that more than just "some" Republicans would squeal about compulsory service and I am willing to bet that it would be more than just Republicans squealing as well. Sure the Chief of Staff can't propose or introduce anything directly, but the fact that this is the man President-Elect Obama wants adivising him and in charge of White House affairs should be very telling and very concerning.

I'm all for getting involved and serving. I've served my communities in the past and as soon as grad school is over, I plan on finding ways to serve the community to which I move. Our country was founded on the basis of everyone contributing to their community. But that was based on voluntary service. Never compulsory.

Everyone should get out and serve in some way. But becaue they want to, not because the government requires them to.

I think everyone needs to take a hard look inside him or herself and decide to what degree they feel comfortable alowing the government to mandate their activities, regardless of whether the cause is good one to help or not. And then they need to figure out how to work with others to draw a very firm, very deep line in the political sand.


*Huh, I wonder how those four new national programs will be funded, being that we are already operating at one of the highest rates of national budget deficit and at the highest state of national debt ever.

---------------------
UPDATE: Apparently, sometime during the night, the change.gov site was revised. They changed the section that I quoted above to remove "require" and instead said this:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

I find it hard to believe that the composer of the first content simply failed to detect the subtle, nuanced differences in "require" and "set a goal." I believe this is their attempt to mask the real intention of the program. For backup on President-Elect Obama's intentions, let me point out something his wife said in a speech back in February at UCLA:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

Require. Demand. Never allow. Doesn't sound too voluntary to me.

Further, a 2004 estimate by the US Census Bureau puts the number of US college students at 15.9 million. And as for the $4,000 a year tax free for a hundred hours of service, that works out to $40 an hour. How many college students do you know that will turn that down? Let's say two thirds participate (10.3 million). That is going to cost the government $41.2 billion dollars. Or rather, it is going to cost $41.2 billion dollars in new taxes on the public. Before administrative costs, which will be substantial to manage tracking every student participating, verifying they are enrolled, determining who is elligible (full time, 3/4 time, part time?), tracking approved service opportunities, logging and verifying hours "served," ensuring people aren't starting college only to cram in service and then drop out, and so on, and so on. Not cheap.

And all this for what? Rebecca commented that service is a good thing and helping get people out from behind their computers and game consoles is a good cause. I don't disagree.

I disagree that this is the government's job. I disagree that we should allow the government to take this authority to demand service from it's people. They have no authority to do that. And when you open the door by allowing the government to demand certain people do certain things, you open the way for a host of civil rights issues and government abuse. The line must be drawn firmly or eventually the government will start requiring other things of its citizens like that everyone has to serve 100 hours a year or incur a tax penalty. Not a huge leap.

Pressing people into service is not teaching them to contribute. Especially when you are paying them $40 and hour for their "service." All that teaches them is that they should be reimbursed for everything they ever do. We already battle a "what's in it for me" attitude in today's society. How will this affect it?

Service is about serving, not getting. President Kennedy told us to ask what we can do for our country (and by extension, our communities), not what our country can do for us (like paying us to do some community service).

This is a step in the wrong direction.

Vote Smart

My wife and I dropped our ballots in the mailbox yesterday. Our county here in Washington only does mail in voting. I'll say that it is nice to be able to sit down with the ballot and take the time to read the details of the propositions and candidate positions and history. But I'd still prefer a traditional polling place.

First, and very subjective in nature, I find something very satisfying in going out and casting my vote at a polling place. Signing in on the voting registry, filling out the ballot, and dropping it in the box feels substantial. Filling out a form at home, licking an envelope and dropping it in the mailbox, all done with mindfulness that there is a hard deadline for it to be in the mail by feels more like paying a bill than fulfilling a civic duty.

There's the reduction in opportunity for voting fraud as well in that you have to actually show up and sign in. Sure makes dead people voting less likely.

But I also think that there is a "filtering" effect that happens because of opportunity cost. With voter turnout at 64% in 2004, there is certainly a portion of the remaining 36% who just didn't feel that it was worth it and I am willing to wager that with that apathy comes ignorance. They don't really know positions. They don't know records. They don't know what they are voting on other than the 3-8 sentence summary that they gloss over.

Frankly, I am happy when those people don't vote regardless of which way they would have leaned. I wouldn't ever deny anyone their right to vote, but I am sure glad when people who are too apathetic to study out the issues and make an informed decision are also too apathetic to vote. Sending out ballots in the mail negates this and lowers the opportunity cost to those voters in casting their ballot. They get bored with the sitcom they are watching or hear one inflammatory (and almost certainly half-true) statement on some political commercial and impulse vote.

The other side of this is when people of equal ignorance on political, financial, and other pressing issues get swept up in emotion and lose the apathy around activism and voting. Such as this woman, Peggy Joseph.


Disclaimer: this is about her, the voter, not the candidate! I am doing my best to keep politics itself out of this blog. It wouldn't matter if she was at a McCain rally, a Bob Barr rally, or a Cynthia McKinney rally, I'd still use this video as an example.

Ms. Joseph seems to actually believe that if Senator Obama is elected, that she will no longer have to pay her mortgage or pay for the gas in her car. Not only that, she seems to have some real emotions wrapped up in this.

I wonder if our Founding Fathers might have been out of touch with "the people" when they signed the Declaration of Independence and then later when many of them also set up our Federal government. After all, these were people resolved in their cause, committing treason against England, and risking death in participating in setting up a new government. They were passionate about being involved in government, in keeping it in check, and ensuring that the best people were elected and that they were elected based on realistic political promises and outcomes. Did they truly realize how ignorant or apathetic the general populace was? Or if that didn't exist at that point, then how ignorant, apathetic, uninformed, and misinformed the general public would become? Do you think they ever envisioned a Peggy Joseph?

Of course they did, because they set up the Electoral College system. Unfortunately, 48 of the states have set up a winner take all setup so that the winner of the popular vote takes all the electoral votes. Kind of negates the wisdom of an Electoral College in filtering for an ignorant or misinformed general population, doesn't it?

The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 did away with the testing that was in place that discriminated based on race or color. And that is a great thing. No person should be discriminated against and denied their right to vote based on race, color, religion, sex, etc.

But people who are utterly misinformed and ignorant to the reality of what Senator Obama or any political candidate would actually be able to do for her shake the sprouting libertarian in me and leave a tiny piece of me wondering if a very basic political knowledge evaluation and delusional thought screening prior to stepping into the election booth wouldn't be a bad idea.

Truthfully, I'd never actually vote for such a measure to be put in place, because I wouldn't trust that the line in the sand could be drawn well enough and without some bias and/or discrimination built into it. But I'm left wondering how the course of history and politics would/could change if the ignorant and apathetic vote was minimized or eliminated.