There’s been a bit of a hubbub lately over religious rights and personal liberties.

The debate began when Elaine Huguenin, a photographer from New Mexico who also happens to be a Christian, told a same-sex couple that while she would happily take a portrait for them, she could not participate in their marriage ceremony, as it would violate her religious beliefs.

Huguenin was then sued for discrimination by the couple. After losing the case in lower courts, Huguenin asked for a Supreme Court review. The Court ruled (unanimously) against her.

In his opinion, New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Richard C. Bosson wrote that Huguenin and her husband (who is her partner in their photography business) are, “free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish,” but that the public accommodation of beliefs different to one’s own is, “the price of citizenship.”

The debate prompted a conservative advocacy group, the Center for Arizona Policy, and a well known Arizona-based Christian law firm, the Alliance Defending Freedom, to co-draft a bill (SB 1062) that would,

“broaden the state’s definition of the exercise of religion to include both the practice and observance of religious beliefs,”

according to the Washington Post.

Let me first point out that sexual orientation is not one of the categories that is protected by Arizona’s Public Accommodation Discrimination statute. So, an Arizona citizen is already fully within their legal rights denying service to customers based on their sexual orientation.

In fact, only 21 states have laws that specifically ban sexual orientation-based discrimination.

We could argue the details and semantics of all of the related bills and statutes for days, but the question here is much more basic than that: Who has the right to have rights?

If you believe that the religious rights should supersede the individual rights of the LGBT community then I must ask, where will the line be drawn?

Could a Christian deny service to someone who took the Lord’s name in vain or who worked on the Sabbath? What about someone who failed to stone their non-virgin wife (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)?

Could a Muslim deny service to a man who ate pork or a woman who they felt wasn’t adequately covered?

There are a lot of religions out there, and most of them have a lot of rules that almost everyone would consider strange or antiquated if you’re willing to dig deep enough into the scriptures.

On the other hand, where is line drawn if you believe that the individual rights should supersede the religious rights?

What if you were a baker and the Westboro Baptist Church asked you to make them a cake for one of their ridiculous protests that said something like, “God hates fags”? Is it fair to prosecute you for discrimination if you refuse because your spiritual views contradict this sentiment?

These are extremely tough questions, questions I don’t claim to have the answers to. But as our society becomes ever more diverse, they’re questions which we must examine closely.

So what do you think? Should business owners accept that accommodating those with views different than their own is part of citizenship?

Or should it be the individuals who accept that being denied service by some people because of conflicting views is part of citizenship?

If you were deciding on the legal future of this issue, how would decide?

Respond to the poll and leave your opinion in the comment section- but make sure you back up your opinion! Simple hate speech is unproductive and divisive. We can have a civil discussion about a very sensitive issue if we are willing to put our egos to the side…

