This summer marks the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, one of the most famous and perspicacious writings from the Catholic Church in the 20th Century. The encyclical reaffirmed the ancient teaching of the church that love, sex, marriage, and family formation were, by nature, inextricably bound together, and that artificial contraception and abortion were destructive of these gifts.
So by the rules of the game today, could I, as commentary editor, find a freelance writer who advertises his wares online and force him to write me an op-ed celebrating Humanae Vitae, and condemning the contraceptive culture we live in? Could my friends at First Things magazine do the same? If a writer refused this First Things commission on the grounds that he disagreed this Catholic teaching, would he be guilty of anti-Catholic discrimination?
This, of course, is the analogy to the dozens of cases where crusading Democratic attorneys general and “civil liberties” organizations are trying to use the power of the state to compel religious conservatives to act against their own consciences and to celebrate or participate in something the religious conservatives find objectionable.
The Left and much of the center-left establishment have decided that efforts to defend these conscientious objectors amount to asserting “a right to discriminate.” They think the defendants — the owners of Hobby Lobby, the Little Sisters of the Poor, Masterpiece Cake Shop, Arlene’s Flowers, Elane Photography, or dozens of others like them — are bitter holdouts of ancient bigotry.
That’s a false and slanderous view. The common analogy deployed — refusing to serve black people at a lunch counter — is faulty on many levels. The analogy above, of conscripting a freelance writer into celebrating a Catholic Church teaching the writer finds objectionable, is far more fitting.
There are other hypothetical parallels we could explore. What about an event photographer who found circumcision an immoral intrusion on the bodily sovereignty of the child? Should he be compelled to photograph a bris?
What about a devoutly Catholic caterer who doesn’t want to participate in a second wedding for a divorced man whom the Church considers still validly married to his first wife? Is he out of bounds to refuse?
We don’t need these hypotheticals, though. Recent months have given us an endless stream of companies refusing to take part in business arrangements that executives found morally wrong.
This week Google took a stand for businesses who don’t want to participate in practices the executives find immoral. The company will discriminate against bail bond companies on its ad platforms, Google announced, to the plaudits of civil rights attorneys. “No one should be incarcerated simply because they can’t afford not to be,” former federal civil rights prosecutor Vanita Gupta declared. “I applaud @Google for taking the unprecedented step today of banning ads for bail bonds from its platforms.”
There was The Happiest Hour, the Irish pub that barred patrons who dared don “Make America Great Again” hats. A Manhattan judge ruled, properly, that such discrimination was within the rights of bar owner.
If you followed closely the decline and fall of leading Obama fundraiser and corporate lobbyist Tony Podesta, you know his more progressive staff argued that the Podesta Group should deny service to organizations whose agendas bugged their conscience, such as cigarette and gun companies. Should that be legal?
Bank of America announced this year it wouldn’t bake the proverbial cake for gunmakers. The First National Bank of Omaha wouldn’t cater the proverbial wedding of the National Rifle Association and its customers. Delta Airlines followed suit.
The Dallas Observer celebrated a bartender who kicked out customers for being neo-Nazis. A left-wing coffee-shop owner wouldn’t tolerate customers using her business for a pro-life meeting.
Chicago florists demand their customers pledge political allegiance before serving them.
After Trump won, progressive champion attorney Lisa Bloom argued that the Rockettes should not be compelled to perform for his inauguration. “No artist should be forced upon threat of firing to perform for the most racist, misogynist prez in our lifetime.”
Obama fundraiser and corporate welfare lobbyist Elon Musk decided a few years ago he wouldn’t sell a car to a blogger who criticized him too harshly.
Most of these conscientious objectors aren’t denying service to people they don’t like. They are refusing to participate in an activity they find immoral. That’s why this is properly considered a conscience matter rather than a discrimination matter.
Put another way, these questions are more about contractual arrangements than they are about public accommodations.
It’s great that Google is refusing to take part in something Google executives disagree with. Now let’s extend the same freedom of conscience to all businessmen and women.
