Participants:
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI180408A
|
00:25 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:28 This is your program with religious liberty views 00:31 and opinions from the US and around the world. 00:35 And my guest on this program... 00:37 By the way, I'm Lincoln Steed, editor of Liberty Magazine 00:39 and my guest is Carmela Monk Crawford, 00:44 I always hesitate with your name 00:45 because I knew you when it was just a one, 00:48 not hyphenated, editor of Message Magazine. 00:52 And when this is shown, I don't know, 00:55 but as we were recording this, 00:57 the Supreme Court just brought in 00:59 or at least the news came in of the Supreme Court decision 01:02 which, probably like many of them, 01:03 is not a real decision, 01:05 but the end of the process on something 01:08 that we've spoken about for years 01:09 on this program. 01:11 That's right. 01:12 The shorthand thing is the cake case, 01:18 the gays and the cake maker. 01:19 That's right. What are your thoughts on this? 01:21 And I know you have an article 01:23 coming up in your magazine on this. 01:24 Yeah, no, we recently had an article 01:26 regarding the cake case, 01:28 the "Let them have cake" case for us. 01:31 And it was a great opportunity to talk about a way 01:35 the different interests behind a scenario 01:40 that may implicate your personal beliefs 01:42 as against somebody else's, 01:45 and it's one of those things that you have to take 01:48 and analyze not only to know what the law says, 01:51 but to know where you stand. 01:53 So what does the law say 01:55 when someone asked you to do something 01:58 or perform a service for them and that goes against 02:01 your own personal religious beliefs? 02:03 And that was the question that our author explored 02:07 and, you know, he was coming down on the side, 02:11 you know, wondering what would the Supreme Court say. 02:13 I haven't heard the opinion yet, 02:15 I haven't read it yet. 02:16 Yeah, we just know something came down. 02:17 We know that there was a decision 02:19 that was made today, but, you know, the balancing 02:22 the interest between that personal... 02:24 That baker there in Colorado and the gay couple that came 02:31 and asked for a wedding cake and the baker says, 02:35 "No, I can't do this. 02:36 This is against my personal religious beliefs 02:39 in Colorado." 02:41 I believe it's the Civil Rights Commission if I'm... 02:43 Yeah. 02:45 Something like that I believe, and they said, "No, no. 02:49 You don't have to do that." 02:50 But the question is 02:52 on what grounds could he refuse to make that cake? 02:56 And this is not the... 02:57 It's worth reminding our viewers, 02:59 this is not the first time around 03:00 on this type of conscience refusal... 03:02 Yeah. 03:04 Remember there was an issue of contraceptive medicines 03:07 and products from a pharmacist. 03:10 Would he fulfill the prescription on something 03:12 that he disagrees with? 03:14 And just a few years ago, 03:15 'cause you wrote this article for us 03:17 regarding the court clerk in Kentucky 03:22 who didn't want to sign the marriage license. 03:23 And they don't know 03:25 that all of these are related equal... 03:26 Correct. 03:27 Because, you know, 03:29 she was not in a regular employment, 03:30 this was a position that she, 03:34 you know, she was voted in... 03:36 Mm-hmm. 03:37 And there were other options, she didn't have to do it 03:39 but she would not even allow her underlings 03:42 to perform this. 03:43 Correct. 03:45 And it's worth remembering too, most people forget, 03:47 it's not a matter of what your church thinks 03:50 on religious accommodation, 03:52 it's are you conscience bend on this, 03:54 if you hold a conscience position 03:56 even if you're a minority of one, in theory, 03:58 you ought to be accommodated. 04:00 But this runs up against really just public interchange. 04:04 Can you run a public service, a store, and so on 04:08 and for reasons that outsiders might find random 04:12 or inconsistent or prejudicial even, you're just going to say, 04:16 "I'm not going to serve you. 04:18 Go elsewhere." Right. 04:19 Which could be huge, not with cakes, 04:21 I think you could live without cakes, 04:23 even a wedding cake maybe... 04:24 Yes. 04:25 But in some cases, 04:27 you might deprive that person of that service 04:30 or whatever you're providing. 04:32 Right. 04:34 But I have an opinion on this 04:35 because I don't think the Bible, 04:38 the New Testament particular, 04:41 gives license to people to just because they don't like 04:44 the color of someone's leprosy... 04:46 Mm-hmm. 04:47 That you say, "No, I won't serve you, 04:50 you know, I'm clean. 04:51 Go away." Right. 04:54 What I've said and I think I told you privately, 04:57 from my view of how this works, 05:00 if a gay couple came to a Christian 05:02 who had huge moral reservations 05:05 about what they have chosen for their life, 05:08 you know, and God doesn't compel, 05:10 so, you know, they could make bad choices 05:11 but if they came to me 05:13 and I was running a cake shop, I would say, 05:16 "Well, thank you for coming to my store." 05:18 And they would identify themselves 05:19 and you'd say, you know, "You may not know, 05:21 but I am a deeply committed Christian 05:24 and my Bible has a lot to say about the lifestyle 05:28 you've chosen 05:29 and I certainly don't support that, 05:32 but you've come and asked me to make a cake, 05:34 I will do that for you, but I have to tell you. 05:38 I might not be your best choice, 05:40 I really couldn't do the full justice 05:43 that you might be expecting on this service." 05:45 Right. 05:46 And would you want to patronize my shop given that is my belief 05:50 or that is my view of your choice? 05:52 Maybe I didn't say it correctly, 05:54 but I think that could be said in a way 05:55 that's not personally offensive 05:57 but clarifies the situation and in the real world, 06:00 nine times out of ten, first of all, 06:02 they wouldn't knowingly come on these sort of things, 06:06 photographers and cakes, you go with someone sabbatical, 06:10 that's the whole point of it. 06:11 This is not just a product, it's a service of someone 06:14 that's going to really run with your plan, you know. 06:17 Yes. 06:18 So first of all, they're not so likely to come 06:20 to a known Christian cake maker, 06:23 then if he makes it plain that he has principles, 06:26 that he's not really on a wavelength, 06:27 they'd likely go elsewhere, 06:28 there's no legal liability in that. 06:31 But particularly in light of what the US went through 06:34 in the civil rights era 06:37 to exclude someone just because you have 06:41 what amounts to a prejudice, 06:43 it might be doctrinally informed, 06:45 it leads in a dangerous direction in my view. 06:47 Yes. 06:49 And I believe just like in the civil rights movement, 06:52 I don't know if they knew, 06:53 but there are cases that you would take 06:55 and you would advance because, you know, 06:58 this is a case that we want to make a point 07:01 or a rule of law or a point of law in this, 07:03 that could be what has happened here... 07:05 Oh, I'm sure. 07:06 And I believe that's what will happen, 07:08 the coming out, 07:10 as we read the text of the case, like I said, 07:12 I didn't read it, but I do agree with you 07:15 that you have your own personal opinions 07:20 and your own personal beliefs. 07:21 The question is, 07:23 how do you relate to the rest of the world? 07:24 And this is going to be a rub 07:26 that we're going to see over and over again. 07:28 What point, where do you stop? Where did they begin? 07:31 Where did they begin and when did you stop? 07:33 And there was another part to it that... 07:34 You haven't heard me in full sound on this, 07:36 but it's worth thinking about. 07:38 In the US and the West in general, 07:41 where we have... 07:43 Certainly since the enlightenment 07:44 and the whole democratic period, 07:46 you know, the US is not 07:48 the only democratic country in the world, 07:50 but in its constitution, 07:51 it embodies it in a more self-conscious way 07:54 than most others. 07:55 But, you know, in a western democratic era, 07:59 we understand that free speech 08:03 and religion is going to be protected, 08:05 but when you're talking about religious commitment, 08:11 it's not really necessary 08:14 that you will always be given an accommodation. 08:16 Jesus said that, "All who live a godly live 08:19 will suffer persecution." 08:21 And there may be instances, 08:23 in fact, there really are even now 08:24 in many instances in daily life, 08:27 you take a penalty. 08:29 It could be not being thought as well of 08:31 by your worldly neighbors who don't identify with it, 08:35 you know, they're a bit unusual. 08:37 It could be if you're a shopkeeper, 08:38 you get penalized. 08:40 The Hobby Lobby owners 08:42 who got a Supreme Court exemption 08:44 for their not wanting to offer a service 08:48 to their employees 08:49 who may or may not have shared their religious viewpoint, 08:53 you know, they made someone else pay the cost, 08:56 but all it was at stake for them 08:57 was they would have paid an equivalent fine to the value 09:02 of what they should have been providing. 09:04 Right. 09:05 There's a penalty, sometimes, just an inconvenience. 09:08 If you read Foxe's Book of Martyrs, 09:09 sometimes, you lost your life over it. 09:11 And going into any commitment, 09:14 particularly a faith commitment, 09:16 if it's worth it, 09:17 you have to be prepared to pay whatever it takes. 09:20 Right. Right. 09:21 And I think people are forgetting that... 09:22 Right. 09:24 They think that an entitlement 09:25 should be yours regardless of... 09:27 And the lawyers all know that religious liberty 09:30 is not an absolute in society, there's a balancing. 09:33 Your freedom, if it restricts someone else's greatly, 09:37 you know, the civil society 09:39 can't allow that in unrestricted manner. 09:41 Right. Right. 09:42 And you can only accommodate to a certain point, 09:45 you can't always be expected to accommodate 09:47 and you can't always expect the accommodation for yourself. 09:51 And you're right, 09:52 if you're going to stand on commitment, 09:54 you have to be prepared to reckon 09:57 with what will follow of the consequences 09:59 would be unfortunately sometimes. 10:01 And I've dealt with religious liberty 10:03 for so long and I really appreciate 10:04 how Message keeps coming at this topic too as you should 10:07 because it's legitimate part of it. 10:10 But when there's compulsion involved, 10:13 it breaks the principle. 10:15 And in essence, 10:16 you compete creating that compulsion 10:18 by your privileged position. 10:20 Mm-hmm. 10:21 I'm mixing another Supreme Court case, 10:23 but I really think the Hobby Lobby case, 10:25 you know, was settled 10:27 by the Supreme Court to a legal point, 10:29 but I think it was an injustice in advance to people 10:34 who might have made a choice toward it 10:36 or even if they agreed 10:38 with the Hobby Lobby owners, here, legally, 10:42 they've been forced to go along with their view ahead of time 10:45 before they've made their moral choice. 10:48 That's right. That's right. 10:49 And I'm not happy with it, not comfortable with it. 10:51 No. 10:53 And I think we have to get to the point 10:55 where we are comfortable being around 10:57 and expressing our differing 10:59 and conflicting opinions with other people. 11:02 Now you hear people all the time saying that, 11:06 but it doesn't work out so well... 11:07 No. 11:09 In the public affair, 11:10 you know, trying to express your opinion 11:13 and still being human and decent about it, 11:16 you know, and that's why I like your example, 11:18 you know, if somebody had come to me, 11:20 what could I say and how could I say it 11:23 and I believe that goes a long way 11:26 to creating some understanding 11:27 and in some cases, some changes of opinion, 11:31 And I think that I told you privately, 11:33 but it troubles me and I don't run a store, 11:36 but, you know, if you do anything 11:37 that deals with the general public, 11:40 you have to know, at least intellectually, 11:42 you can't prove in many cases, but through that door, 11:45 in any given day, 11:47 have to come wife beaters, child abusers, 11:49 thieves of different nature, 11:52 people that are cheating of their tax... 11:54 Yes. Yes. 11:55 I mean, it's a wider road, people that have just gone 11:57 to a strip club or whatever or... 12:00 Over and over, 12:01 things on a gamut of discolorations 12:04 on moral behavior... 12:06 Right. 12:07 And even illegal behavior, 12:08 but you don't know unless they self- identify 12:11 and make it a issue with you in discussion. 12:13 You have to treat them all 12:15 as Jesus would have treated people. 12:17 You know, and the charge against Jesus was that 12:19 He kept company with publicans and sinners. 12:22 Well, the people always used to ask me, 12:25 when I practiced law 12:26 and did a little criminal defense, 12:28 so people always ask me, 12:29 "How can you defend these people, 12:31 especially these people that you know are guilty?" 12:33 And it's true, at any point, you can have somebody 12:36 who would do something you would never think about 12:39 and would not want to associate with that person 12:41 if you did know it, I mean, that's not your... 12:43 Well, you're getting on to the lawyer's conundrum now. 12:45 No, but I guess my point though is the same point is that 12:48 there is a greater principle at work as well. 12:52 And so for me in the legal realm, 12:54 I believe in that person's constitutional right 12:58 to having a person, an advocate... 13:01 Someone who can speak their position. 13:03 But, you know, 13:04 when we're talking about religious liberty issue, 13:07 the greater issue or the thing 13:09 that I want to protect most is that conscience, 13:12 that freedom of conscience, 13:13 and that ability to arrive at whatever decision 13:17 based on your conscience. 13:18 I'm not going to force that and I'm not going to refuse it 13:22 so there's a de facto compulsion as you've said. 13:25 But I dropped the term before, but I think that's the stand-in 13:28 for religious freedom any more, it's entitlement. 13:31 Yes. 13:32 A religious entitlement is not true religious freedom, 13:35 it's a legal track for how you think 13:38 with a little concern for other people. 13:40 Right. Well, let's take a break there. 13:44 Please stay with us. There's plenty more to discuss. 13:46 And we'll be back in a few moments 13:49 with the Liberty Insider. |
Revised 2018-11-05