Sole Morality

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?"