Following Conscience
The need for people to follow the dictates of their moral consciousness is a powerful drive, and one not to be disregarded easily. Society does need to recognize that people of conscience for whom some societal acceptances of previously-unimaginable social practises represents personal distress, should be permitted to opt out. To do otherwise represents an assault on their perceptions of what should be permissible in civilized society.
And, in a decent and just society, those people whose religion or whose personal ethics exert a powerful pull on their conscience to reject abortion rights or same-gender marriages, should still receive respect for following their conscience. Not everyone in any society could possibly agree that certain freedoms make good social and moral sense.
Some practises grate against the grain of tradition and religion. Extending a social courtesy to members of society who previously suffered misery through traditional social strictures and outright abuse, need not cost those who disagree their conscience. Affording safe and legal abortions to women who require them is a matter of fairness in offering women the choice, should they wish to use it.
Accepting the concept of same-sex marriage between two males or two females rather than confining that ceremony and the legal entitlements that accompany it to the traditional 'one man, one woman' social contract becomes a matter, as some see it, of social justice, an egalitarian opening of tradition. It comes down to personal choices, the availability of options. Options seen as anathema to others.
Most people simply shrug things off in an effort to be tolerant in a pluralist society. To do so in the general social realm ensures that everyone's public rights are respected. The trouble lies in the insistence of the morally liberated that those who would prefer old prohibitions and social restraints to prevail, shed their conscientious objections for the greater good.
But it's not that easy, and it is not entirely just, either. People should be free to express their opinions in a free and open society, and they should be free to remove themselves from situations that compromise their beliefs and conscience. In Canada, the various instances where Human Rights Commissions have been called upon to rule on purported human rights offences when professionals refuse to give service rather than compromise their conscious moral objections oversteps a even hand.
In insisting on bringing justice to the plaintiffs, they impose injustice upon those whose rights are being infringed upon in naming them as social offenders, intolerant of human rights. There's no need to haul people onto the carpet of public humiliation and shame and burden them with censure because they stood their ground and refused to submit to unreasonable demands of people feeling themselves entitled.
A doctor who refuses to provide abortion services, a pharmacist who refuses to provide contraception devices, a cleric who refuses to perform a marriage ceremony for same-sex couples, and any other combination of service providers for whom the service requested runs strictly counter to their beliefs should be free to refuse involvement.
The simple fact is, if a caterer feels his or her religious beliefs are more important to them than the business they could profit from by providing catering services to celebrate the joyful occasion of a same-sex marriage, he should be free to do so. There are other caterers hose services can be had. The disgruntled couple who take sufficient umbrage to seek 'justice' are really looking for revenge.
In a tolerant society all views and consciences should be equally entitled. We've more than sufficient doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, caterers, to go around, most of whom are willing to provide services a minority of others will not. When, in seeking to advance society's re-adjusted sense of equality to all, some nay-sayers are victimized in the process, we're punishing people unjustly.
It is not fair, and it's absurd that the stretch toward tolerance toward all results in intolerance toward some.
And, in a decent and just society, those people whose religion or whose personal ethics exert a powerful pull on their conscience to reject abortion rights or same-gender marriages, should still receive respect for following their conscience. Not everyone in any society could possibly agree that certain freedoms make good social and moral sense.
Some practises grate against the grain of tradition and religion. Extending a social courtesy to members of society who previously suffered misery through traditional social strictures and outright abuse, need not cost those who disagree their conscience. Affording safe and legal abortions to women who require them is a matter of fairness in offering women the choice, should they wish to use it.
Accepting the concept of same-sex marriage between two males or two females rather than confining that ceremony and the legal entitlements that accompany it to the traditional 'one man, one woman' social contract becomes a matter, as some see it, of social justice, an egalitarian opening of tradition. It comes down to personal choices, the availability of options. Options seen as anathema to others.
Most people simply shrug things off in an effort to be tolerant in a pluralist society. To do so in the general social realm ensures that everyone's public rights are respected. The trouble lies in the insistence of the morally liberated that those who would prefer old prohibitions and social restraints to prevail, shed their conscientious objections for the greater good.
But it's not that easy, and it is not entirely just, either. People should be free to express their opinions in a free and open society, and they should be free to remove themselves from situations that compromise their beliefs and conscience. In Canada, the various instances where Human Rights Commissions have been called upon to rule on purported human rights offences when professionals refuse to give service rather than compromise their conscious moral objections oversteps a even hand.
In insisting on bringing justice to the plaintiffs, they impose injustice upon those whose rights are being infringed upon in naming them as social offenders, intolerant of human rights. There's no need to haul people onto the carpet of public humiliation and shame and burden them with censure because they stood their ground and refused to submit to unreasonable demands of people feeling themselves entitled.
A doctor who refuses to provide abortion services, a pharmacist who refuses to provide contraception devices, a cleric who refuses to perform a marriage ceremony for same-sex couples, and any other combination of service providers for whom the service requested runs strictly counter to their beliefs should be free to refuse involvement.
The simple fact is, if a caterer feels his or her religious beliefs are more important to them than the business they could profit from by providing catering services to celebrate the joyful occasion of a same-sex marriage, he should be free to do so. There are other caterers hose services can be had. The disgruntled couple who take sufficient umbrage to seek 'justice' are really looking for revenge.
In a tolerant society all views and consciences should be equally entitled. We've more than sufficient doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, caterers, to go around, most of whom are willing to provide services a minority of others will not. When, in seeking to advance society's re-adjusted sense of equality to all, some nay-sayers are victimized in the process, we're punishing people unjustly.
It is not fair, and it's absurd that the stretch toward tolerance toward all results in intolerance toward some.
Labels: Canada, Justice, Social-Cultural Deviations
posted by Pieface @ 6:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home