I am really interested in the very hypocritical banter around the "religious freedom" laws being introduced. I would like to start out, right off the bat, that I support the spirit of these laws. What I do not like is that they are calling them "religious". Too much exposure to the assault on the ridiculous opposing ideals of western Christians. I think the better term would be philosophical freedom" legislation. Religion, after all, is just organized philosophy that is shared by a group of people. Likewise, the "meaning of life" since life first sparked on Earth is to pass not only genetic, but philosophical traits to the next generation. Battles between species and or inside the pack, is one where the strongest get to breed. This has been the driving force of evolution for humanity for nearly 200,000 years.
Like an experiment in "selective attention". One where the media, and even the bills creators, only focused on one possible application. I think this is the case here. The focus is on homosexuals being rejected by some business owners. But what if I was Buddhist? What if I don't believe in carrying weapons for self defense. It violates the first precept. To a Buddhist, to leave the house with a tool designed only to kill, not only designates intent, but to do so contaminates ones mind and invites hostile Karma. So, welcoming weapons into my place of business would violate my sanctuary. Since Buddhist believe all actions as well as all speech support their path, their journey. But not only would I have to deny guns in my establishment, but I would have to deny homosexuality. The 3rd precept is abstain from sexual misconduct. This refers to sex just for pleasure. In fact the actual translation is "sensual pleasure" which refers to over indulging in any act without purpose. So, according to my Buddhist religion, I would be obligated to deny service to people who were requesting it if they were carrying guns or openly displaying homosexual behaviors. I should have the right to support my policy. Just as any customer has a right to patronize somebody who supports theirs.
This society in the past, has repressed people solely based upon genetic/ biological traits like skin color, eye shape, gender, and or age. There is no doubt that this kind of judgment is detrimental to the well being of humanity. That is not to say that certain roles in life are necessary and should be equally compensated. If it is a trait that would require surgery for you to change or not to display, then it is clearly biological. Despite the attempt for more than 40 years to pin some behaviors on biology, they have all failed. The mere notion that a movement wants to have a behavior designated as "biological" and thus "not a choice" means that we understand that things that are a "choice" are subject to social criticism. We should not sit in judgment of things that are not in the control of the individual.
Behaviors are created by environmental factors, by the "message" we send people about the pleasure or pain involved with making a decisions. Today, we still have laws that "reject" behaviors. As extreme as killing and raping, but as debatable as carrying guns, smoking pot, taking drugs, eating too much, selling our bodies, having multiple spouses, acquiring too much, or how we educate out children. We even force people who would otherwise not hold insurance, to do so.
This existence was created by living entities that could not "talk". They have a philosophy that pass onto their young by their actions. Most people who have a child understand that the words they say only embrace a small portion of the lesson they learn. (Preaching against smoking and drinking has little effect with a beer and a cigarette in your hand.) That doesn't stop just because we are grown. Likewise, the "golden rule" of teaching children also still applies as adults. "Always condone good behavior, Always condemn bad behavior" . I can love a person and many of the things they do, but I should be allowed to demonstrate my opposition to the things I do not. (I could get into the underlying failure and reason for so much emotional distress in the US being caused by endless mixed messages, but that would be an entire book.) But believing you have a philosophy worth passing on to your peers and your successors is the very reason we live. Or it should be. "Environment" is simply a complex network of social "dos" and "don'ts". I should be allowed to teach my child with words and actions, in my own empire, what I do expect and what I don't. Even inside of a family, there are traits a parent will promote about a family member while discouraging another. Sometimes those lessons are taught ini respect to a family member. We are complex individuals. Healthy emotional stable people can see the shades of grey in the people in their lives. It is a crazy borderline type personality that sees a parent as all good or all evil.
How about I put it this way. What if I am on my sailboat. I am in California waters, so it is legal to smoke pot. What if my young daughter is on board and a friend, all the sudden whips out a joint or a bowl and starts smoking. Do I not have a right to make them put it out? What if they start watching porn on the TV I have installed. Do I not have a right to force them to stop these "behaviors". I certainly believe these are examples I do not want my daughter to deal be exposed to. I want her to know that I do not approve of them. So, on my own ship, I should be able to set that example.
Now, obviously there are lines drawn as part of our overall social identity of this society, that certain behaviors that either manipulate children or force harm on anybody are rejected by all but the few who do it. Even most of them say they don't condone it, but that isn't what their actions say. But, one thing is clear to me, it is my right as a person, and especially as a father, to speak with my actions, protect my philosophy by making sure all know it, and the government should not stop me. from doing so. THAT is a violation of free speech.