There has been a lot of clamor in the media lately about the controversy between gay rights and religious freedom. First, let me say that this is not a thesis for, or against gay rights or religious freedom. It is an observation about the inconsistency of human behavior and interpretation, and the fallacy of thinking that all social and economic issues can, and should be handled by the government. I personally think that the more we expect the government to solve our woes, bigger messes are created than the ones we look to the government to solve. In a capitalistic society, pure economics can resolve most of these issues.
Take for example the same gender couple who went to a baker to get a wedding cake made. The baker refused to make the cake because his religious faith teaches him that valid marriage is between only one man and one woman. As la result of that, he is opposed to same gender marriages. His definition of marriage would also cause him to be opposed to other marriages that did not fall within that definition, for example, the practice of polygamy. It is really not a matter of being specifically opposed to same gender marriages, it is a matter of being opposed to marriages that fall outside of his definition of what constitutes valid Biblical marriage. But it does not get defined that way by the media. The media defines it as opposition to gay marriage. That is an intentional misrepresentation driven by a political agenda, and it is inaccurate.
As I stated initially, economics can, and should solve issues of this nature, not government mandates. First, if the baker refuses a sale, he is losing profit. That is his choice. It is a matter of economics. Second, if the same gender couple succeeded in getting the government to force the baker to make the cake, (hypothetically speaking), they are increasing his profits by paying for the cake. That is their choice. To this, I ask, “Why would anyone want to go out of their way to assist someone who is ideologically opposed to their lifestyle in making a profit?” The baker is the one who is benefitting economically from the transaction. Why not go somewhere else and increase the profits of someone who shares your own views on lifestyle? It seems perfectly logical to me. Let economics decide, not government mandates. I am sure there are probably dozens of bakers in the surrounding area that would be more than happy to accommodate, and make that profit. So, in reality this had nothing to do with the need to get a cake made. It was an intentionally orchestrated fiasco for the purpose of making a political statement and getting the media’s attention focused on gay rights.
Let’s give a purely hypothetical scenario that might work slightly different. Suppose the same gender couple were running a bakery. A heterosexual couple came in and wanted a wedding cake made, with the plastic bride figurine depicted in a position of degrading submission to her groom. Would it be okay for them to refuse to make the cake on the grounds that, by so doing, they were condoning the lifestyle of male dominance? Would it then become a matter of “dominant male rights”? (I know that is a ridiculous example, I only use it to make a point.) But, ideologically, what is the difference? When we start using people’s private sexual practices as a basis for determining “rights” there is no end to the ensuing lunacy. “You can’t have your cake, and eat it too.” (Pun intended.)
Then, there is the matter of a same gender couple making an issue of a minister who refuses to marry them on the grounds of his belief that, in so doing, he (or she) is condoning their lifestyle. Again, why make an issue of this? If you want someone to perform your marriage, (an event that should be one of the most important and meaningful spiritual events of your life), why go to someone who fundamentally disagrees with your lifestyle, and insist that they be forced to perform the ceremony? That is pure nonsense. There are probably hundreds of local ministers and churches that would be more than willing to accommodate. I am Christian, not Islamic. (Do not misinterpret what I am saying. I merely use this example to make a point. I am neither pro nor anti Islam.) However, there are basic, core differences between Christian and Islamic doctrine. Why in the world would I want to go to an Islamic clergy, who’s ideology and theology is so drastically different than mine, and ask him to perform my marriage ceremony? In the same way, why would a same gender couple want a minister, who is ideologically and theologically opposed to their lifestyle, to perform their marriage ceremony? That doesn’t make sense. It is a pointless argument. It is unnecessary. But as in the case with the baker, it has nothing to do with the couple’s being prevented from getting married because of the minister’s refusal, it is an orchestrated political ploy to draw the media’s attention to gay rights.
If you are a person whose belief is that same gender marriages go against Biblical truth, or whatever standard or criteria you use to determine what you believe to be true, then that is your right and privilege to hold to that belief, so long as, by so doing, you are not doing harm to another human being. As far as I know, no physical, emotional, or psychological harm has ever been done to anyone as a result of their having to consider an alternate baker. This is just an inconvenience. If you are a person who believes that same gender marriages are perfectly fine, then adhering to that belief is also your privilege and right, in a democratically free society. The problem comes in when one group tries, through government mandates, to impose their views on the opposing group. This is not how democracy works!
The same principle applies to controversy over race, or ethnic rights. I personally don’t care what a person’s ethnicity is. A person’s character is what matters to me, not their physical characteristics or cultural practices. Differences in physical attributes and culture is what make people, and societies, interesting and fun. However, in many controversial social matters, I again think economics can do a better job of balancing out power than government involvement.
Suppose I run a business, and I am in the process of hiring people to assist me in that business. First, and foremost, as a businessman, the ultimate objective is to make a profit margin that allows me to accomplish my goals of financial stability and security. That is the reason any business exists, or should exist. If I want to make a profit, then I should be smart enough to hire the most qualified employees, regardless of their ethnicity or sexual orientation, or whatever. If I choose not to, because of some belief I have about certain ethnic groups being inferior, or about certain lifestyle choices being unacceptable, and in so doing, hire less qualified people to do the job, then that is my business. That hurts my profitability. If I choose to make decisions that decrease my profit, that is a matter of pure economics, and those decisions affect me as a business owner, either positively or negatively. That is how capitalism is supposed to work. The market drives everything either positively or negatively.
Let’s get to the point of same gender marriages being officially recognized in some states and not others. Again, I think that economics should be the determining factor, not government mandates. Marriage is a sacred ceremony that is a public acknowledgement of a commitment. With that in mind, it can be easily seen that any same gender couple can more than likely find someone in the clergy who is willing to perform the ceremony for them, and give them a certificate signifying this commitment. Most of the legal matter is about insurance. Same gender couples want the security of benefiting from the insurance advantages of a married couple. For example, as a full-time employee, if my employer provides subsidized health insurance, I can get more affordable insurance for myself, my wife, and my dependents than I would be able to afford if I were to buy it straight out at cost.
I have studied enough about insurance laws and practices to come to the conclusion that insurance is nothing more than a highly complex form of legailzed gambling, and the odds are stacked in favor of the insurance companies. Let me explain what I mean by this. Insurance underwriting is a sophisticated science of statistics and probabilities. Insurance is a business, and as such, exists to make a profit. It is a business, not a service, despite the rhetoric that is used to sell it. It exists to make a profit for the insurance companies, not the beneficiaries. Yes, some beneficiaries benefit and may even profit, just as in a lottery, there is the occasional winner. Lotteries must have an occasional winner, or no one would play. The winner is the bait that keeps people playing and hoping to win, although they probably won’t. The same is true with insurance. There must be some perceived win, or no one would buy.
Through the process of underwriting, insurance companies study probabilities. Let me give you an example. (Bear in mind, this is all purely hypothetical insofar as the facts are concerned, I am just using it to prove the point.) Suppose there is a group of 100 men in the same age bracket, with very similar health profiles. The insurance company studies that group of men over a period of time to determine the likelihood of any of those men experiencing certain health issues within a certain time frame. The average medical care of those men who experienced those health issues can be calculated in dollar amounts. Then, the trick of calculating how much you must charge that group of men for their health coverage in order for the insurance companies to be able to cover their part of the medical costs, and still make a certain profit margin, falls into the hands of the underwriters. It should be up to the insurance companies to decide, through that same process of underwriting, whether they choose to provide health and life insurance coverage to a same gender couple. It should be up to companies to decide whether or not they choose to provide subsidies for the purchase of that insurance. If companies value their employees, (which most do less and less these days) and see them as an asset, then assisting them in maintaining their health through affordable healthcare, and continuing as a productive worker that adds profitability to the company, then it should be up to the company to decide who they do, or do not provide subsidies to, regardless of their sexual orientation, or any other factor
I am not suggesting that economics can solve all of our social woes. There are some things that economics cannot solve, such as the controversy over abortion. These issues should be decided through the public vote. That is how a democracy is supposed to work. However, in today’s political climate, that is often not how things are done. Politics, and the media distort issues, and do not adequately reflect the predominant consensus of the people.
I personally think that the media has done this in the recent focus on the “white police officers shooting unarmed black youth” issue. Please listen to what I am saying, and don’t misinterpret me. Let me say unequivocally that a police officer shooting anyone unjustifiably is never acceptable. Unreasonable and excessive use of force is never acceptable. Police officers are trained to move through the stages of the use of force from least to greatest. (I am not saying that this is the way things always go, but, in theory, they should.) An example of this: a police officer is dealing with an uncooperative and combative drunken driver. The officer is not going to pull out his gun and shoot that person immediately. If an arrest is necessary, and the person is uncooperative and combative, and the officer is unable to restrain them, he (or she) would use the tazer to stun the person, not shoot them. That is an example of moving from the least use of force, to the greatest, as the situation escalates, and it becomes necessary to move to a higher level of force.
Face it, News is business, plain and simple. As with any other business, the primary objective is to make a profit. That is what pays the bills, and puts money in the employee’s bank accounts. Societal morbidity sales. People are more apt to read a news story about a deranged man murdering his family than a news story about a bake sale that the local convent is having to raise money for outreach to the homeless. Unfortunately, that is just human nature. The news media thrives on this. Controversy sells, and makes money.
Now, back to the issue of police shootings. I ask the question: “Statistically speaking, is the percentage of police officers shooting unarmed black youth any higher now than it has ever been, or has the news media distorted people’s perception of this by focusing on it on a national level much more than was done before?” I think that, in the past, these things were more of a localized news event, rather that something that got national attention every time the media got wind of it, and splatters it all over the front pages of all the newspapers, and harps on it repeatedly on the evening news. Not that it is not important. Again, don’t misunderstand me. I am not taking any of this lightly. I am just saying that the media makes it seem like a much larger issue than it really is by focusing on it too much. That can be said of a lot of different things, not just police shootings.
The government needs to get out of our business. This country was founded as a Democracy, but we have gotten in bed with the Socialists. A lot of this started in the early 1900’s after the depression. There is a real push in the Democratic party in our generation towards Socialism. Socialism appeals to the younger generation because they do not know the long-term history of Socialism, all they see is the immediate, short term benefits to them through Socialist policies. It will eventually demotivate, and ruin the economy of any country after it has been in existence long enough.
In a Capitalistic society, economics makes the hard decisions for us. Cake making is a business, and has nothing to do with “rights”.
Danny's Stump 