Find essays by keyword, title, or author name

Rights Talk Fails the Christian Baker

G.K. Chesterton has a parable. Suppose a commotion arises on the street about a streetlight, which an influential group wants torn down. As the discussion rages, someone asks an Augustinian monk his position. The monk begins, “We must first consider the value of light. And —.” At this point, someone else knocks out the monk, calling him old fashioned. Everyone then rushes to tear down the streetlight. After congratulating each other on being progressive, they realize that each person tore down the streetlight for a different reason. One has torn down the streetlight to replace it with a renewable-energy model; another because the light kept him up; another wanted to replace it with a cheaper running model. So, there they are, discussing the value of light as the monk suggested. Only now, they must do so in the dark.

I am reminded of Chesterton’s parable during discussions about Religious Liberty. My conversations start in the middle, assuming a lot about ethics, religion and government. They approach issues of Religious Liberty as a question of the individual’s rights. Having in view “the social-contract”, they have at their core the question, “In a prosperous society, which rights does the individual keep and which must he give up?”

Conflicting Rights, Conflicting Neighbors

The question arises because rights hinder each other. For example, suppose your neighbor is having a party where he is blaring the latest Gaslight Anthem album. The music disturbs you as you try to read a Graham Greene novel. You walk over to have a conversation. He says, “I have the right to have a party.” You fire back, “I have the right to peace and quiet.” Your neighbor’s right to have a party hinders your right to peace and quiet. So, we must decide between your right to read Greene in quiet and your neighbor’s right to listen to Gaslight at a high decibel.

Today it is apparent that rights of the Christian baker and a homosexual buyer are at odds. Like the Gaslight Anthem-Greene example, when a homosexual buys a wedding cake, he disturbs the Christian baker in his worship. The homosexual buyer demands, “I have the right to service.” The Christian baker responds, “I have the right not to be part of your wedding.” So, we try to decide between the homosexual’s right to service and the Christian’s religious liberty. My conversations’ core question becomes, “Which helps a society prosper, guaranteeing the rights of the Christian baker or the homosexual buyer?”

I phrased my conversations’ question, “Which helps a society prosper, guarantying the rights of the Christian baker or the homosexual buyer?” I could have phrased it, “Which is better” or “Which is more important”. I can even phrase it, “Which is wrong to do, force a Christian baker to sell a homosexual a wedding cake or deprive the homosexual buyer the right to service?”  I can phrase it in the different ways because beneath the question is an ethical discussion. Realizing the two are at odds, the discussion is why one right should have priority. Which right is better; which offers more benefits; which is more important. All revolve around the same ethical discussion of why it is right or wrong to give priority to one over the other.

I see the fact that I am having an ethical discussion in the shape of my conversations. No one ever quotes a statistic or gives a cost analysis. Instead, there are emotional appeals, like, “Everyone should be treated the same”, “Who are you to judge”, or “It’s wrong to force someone to —”. This points to the fact that the question at hand is one of right and wrong. It points to the fact that I am having an ethical discussion.

Why Rights Talk Fails the Baker

Since the issue is an ethical matter, approaching it as a question of the individual’s rights fails. The current discussion attempts to decide between the rights of the Christian baker or the homosexual buyer. It attempts to do so ethically. Since the Christian baker’s position comes from Christian ethics, the discussion attempts to judge Christian ethics.  Like two brothers asking their father to settle an argument, there is an appeal to an outside ethical authority to settle the dispute between Christian ethics and the homosexual buyer. To be able to judge it, this ethical authority must be higher than Christian ethics. This does not work because no such ethical authority exists.

Put differently, the Christian baker thinks it is wrong to take part of a homosexual wedding. This belief comes from his Christian faith. It is part of his Christian ethics. So, to decide whether he should have the right to abstain from a homosexual wedding is to pass judgement on Christian ethics. To do so, there needs to be an appeal to another moral system. This morality must be outside and higher than Christian ethics. There is no such moral system. So, approaching the issue surrounding the Christian baker and the homosexual buyer as a question of the individual’s rights fails.

Since we cannot approach it as a question of the individual’s rights, we must approach the issue between the Christian baker and the homosexual buyer differently. The new approach must begin with the relationship between the United States’ government and Christianity. The issue is not a question of the kind, “Should the Christian have the right to worship Jesus on Sunday?” Rather, we begin with asking, “Should the United States’ legislation have room for the full expression of Christianity?” Do and should the United States’ laws accommodate Christianity’s beliefs and ethics?

So, to decide the issue between the Christian baker and the homosexual buyer, we must first consider the value of light.  We must do so with questions like, “What should the role of government in the United States be?”, “What should the government’s relationship with the Christian religion be?”, and “How can opposing worldviews interact?” Only after these questions are answered, can we approach the issue between the Christian baker and the homosexual buyer.


Readers are invited to discuss essays in argumentative and fraternal charity, and are asked to help build up the community of thought and pursuit of truth that Ethika Politika strives to accomplish, which includes correction when necessary. The editors reserve the right to remove comments that do not meet these criteria and/or do not pertain to the subject of the essay.

  • NDaniels

    “Which helps a society prosper, guaranteeing the rights of the Christian baker or the homosexual buyer?”

    Since it is true that every beloved son and daughter of a human person has the inherent Right to be treated with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public, “Rights” talk does not fail the Christian Baker. Every beloved son and daughter has the inherent Right to not be coerced into condoning the engaging in or affirmation of any act, including any sexual act, that does not respect the inherent Dignity of the human person as a beloved son or daughter. It is not possible for men and women, as designed by God, to engage in same-sex sexual acts without demeaning their inherent Dignity as human persons.

  • brucenyc

    Well, its seems pretty clear that the first amendment makes US legislation subordinate to the faithful exercise of Christianity.

    • NDaniels

      The fact that every beloved son or daughter of a human person has the inherent Right to be treated with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public is a universal truth that can be known through both Faith and reason.
      “The Catholic Church affirms this to be true because it is true.”

      • brucenyc

        Treating somebody with dignity and respect doesn’t preclude one from telling another “I wont participate” or saying “no” either in public or private. Treating others with dignity and respect is true and also a two-way street.

  • Philosophical Actuary

    If we must admit no higher moral ethic than Christianity than we must abandon Religious Liberty to begin with for non-Christian religions for that reason do not possess the same rights and authority as Christianity. This is a prior consideration to how opposing views are to interact as the standard for that interaction.