Last week, the Supreme Court ruled for Lorie Smith, a Christian website designer from Colorado who wanted an exemption from discrimination laws so she could create wedding websites for opposite-sex couples only.
She relied on free speech rather than religious freedom. However, her moral concerns mirrored claims by religious people who have refused to bake cakes or take pictures for same-sex weddings, rent rooms in their bed-and-breakfast to same-sex couples, place children with same-sex foster parents, or hire employees who engage in same-sex intimacy. They believe that following discrimination laws and supporting what they view as others’ sinful acts would make them complicit in those sins.
Avoiding complicity is important, but it does not require discrimination. Businesspeople who want to follow their moral views can change jobs or business models. The options for those who are discriminated against, and for a society trying to build a culture of equality, are much narrower.
Some liberals think we should reject complicity claims because the harms of complicity are unimportant. Others think we should reject such claims because they rely on hateful moral views. Although I agree with the liberal conclusion, I do not support these reasons.
The law should take complicity concerns seriously. Most people care about complicity: We want to live following our own values and not contributing to things we view as wrong. Much like their conservative counterparts, liberals try to...
NEW YORK CITY (Press Release) — When ADL published its first report on 9/11 conspiracy theories in 2003, it noted that the internet allowed an “unprecedented cross-fertilization of antisemitic idea...