Why are opinions based on consensus different from those based on conscience?

Question to Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson:

Do you think New Mexico was right to fine the photographer for not photographing the gay wedding?

Johnson’s Answer:

"Look. Here's the issue. You've narrowly defined this. But if we allow for discrimination — if we pass a law that allows for discrimination on the basis of religion — literally, we're gonna open up a can of worms when it come stop discrimination of all forms, starting with Muslims … who knows. You're narrowly looking at a situation where if you broaden that, I just tell you — on the basis of religious freedom, being able to discriminate — something that is currently not allowed — discrimination will exist in places we never dreamed of."

Source >

Hillary Clinton:

“Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Many sources, here’s one >

Photo at right: One of 24 tattered flags that used to hang from lamp posts on Main Street in Derby, CT in August 2015. The city replaced them. Photo: New Haven Register; Source: Fox News >

Here’s a question for Gary and Hillary and anyone else who is so adamant about separating religious conscience from public policy:

Q: Why are opinions based on consensus different from those based on conscience?

The practical answer “consensus represents the will of the people” is not a permissible answer, because it doesn’t discriminate between what we usually consider good things (say, feeding millions of starving people in faraway lands) and what we usually consider bad things (say, exterminating millions of people in faraway lands).

I’d be delighted to hear a defense for social order that doesn’t rely on some irreducible principles of right and wrong that exist apart from consensus. I’d throw my hat in with the atheists running for president (Steve Hill), Methodists (Hillary), Presbyterians (Trump), or Lutherans (Johnson) who presumably have this answer, if they made a sincere attempt to explain why their beliefs are preferred to mine.

It’s not a difficult conversation to start, but I’d wager it would be discarded as eggheaded, irrelevant, or impractical.

c0

Should a Jewish deli be forced to sell pork? Why not? Why should I have to walk across the street to buy my pork when the Jewish deli is closer?

Same with wedding cakes, wedding photos, birth control, or anything else that falls between consensus and conscience.

The logic seems to be if you don’t change how you believe, and the majority no longer wishes to tolerate your beliefs, then we’ll simply legislate over them.

Is there an answer?

Of course there is.

c0

A: Matters of conscience remain legally protected so long as they don’t interfere with those of others.

It’s not rocket science. As my 12th grade history teacher at McDowell High School in Erie, PA used to remind us, "my rights stop where yours begin."

There’s a difference between banning contraception and forcing everyone to offer it. There’s a difference between legalizing gay marriage and forcing everyone to participate in it.

And it’s easy to demonstrate: Suppose a baker was asked to make a pornographic cake. It’s not illegal. But it happens to be offensive to many people, and we wouldn’t require the baker to oblige.

Or: Imagine a future in which the sensibilities of PETA are the norm. We could easily see hunting, animal farming, and the consumption of meat outlawed, especially if there were conflating environmental or financial considerations (eg, if you have limited water, growing grain feeds more people than raising cattle).

c0

You’re not allowed to tell me what to think.

Of all the things Americans agree to do because others insist they're good for us, there’s one place we all draw the line: You’re not allowed to tell me what to think.

If I want to vote based on my atheistic or hedonistic or anarchistic or Democratic or Republican values, that’s up to me, not you, and not a convention hall full of people like you.

Americans know how to handle a little ignorant buffoonery. We’ve been dealing with that forever.

What would be new to us is a leader who seriously thinks my “deep-seated … religious beliefs” need to change.

c0

And my personal beliefs have nothing to do with this, aside from the fact they’re mine, and just important as yours, even if you’re running for president, and even if you don’t think so.

[2016.07.29]