According to dictionary.com, the word (in the context which most people have been using it) means:
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit
To summarize, if a person is discriminating against another person, it means that they are treating them differently because of the group to which they belong rather than in individual merit.
Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, recently wrote this piece for the Washington Post.
I quote a section of his remarks here:
"There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.
A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors. Some, such as the bill enacted in Indiana last week that drew a national outcry and one passed in Arkansas, say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law.
Others are more transparent in their effort to discriminate. Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — even if the Supreme Court strikes down Texas’ marriage ban later this year. In total, there are nearly 100 bills designed to enshrine discrimination in state law."
I am troubled that Mr. Cook seems to be automatically assuming that religious freedom laws are intended to be used to discriminate. While I freely acknowledge that some people may use these laws as an excuse to discriminate, I also see a vital need for laws of this nature to protect other people who have no interest in discriminating.
I believe that one must examine each case individually to determine whether a person claiming religious freedom is discriminating. Let me give you a few examples of possible scenarios that I am talking about:
| Scenario | Discriminating? | Rational |
| 7-11 eleven, which posts a sign that says "no shirt, no service" refuses service to a man who walks in without a shirt | No | The man is being treated based on his individual behavior, not because of any group to which he belongs |
| Restaurant refuses to serve someone because of their skin color | Yes | The person is being turned away because of belonging to a group, not because of their behavior |
| Wedding cake maker, and/or wedding photographer, and/or wedding planner refuses service to any customer (regardless of sexual orientation) who specifically wants services related to gay marriage | MAYBE | Here is where people need to slow down and not jump to conclusions. The business MAY be automatically dismissing the customer simply because they belong to a specific group. If so, yes, they are discriminating. However, the business MAY be dismissing the customer because the business owners sincerely have a religious believe that God created marriage as being between a man and a woman, and that to participate in a ceremony that conflicts with this commandment would be an offense to God. If this is the case, then the business owner would primarily be concerned with his/her relationship with God and would the essentially be willing to sacrifice the relationship with the customer. This is not discrimination because the group to which the customer may belong is not a factor in this decision. |
Conclusion: Some people misuse and/or misunderstand what the word "discrimination" means. The more that we are all on the same page, the better we can move forward with thoughtful dialog on the subject.
