So, what? Do we allow unfair practices just because some people disagree with them? Shouldn’t we all just get with the program?
If you haven’t, go back and read the post on Tolerance: Part II, where I ask–in no uncertain terms–who gets to decide what is “tolerant” and what is not. I would like to know why some beliefs are celebrated and others are labeled “backward” or “ignorant” or “bigoted.” Who decides these labels? Clearly, whoever it is disagrees, or there would not be such an emphasis on negative terms. Is this fair?
Likewise, it can be argued that true democracy is a huge “live and let live” ideal, which–in a way–prohibits its members from killing each other based on differences of opinion, or dissing others with whom we disagree. In that sense, it is completely undemocratic to black-list the three universities for wanting an exemption to a law with which they morally disagree–especially since the law allows for such an exemption.
Now, don’t take this out of context. According to U.S. law, it is illegal to murder. Whether the murder is done for no reason or for religious reasons, it is illegal. Violators must be punished in accordance to the law if the law is to keep peace–as it should.
However, democracy tells us the discussion is never over; we should never say, “This is what it is, and there’s nothing you can do about it!” We can always “…petition the government for a redress of grievances…” as is our right and freedom in this country. When we disagree with a law based on moral beliefs, we have a right to attempt to vote it down…repeatedly. We have a right to ask for an exemption. We have a right not to be judged for choosing that exemption. In short, those who disagree with the decisions made by these three universities are free to go elsewhere; it is unconstitutional for transgendered people or homosexuals or anyone else to force these three universities to accept them. It’s a free country; please live and let live.