In high school, I once asked a potential math teacher if I may double up Algebra 2 and Trigonometry in order to take Calculus on my senior year. She responded with “I wouldn’t do it unless you’re a mathematical genius.” Her mere skepticism sufficiently discouraged me from attempting that feat. While tethering on the edge of humility and confidence, I backed down. Though in retrospect, I participated in math contests and regularly scored among the top of my class in each subject; I then went on to engineering school. While I wouldn’t have worded it precisely that way, I was a mathematical genius.
That said, I don’t practice classical electrical engineering for a living, which is the degree I earned when I graduated. I don’t spend my professional time solving third order differential equations using Laplace transforms. As a software engineer, I spend most of my time thinking through either discrete mathematics problems or even statistics. My mind naturally visualizes spatial problems, which makes me especially good at certain activities, like designing parts for 3d printing.
However, today I’ll take a simple arithmetic equation. If you can simply add and subtract, you should be able to follow along.
Maximizing a value
Let’s start with a simple problem. You’re running a business (or budget) and want to maximize something. That something may be profits, quantity of groceries, or the like. There are many instances where you’d want to do the math and tweak something in order to improve your circumstances. For example, let’s take the equation.
T = 5.0 ± X
You’re trying to maximize the value T. You cannot control the value of X, but you can control the arithmetic. You can choose to either add or subtract the value of X. Many will look at this problem and assume that the only logical choice is to add the value of X to maximize T. It doesn’t matter what the value of X here, T will always be greater than 5.0 when you add X.
All those people chose poorly, they only imagined X having a positive value. X may be a negative value. Let’s evaluate it when:
If X = 2.0, then T = 5.0 + 2.0 = 7.0 and T = 5.0 – 2.0 = 3.0, addition is a better choice.
However, if X = -2.0, then T = 5.0 + (-2.0) = 3.0 and T = 5.0 – (-2.0) = 7.0, subtraction is a better choice.
In order to assess the best option, we need to evaluate the value of X. Now, let’s suppose we’re trying to maximize tolerance.
The “Strongly Held Beliefs” clause
In 2018, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a gay couple a wedding cake. That baker cited that he objected to bake that cake based on his Christian beliefs; he also objects to baking Halloween cakes. The court asserted that he should not be forced to bake that cake if it violates his “strongly held beliefs”.
I’ve heard others rationalize it this way. Should we force a Jewish baker to create a Nazi cake with swastikas? As I thought about it, I pondered if services that allowed customizations had guidelines for such customizations. After navigating through a number of pages, I found that Dairy Queen does have guidelines, you may read it under the ‘Your Content’ section. Objecting to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is pretty much the same, right?
No, that’s a load of crap. Though I can give you a number of reasons why this rationalization is flawed.
Maximizing Tolerance
As I pointed out with the equation above, sometimes the answer is not what you’d expect. Does that make sense? How is it that forcing people to do something against their beliefs can be considered ‘tolerant’? I wrote about the paradox of tolerance in past posts. The basic premise:
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
Yes, it sounds paradoxical, but it makes sense. As a society, the United States aspires for freedom, but we have laws. The very notion of a ‘law’ describes how we’re intolerant towards the intolerant.
With the equation above, we try to maximize tolerance. Much like the best approach is not necessarily to use addition, the answer is not definitively to allow them to refuse based on “strongly held beliefs”. The nuanced answer is based on the nature of what they’re objecting. Given the following:
- Discriminate against homosexuals.
- Suppress hateful speech.
The “strongly held belief” clause asserts that you can veto anything provided that you feel strongly enough about it. We allow you to drive; we allow you to drink. However, doing them both together is forbidden.
Much like picking ‘subtraction’ in the above equation, in order to build a tolerant society, we need to discourage intolerance. To “discriminate against homosexuals” is pretty intolerant.
The Palatable Bigotry
For better or worse, to discriminate against gay (and trans) people has become a palatable bigotry. People anchor around this issue; some even wear it with pride. It doesn’t matter if baking them a cake is not your sin. If masturbation is a sin and you knowingly sell a woman batteries for her vibrator, are you complicit in that sin? If a man comes into the bank withdrawing cash for the strip bar, can you refuse? The list of mortal sins includes many items. For most of them, we generally ‘live and let live’… except for homosexuality. There’s a word for that. It’s not faith; it’s homophobia.
Here in the United States, we enjoy freedom of religion. You can practice whichever religion fits your needs. Let’s say you stick to your guns and still assert that you can veto practically anything provided you feel strongly enough about it. Uhmm… Okay. However, let’s not stray too far, let’s say that you practice Christianity, and your particular congregation believes that mixed-race marriages are sinful. Many verses in the Bible mention this, even in 2024 it’s plausible that some still believe this.
If a black man and white woman consult with a cake baker for a wedding cake, can that baker refuse based on the premise that mixed-race marriages oppose their ‘strongly held beliefs’? And if that level of bigotry based on race feels unpalatable to you, why is bigotry based on sexual orientation permissible? It’s literally the same rule applied to a different bigotry.
It’s the law
Our country generally aspires to do the right thing. At times, it takes long detours, but looking over long enough time, we improve. We have abolished slavery, given black and female citizens the ability to vote. We even give same sex couples the right to marry.
While we give individual people and businesses a bit of leeway, we do establish guidelines. When it comes to employment, you may not discriminate on the basis of gender, faith, etc. Also note, discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity are covered under the umbrella of gender discrimination. Our country has set the standard, at least with respect to employment, discriminating against gay people is not okay.
If a restaurant cannot discriminate against a patron based on racial, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., how can this man refuse to make them a wedding cake? What threshold did we magically cross when we ordered a filet mignon versus a wedding cake? If our country’s moral compass tells us that you must employ them and you must serve them when they walk into your establishment independent of your ‘strongly held beliefs’, why is a wedding cake a bridge too far?