These instances of public outcry seem gross overreactions, to say the least. Though they changed the design, Starbucks continued their annual custom of offering a different cup - not to mention specialty drinks! - come November. People's outrage would seem somewhat more justified had the company withdrawn any and all merchandise geared towards the upcoming holiday season. Similarly, the mall endeavored to evoke a seasonally themed display; its management could very well have decided to forgo any special decorations altogether.
As a lawyer, it is amusing to hear people underscore these arguments in terms of their "right" to religious freedom. Equating the removal of quasi-religious symbols with an infringement of rights is absurd for several reasons. For one, privately held businesses have no legal obligation to offer religiously celebratory decor. The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Moreover, the amendment blatantly provides just as much protection of religion as it does from religion. That is to say that people are equally justified in being offended by the presence of religious symbols instead of their absence.
Finally, it should go without saying that these pseudo-controversies involving holiday decor are not what the drafters of the Constitution had in mind when implementing the first amendment. In recent years, numerous issues involving religion have arisen which bear some actual import to functioning society, such as:
- the permissibility of religious headware for armed service and uniformed police force members (though this, too, delved into the ridiculous);
- closure of public schools for religious holidays; and
- the tax-exempt status of religious organizations.
Individual humans are certainly entitled to their reverence for a make-believe gift-giving fat guy in a red suit; the constitution does not require that every mall in America provide such a man for photo opportunities. People who are offended by the lack of overt Christmas displays don't need to shop at such establishments. OR they can simply use the mall to fulfill its intended function as a place of retail, and engage in festive/seasonal/religious practices in their homes and churches. And if people care that much about the cup their coffee is served in, Starbucks invites them to bring their own - to the tune of a ten-cent discount. Furthermore, the coffee chain continues to sell various Christmas-themed merchandise, including an Advent Calendar, stuffed Santa bears, candy cane mugs, ornament tumblers, and mug ornaments. If the company was really as "anti-Christian" as some critics have asserted, wouldn't these offerings have been pulled as well?
In the interest of full disclosure, this blogger is not of the Christian faith, and partakes in celebrations of Christmas only to the extent that she is invited to other people's homes to exchange gifts and drink egg nog. From this perspective, it is easy to roll one's eyes at the disappointment associated with the above events. True religious persecution still exists in numerous parts of the world, and in our own nation discrimination often inhibits the practice of certain faiths. In light of these circumstances, it's disheartening to see so much attention paid and energy devoted to superficial matters.
But if it means shorter lines at Starbucks (whose coffee this blogger would drink out of an old shoe, if necessary), maybe it's not such a bad thing.
But if it means shorter lines at Starbucks (whose coffee this blogger would drink out of an old shoe, if necessary), maybe it's not such a bad thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment