From discussion on ST 's wall, wherein concern was voiced
that cases like this may exacerbate feelings, among some Christians, that the
LGBT rights movement has a hidden agenda of attacking religious freedom:
Under
Canadian consumer laws, buyers are entitled to a refund only if the goods are
unfit for purpose. Businesses may have policies granting additional refunds
beyond statutory requirements. Sellers may grant further refunds at the own
discretion. Buyers are not entitled to a refund on the basis of subsequent
falling out with the seller or other change of mind. However, one could argue
that the sale of wedding rings is a special case in that it is not merely the
transaction of precious metal but also of significant long-term emotions and
memories. Therefore, the taint of negative emotions may constitute goods unfit
for purpose in this case, although this argument may need to be tested in
court. However, courts should be the arbiters of last resort, and in this case
it is in the interests of both buyer and seller that a refund be granted.
While
some are concerned that the public backlash threatens the seller's freedom of
belief, in this case it was the seller himself who invited public commentary
over his beliefs when he voluntarily and unnecessarily posted them into the
public forum. In this action, the seller must expect a possible reaction from
the public, who are similarly entitled to their own freedom of belief. However,
threats of violence are criminal and should be prosecuted.
It
should be noted that a refund was indeed granted, and that both buyer and
seller ultimately spoke of each other in positive terms. Therefore, the
buyer-seller interaction in isolation was a comparatively minor issue. However,
in his The American Conservative commentary,
Dreher uses inflammatory language with negative connotations out of keeping
with the two news articles he cites and fails to distinguish between the
legitimate concerns of the buyers, the legitimate views of the some members of
the public, and the illegitimate threats made by other members of the public.
Any concerns about about exacerbation of Christian right-wing paranoia should
be directed not towards the case and but rather towards Dreher himself.
Distortion of truth and warmongering is counter-evangelical and incompatible
with Christian values.
