University of Wisconsin students think it’s fine for people to object to some things on grounds of conscience — but they don’t believe in Christian freedom of conscience. They agree that designer Sophie Theallet should be able to refuse to design a gown for Melania Trump.

The Alliance Defending Freedom issued a video of students at the University of Wisconsin at Madison being asked what qualifies as legally protected conscientious objections in life and work.

The Students Believe in Rights, But Not Everyone’s

All the students agreed in defending the rights of creative professionals like dress designers. “You should be able to control your business in that regard, yeah,” says one. “It’s a free market. That’s the companies’ choice,” says another. “Absolutely!” says a third.

The students also think Muslims shouldn’t be legally required to perform at a Christian church, although you can see they’re starting to feel odd about this one. “You have the right to opt out of anything you want,” says one, but another student pauses a long time and then says, “Yeah, I think …  I guess so.” Another says, “If it goes against your religious views, you have to turn it down.”

When asked next whether a Christian photographer should be forced to take photos for a same-sex wedding, the students balk. One student explains why the photographer should not be allowed to object: “Probably not, because in that situation it would bring up some legal issues.” The interviewer explains that the legal issue which would arise — possible violation of a city ordinance prohibiting discrimination — would arise in the previous two scenarios.

Another student admits he would not allow the photographer to object for religious conscientious objection, referring to the hypothetical objector as a “jerk.” Even the student who held that someone has to turn down a job that goes against their religious views said that the photographer had to take the pictures.

When pressed, they can’t explain the difference between the scenarios. Several look perplexed. One student exclaims, “That’s such a sticky issue!”

A Clear-but Issue

It’s actually a very clear-cut issue. Why is it acceptable to object to a business relationship for reasons of conscience when you’re a liberal dress designer or a Muslim, but not if you are a Christian? The ADF spells it out:

Don’t like President Trump? It’s fine to tell people you won’t write a speech supporting him. Muslim singer? No one should force you to perform at an Easter service under threat of government punishment. But for a Christian creative professional, photographer, writer, or artist, it seems they must live by a different standard.

The answer is the Constitution protects the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech in the First Amendment. Just as an artist has a right to refuse to design a gown for Melania Trump as an exercise of her Constitutionally-guaranteed the freedom of speech, so does a Christian photographer have the right to refuse to take photos for a same-sex wedding as an expression of his Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

There are no constitutional grounds for giving one person such freedom and denying it to another. The Constitution doesn’t say that Americans have freedom of religion as long as other people approve of that religion.

“When it comes to free speech,” Stream executive editor Jay Richards observed, “the progressivism corrupting our public institutions seems to have no commitment to principle beyond a reflexive intolerance to anything Christian, and a thoughtless toleration of everything else.”

The interviewer, in his wrap-up, asked: “If a law that forces someone to do something that’s against their beliefs is so laughable, so unimaginable, then why is it so difficult to extend that same freedom to a Christian creative professional?”