Please take a few moments to read and to consider the following excerpt from The trouble with the ‘dignity’ of same-sex marriage, which recently appeared in the Washington Post (emphases mine):
...[Justice] Kennedy’s moving language was more than just aspirational thoughts on dignity. He found a right to marriage based not on the status of the couples as homosexuals but rather on the right of everyone to the “dignity” of marriage. The uncertain implications of that right should be a concern not just for conservatives but also for civil libertarians. While Obergefell clearly increases the liberty of a historically oppressed people, the reasoning behind it, if not carefully defined, could prove parasitic or invasive to other rights. Beware the law of unintended constitutional consequences.Read the entire essay HERE.
...[I]t is not clear what a right to dignity portends....Some of us have long argued for precisely that result, but the use of a dignity right as a vehicle presents a new, unexpected element, since it may exist in tension with the right to free speech or free exercise of religion.
With the emergence of this new right, we must now determine how it is balanced against other rights and how far it extends. For example, it is clearly undignified for a gay couple to be denied a wedding cake with a homosexual theme. Yet for a Christian or Muslim baker, it might also feel undignified to be forced to prepare an image celebrating same-sex marriage. Should the right to dignity trump free speech or free exercise?
Other groups outside the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community could invoke this precedent, since the reasoning does not concern a protected sexual-orientation class but rather a citizen’s right to dignity. Could employees challenge workplace dress codes as intruding upon their right to “define and express their identity”? Could those subject to college admissions preferences raise claims that race or gender classifications deny their individual effort to “define and express their identity”? Kennedy’s approach has only deepened the uncertainty over how courts will handle such cases.
Some of the greatest attacks on dignity are often found in the exercise of free speech....
Do you trust the courts to respect your dignity if your exercise of freedom of expression violates the perceived dignity of someone else?
And isn't "a right to dignity" dangerously close to the establishment of The Thought Police?