Should religious protection extend to the marketplace?

There is nothing special about religion. As Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights stipulates, religious freedom applies to all beliefs, including atheistic and non-religious ones. So why make special legal arrangements for religion in the market place, as the Ruddock Religious Review Panel has been set up to consider?

If we go down the path where proprietors of religious conviction are legally compelled to accede to a request that contradict their moral beliefs, then the same demand must extend to all proprietors.

The Christian baker would be legally compelled to inscribe an ISIS slogan on a wedding cake and, to take another extreme example, the Jewish tailor would be required to fashion a swastika studded wedding tuxedo.

Assigning a government panel the task of determining which words and phrases are permissible or impermissible on merchandise is to threaten the very thing that the Ruddock's Religious Freedom Review Panel was to set up to do, which is to protect the freedom of beliefs.

Besides, there is sufficient protection in Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to ensure that offensive, humiliating or intimidating words based on race, color or national or ethnic origin is contained.

In a pluralistic liberal democracy such as ours, all businesses ought to be free to reject customized request, but they do so at the risk of social backlash and financial calamity.

Bigotry is not smart business. It is bad business. And it is for this reason that the consumer is best placed to send bigoted traders behind the walls of their abodes where they are free to peddle dubious beliefs with like-minded guests.

Alternatively, a business is free to implement inclusive store policies that will deliver greater profits and, more significance, social acceptance. This is the kind of practice that best reflects good business.