Has extreme liberalism, but that I mean the fight against a government’s interference into the daily lives and individual choices of it’s citizens, actually become fascist?
Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.
The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:
- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.
- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.
“It really is all about religious liberty for us,” said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. “The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles.”
But gay groups and liberal legal scholars say they are prevailing because an individual’s religious views about homosexuality cannot be used to violate gays’ right to equal treatment under the law.
“We are not required to pay the price for other people’s religious views about us,” said Jennifer Pizer, director of the Marriage Project for Lambda Legal, a gay rights legal advocacy group.
But, religious groups are required to pay the price for the way you feel about them? This gets my ire up!
Twelve states now offer some form of same-sex marriage or same-sex partner recognition. Twenty states — including Maryland — and more than 180 cities and counties, including the District, ban discrimination against gays, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. Virginia bans it against state employees.
These laws generally offer some type of exemption to religious entities when hiring employees. But some groups are working to expand that exemption to include commercial businesses to protect owners and their employees when exercising their religious views.
Gay rights groups said they do not object to making faith groups’ religious jobs exempt from the discrimination laws but that offering services to the public is different.
“In their role as a participant in the marketplace, they are being required to do that in a non-discriminatory way,” said Brian Moulton, Human Rights Campaign senior counsel.
Battles are increasingly including private businesses. Last August, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Guadalupe Benitez, who is a lesbian, when she sued the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group after doctors said their religious beliefs prevented them from artificially inseminating her.
“We were devastated,” said Benitez, 37, who has been with partner Joanne Clark for almost two decades. Sexual orientation “should never have been an issue,” she said. “The issue was that I had a medical condition.”
The court ruled that North Coast Women’s Care did not have a free-speech right or a religious exemption from the state antidiscrimination law.
Sometimes, organizations that don’t wish to serve gays give in rather than go to court.
The online dating site eHarmony agreed to provide gay and lesbian matchmaking services to settle a complaint by a gay New Jersey man accusing it of discrimination. The new site, CompatiblePartners.net, started Tuesday.
The site eHarmony, founded by evangelical psychologist Neil Clark Warren, does not provide a same-sex option. Warren said his research into successful relationships did not include same-sex couples.
Company attorneys said that it settled because of the unpredictable nature of litigation and that New Jersey’s attorney general did not find that eHarmony had violated the state’s anti-discrimination law.
“People seem to say that if you enter the world of commerce, you lose all your First Amendment rights” to free exercise of religion, said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization that has represented several businesses. “They . . . have become nothing more than vending machines, and the government can dictate the conditions under which they dispense their goods and services.”
Even when groups opposing homosexuality have prevailed in court, they have gone on to face other setbacks. The Boy Scouts of America won a lawsuit in 2000 because it did not allow openly gay Scouts or Scout leaders. Since then, some private charities have refused to support the Scouts, and some local governments have yanked free use of facilities and other benefits. In Philadelphia, the city is demanding that the Scouts pay $200,000 in annual rent for a building that they had been using rent-free. The dispute is in court.
Some scholars also point to Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exemption over a ban on interracial dating and marriage among students, even though it claimed that those beliefs were religiously grounded. Some legal analysts suggest that religious groups that do not support gay rights might lose their tax exemptions because of their politically unpopular views.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who supports same-sex marriage, said the Bob Jones ruling “puts us on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views.”
Both sides predict more litigation as gay rights bump up against strong religious beliefs.
Marc Stern, general counsel for American Jewish Congress, said: “When you have a change that is as dramatic as has happened in the last 10 to 15 years with regards to attitudes toward homosexuality, it’s inevitable it’s going to reverberate in dozens of places in the law that you’re never going to be able to foresee.”
Joel Landon Watts is a Masters of Theological Studies student with a focus in Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific ideals of the past century. Currently, he is a TA for Old Testament at United Theological Seminary under Dr. Vivian Johnson, Associate Professor of Old Testament. His first book, Rhetorical Strategies of the Evangelist: Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark, is expected to be published by Wipf and Stock early next year. He is currently co-editing a book on moving from Fear to Faith (Energion, 2013).
Christians need to stand their ground,and not back down and give in….No matter what! America is becoming Anti-Christ more each day, put on the whole Armor of God and stand strong!
Christians need to stand their ground,and not back down and give in….No matter what! America is becoming Anti-Christ more each day, put on the whole Armor of God and stand strong!
Do you ever listen to http://www.trunews.com/listen_now.htm ,they had a chaplain on there that resigned her job after being told she could not use God or Lord in while praying, she had to use the term “Higher Power, or Universe,,,, It is coming ,the day were we cannot worship out loud..she was a member of Hospice,turns out the one over Hospice is Atheist and Gay, go figure…..but out of about 6 to 7 Chaplains,she is the only one that said something and resigned, the rest went along with the world.. Good for her!
Do you ever listen to http://www.trunews.com/listen_now.htm ,they had a chaplain on there that resigned her job after being told she could not use God or Lord in while praying, she had to use the term “Higher Power, or Universe,,,, It is coming ,the day were we cannot worship out loud..she was a member of Hospice,turns out the one over Hospice is Atheist and Gay, go figure…..but out of about 6 to 7 Chaplains,she is the only one that said something and resigned, the rest went along with the world.. Good for her!
Deb, I have not listened to that, but I just might. We need people that will stand for what is right – and set an example. I would say, that those that went along with the change in direction were not chaplains at all!
What’s really going on here is that the religious right wants a complete exemption from civil rights law for anyone who claims that their bigotry is inspired by God. Are you a conservative Catholic ambulance worker who doesn’t want to save the dying gay man in your gurney? Invoke God. How about the Baptist fireman who finds it distasteful to save the child of the lesbian couple burning in their apartment? Or the Mormon pharmacist who thinks the black customer having an asthma attack before his eyes can just carry his ass over to the next pharmacy ten miles away, since, you know, under the Mormon faith blacks turned against God and that’s why God burned their skin black – to mark them as evil.
In each and every case above it would absolutely positively be impinging on the religious freedom of each of those individuals by forcing them to save the lives of the people they took their jobs to help. Then again, most major religions consider the Mormons a cult, so does that mean ambulance drivers could refuse to help Mormons under these proposals? Could firemen refuse to save the Mormon Temple? Could anyone refuse to work with anyone else who doesnt believe in their particular religion? After all, you’re all going to hell – why should I save your lives, do your taxes, or teach your kids in public school?
And finally, if the religious right gets its way, then all civil rights laws applying to blacks and other minorities will be gone. How long before the Southern Baptists revisit all those Bible provisions they used to use to justify slavery? And the Mormons revisit the teachings they held only 30 years ago about blacks being chidden of God?
What’s really going on here is that the religious right wants a complete exemption from civil rights law for anyone who claims that their bigotry is inspired by God. Are you a conservative Catholic ambulance worker who doesn’t want to save the dying gay man in your gurney? Invoke God. How about the Baptist fireman who finds it distasteful to save the child of the lesbian couple burning in their apartment? Or the Mormon pharmacist who thinks the black customer having an asthma attack before his eyes can just carry his ass over to the next pharmacy ten miles away, since, you know, under the Mormon faith blacks turned against God and that’s why God burned their skin black – to mark them as evil.
In each and every case above it would absolutely positively be impinging on the religious freedom of each of those individuals by forcing them to save the lives of the people they took their jobs to help. Then again, most major religions consider the Mormons a cult, so does that mean ambulance drivers could refuse to help Mormons under these proposals? Could firemen refuse to save the Mormon Temple? Could anyone refuse to work with anyone else who doesnt believe in their particular religion? After all, you’re all going to hell – why should I save your lives, do your taxes, or teach your kids in public school?
And finally, if the religious right gets its way, then all civil rights laws applying to blacks and other minorities will be gone. How long before the Southern Baptists revisit all those Bible provisions they used to use to justify slavery? And the Mormons revisit the teachings they held only 30 years ago about blacks being chidden of God?
We are not required to pay the price for other people’s religious views about us.
We are not required to pay the price for other people’s religious views about us.
Brad, you cannot possible equate invetro, marriages, and associations with saving a life can you? I am sorry, but your view on religion is pretty wrong here. Your view is a bit destructive. I think you really need to learn how to compare apples with apples and not apples with saving lives.
I believe that people should have the individual choice of conscience, and if they do not want to accept homosexuals into certain groups and clubs, or business or business transactions, that is fine.
Brad, you cannot possible equate invetro, marriages, and associations with saving a life can you? I am sorry, but your view on religion is pretty wrong here. Your view is a bit destructive. I think you really need to learn how to compare apples with apples and not apples with saving lives.
I believe that people should have the individual choice of conscience, and if they do not want to accept homosexuals into certain groups and clubs, or business or business transactions, that is fine.
OK, let’s leave saving a life out of it for now. Let me draw an analogy between discrimination against women and discrimination against gays. Can an employer refuse to promote a woman to manager due to the religiously motivated belief that women should not have authority over men and, moreover, that she should be home taking care of the house? What if he refuses to hire a young mother or to give maternity leave to a man due to the religiously motivated belief that women are responsible for raising and nurturing children? Could he pay men more than women because of the belief that men are supposed to be the breadwinners?
No. In such cases, a person is not only prevented from acting on their religious beliefs, they are in fact forced by law to act contrary to their religious beliefs. No court would accept as a valid justification for exemptions from generally applicable anti-discrimination laws the claim that one has a First Amendment right to discriminate. Regardless of how deeply felt the belief is that God has decreed different social roles for men and women, the fact remains that acting on such beliefs harms others.
It is the harm to others upon which courts must focus — government exists to protect people from harm, not to protect the ability of some to harm others because they think God tells them to. People have a right to believe that homosexuality is abhorrent, but they don’t have a constitutional right to act on that belief if their acts cause harm. This is why protecting the equal civil rights of gays is no more a threat to religious liberties than is protecting the equal civil rights of women.
OK, let’s leave saving a life out of it for now. Let me draw an analogy between discrimination against women and discrimination against gays. Can an employer refuse to promote a woman to manager due to the religiously motivated belief that women should not have authority over men and, moreover, that she should be home taking care of the house? What if he refuses to hire a young mother or to give maternity leave to a man due to the religiously motivated belief that women are responsible for raising and nurturing children? Could he pay men more than women because of the belief that men are supposed to be the breadwinners?
No. In such cases, a person is not only prevented from acting on their religious beliefs, they are in fact forced by law to act contrary to their religious beliefs. No court would accept as a valid justification for exemptions from generally applicable anti-discrimination laws the claim that one has a First Amendment right to discriminate. Regardless of how deeply felt the belief is that God has decreed different social roles for men and women, the fact remains that acting on such beliefs harms others.
It is the harm to others upon which courts must focus — government exists to protect people from harm, not to protect the ability of some to harm others because they think God tells them to. People have a right to believe that homosexuality is abhorrent, but they don’t have a constitutional right to act on that belief if their acts cause harm. This is why protecting the equal civil rights of gays is no more a threat to religious liberties than is protecting the equal civil rights of women.
The Washington Post article is finally stating what many have been trumpeting for years. An associate had this to say “Simply stated, if homosexuality is legitimate in every respect, then any opposition to homosexuality is illegitimate.”
– From: http://tinyurl.com/dz4cfr
The Washington Post article is finally stating what many have been trumpeting for years. An associate had this to say “Simply stated, if homosexuality is legitimate in every respect, then any opposition to homosexuality is illegitimate.”
– From: http://tinyurl.com/dz4cfr
Brad, I do not think we are operating form the same play book. It is not causing someone harm if the photographer chooses not to use her camera, her talent, and her business in a manner against her religious belief. The same is said of the ministers who refuse to perform a marriage service for homosexuals. There are those that will and those that will not. What you are talking about is slavery of the conscience. You would force someone to damage their own conscience to make you happy, forcing them to use their talents and their resources to serve someone else, whether they desire to or not. What you propose is nothing shorty of slavery, and should be stopped.
It is clear that you have a bias against those that believe in God, and would force everyone of us to hold to your views, for fear of harm. Again, what you would institute is slavery.
I think it’s rather presumptuous to say I have a bias against those that believe in God. There are millions of people who believe in God, myself included, who also believe in equal rights and civil marriage for gays and lesbians. Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, for example, are in favor of same-sex marriage. I guess they don’t believe in God .
On that note, I think the Washington Post got their headline wrong.”Faith” is losing? No, hate is losing. People with faith don’t feel threatened. it’s the people with hate that are freaking out.
Have a blessed Easter.
I think it’s rather presumptuous to say I have a bias against those that believe in God. There are millions of people who believe in God, myself included, who also believe in equal rights and civil marriage for gays and lesbians. Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, for example, are in favor of same-sex marriage. I guess they don’t believe in God .
On that note, I think the Washington Post got their headline wrong.”Faith” is losing? No, hate is losing. People with faith don’t feel threatened. it’s the people with hate that are freaking out.
Have a blessed Easter.
Brad,
Everyone on this planet believes in a god, whether themselves or some mystical superhero in the sky. It comes down to believing in the right God – the God of the bible. There is a hatred of sin that we must have, not of the people, but of sin. Not everyone can see the difference, I will give you that, but then again, not everyone who speaks in the name of God really knows the one True God.
Brad,
Everyone on this planet believes in a god, whether themselves or some mystical superhero in the sky. It comes down to believing in the right God – the God of the bible. There is a hatred of sin that we must have, not of the people, but of sin. Not everyone can see the difference, I will give you that, but then again, not everyone who speaks in the name of God really knows the one True God.
That’s utter absurdity.
No one is talking about letting people die because of beliefs.
However, forcing a photographer to go to someone’s lesbian “wedding” isn’t a life-and-death situation. Rather, it’s forcing that photographer to pay the price for the couple’s beliefs, to use your own expression.
Alarmist straw men aren’t legitimate arguments.
That’s utter absurdity.
No one is talking about letting people die because of beliefs.
However, forcing a photographer to go to someone’s lesbian “wedding” isn’t a life-and-death situation. Rather, it’s forcing that photographer to pay the price for the couple’s beliefs, to use your own expression.
Alarmist straw men aren’t legitimate arguments.
Amen, Wickle.
Deb, I have not listened to that, but I just might. We need people that will stand for what is right – and set an example. I would say, that those that went along with the change in direction were not chaplains at all!
Brad, I do not think we are operating form the same play book. It is not causing someone harm if the photographer chooses not to use her camera, her talent, and her business in a manner against her religious belief. The same is said of the ministers who refuse to perform a marriage service for homosexuals. There are those that will and those that will not. What you are talking about is slavery of the conscience. You would force someone to damage their own conscience to make you happy, forcing them to use their talents and their resources to serve someone else, whether they desire to or not. What you propose is nothing shorty of slavery, and should be stopped.
It is clear that you have a bias against those that believe in God, and would force everyone of us to hold to your views, for fear of harm. Again, what you would institute is slavery.
Amen, Wickle.