Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Culhane: Religion, equality and gay marriage – redux
Last week’s column generated an unprecedented deluge of comments – thoughtful, angry, supportive, analytical – but that’s not completely surprising.
As I learned when I broached this topic last year, any talk about the friction between religion and LGBT equality (and especially marriage equality) brings down the house. Today’s entry will probably destroy the foundation.Recall that the last column ended by asking how to get out of the mess of accommodating religion and an anti-discrimination imperative. Let’s look at a few ideas here.
The first is the libertarian position that’s gotten Rand Paul in so much trouble, and that crops up every time anti-discrimination laws are discussed: When it comes to private actors, there should be no such laws.
A business owner’s associational freedom trumps the customer’s right to be served.
Usually that’s followed by the hope that most business owners aren’t economically dumb enough to act on their prejudices. I used to have more respect for this position than I do today. The experience of social and political history makes it clear that people can and do discriminate all the time, and that we’ve made a collective judgment that we’re not going to tolerate it.
Politically – and for me, morally – that ship has long sailed.
A few other creative ideas are out there.
One especially clever commenter last week suggested that we allow an accommodation for those who would have to be “bodily” involved in the wedding – so photographers wouldn’t be forced to shoot a same-sex wedding party; florists wouldn’t have to be scurrying around at the reception, but would have to sell flowers from their store, and so on.
I don’t like this for the same reason I don’t like the so-called “hardship exception” for couples who don’t have choices (there’s only one wedding photographer in town, for example). Both seem like recipes for endless litigation: “We had a hardship.” “No, you didn’t.” Stop it, please.
Moreover, no one’s been able to explain why any of these suggested accommodations, once allowed, should be limited to events or businesses somehow “associated” with the wedding.
If we’re going to allow religious exemptions based on the immorality of same-sex unions, it’s hard to see any principled reason for rejecting these same reasons in other contexts: Why should I have to rent a home to a lesbian couple, provide health benefits to a gay man’s spouse, or, for that matter, hire a gay man in the first place?
Robin Fretwell Wilson’s answer – that these actions (but somehow, not the ones tied to marriage) are simply bigotry – resolves the issue by fiat.
In general, I don’t support these accommodation laws.
They’re basically a political compromise to get a few more votes, but I think they introduce a dangerous idea that we’ve not allowed with other protected groups: You can discriminate if your religion tells you it’s OK to do so. And I’m not placated by assurances that it’s limited to the marriage context.
But think about the problem from another perspective: Do you really want someone who strongly disapproves of your marriage to be the one catering it? Probably not. So can nothing be done?
Here’s what I propose:
Why not simply remind the religious objectors – I’d support a law spelling this out – that they have a right to clearly state that they oppose same-sex unions and would “prefer to step aside” (borrowing and repurposing language from Professor Wilson here) for religious reasons.
There might even be standard, respectful language suggested (not mandated, but perhaps bulletproof against litigation), making clear that the proprietor’s objection is based on religion, not animosity. Not “we don’t like the gays,” but “this establishment is owned and operated by the Smith Family, who hold strong religious beliefs that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.”
What same-sex couple wouldn’t respect that, and go somewhere else – if they could?
Note that this isn’t the same as allowing the Smiths to refuse service. It puts the same-sex couple on notice, though, that this establishment might not be their best choice. And, in a progressive area, such a statement would undoubtedly cost the Smiths some business from opposite-sex couples, too.
I first made this proposal last year, and it generated a lot of heat – much of it quite negative.
But I think the only real alternative is no accommodation at all. That’s hardly an unreasonable position, even for religious organizations when they leave their core mission and participate in secular activities (such as renting out a pavilion for marriages, but then refusing to do so for same-sex couples).
So “no accommodation at all” is my close second choice.
Even my weak proposal for using the right to speak as a way of avoiding conflict will doubtless infuriate those who think this whole issue is ridiculous, but ask yourself: How would I want to be treated if I were a religious person? (I’m not, in case it matters.)
Let the deluge begin.
Well, heck. Why don’t we just allow businesses to tell African American customers that they’d prefer not to serve their kind. While we’re at it, we can have doctors refuse to treat people of differing faiths. We can allow restaurants to tell patrons that they’d prefer to serve clients who aren’t over a certain age. We can even allow businesses tell job candidates that they’d prefer to build a team of all-white workers. Sure, if you weren’t white you could work there, but “would you really want to?”
The moment you start making accommodations for discrimination on any grounds, you are creating a world in which discrimination can be rationalized, tolerated and even sanctioned.
F.That.
John, I completely agree with your position on this. It fits perfectly into all existing laws and creates an equal footing.
People are allowed to be as discriminating as they want in their head, as long as they do not commit a crime. Changing laws will not make a person less of a bigot or less racist, but it makes them accountable for acting on such prejudices, religiously based or not.
Let’s replace some variables and play it out in an altered setting.
A black man and his white female fiancee walk into a florist that is owned by a white woman. The groom-to-be makes an offer to the owner to have them do the couple’s wedding arrangements, and she responds “Due to strong religious beliefs, I believe that marriage should be reserved only to same-race people. If you would still like to solicit my services, please let me know.”
This is completely legal now. We all know that the result would be organized protests and a boycott of the florist. The business has a right to this choice. It is not morally or financially sound, but at one point people definitely made this argument regarding interracial marriage.
People have a constitutional right to the freedoms of religion and speech and we must protect this. They should not have a constitutional right to discriminatory actions. Thoughts and beliefs? Yes. Actions? No.
This is the same reason the WBC crazies aren’t locked up. They have a right to be insane religious zealots.
All of that is legal phluidik.
“There might even be standard, respectful language suggested”
Yeah, we tried that in this country once before. Of course, few today can remember the “Whites Only” signs establishments put in their windows.
Do we really want to go back to that?
Leon: I know it’s legal. That was my point. We’re quickly slipping back into practices of old, which were done away with for a very good reason.
Lather rinse repeat.
John, since people know where I stand on the incredible stupidity and weakness that is religious faith, let me address your thoughts directly.
I think you are makig a big mistake by not saying, forcefully, that requests for legal protection for religious accomodation are simply requests to be a bigot and not get sued. We should not give religion a lower standard. We should not accept that their bigotry might be justified. It is not.
Secondly, you seem to keep implying that marriage is “different” and that implication sounds like religious, by trying to differentiate between a wedding and a restaurant (to be fair I might say you imply your agreement with this argument by not refuting it and continuing to allow the potential that it should be different). Marriage is not religious. We should not have a different conversation regarding bigotry against those that wish to marry and bigotry against those that wish to dine at the lunch counter.
Marriage is secular, and the argument must not change to accomodate the false claim that it is religious. Cults choose to solemnize, or not, secular marriages. That DOES NOT make the marriage religious.
I also think, as someone already pointed out, your solution to allow them to state they are bigots but not allow them to discriminate, is really no progress on this issue. They can do that today.
For me, and literally the many, many rationalists and even cultists that are reasonable that I speak to, this is a very simple issue: if you choose to be a bigot, regardless if it is because of fear or some fairy in the sky (isn’t that driven by fear too?), we (society and our laws) will stop you from discriminating. You can choose your friends and family. You can’t choose your employees based on your bigotry and you can’t choose your customers either. We don’t allow bigots to discriminate, why would we allow religious bigots to? I see no difference.
NO ACCOMODATION FOR BIGOTRY. Forget the religion thing, its bigotry.
Hi Leon,
It is true that phluidik’s comments are all legal. Where we get into a sticky mess is when our feelings get hurt and we want to hit back.
John, you made a statement in your article that, upon learning of the business owner’s preferences, “What same-sex couple wouldn’t respect that and go somewhere else?” Unfortunately, especially in smaller conservative communities, many same-sex couples would find it difficult to “respect” that – “respect” meaning to quietly go find another vendor. At what point do our collective selves get to say, “ya know, that’s just wrong” and then do something about it?
It’s hard enough in many communities (note: I speak from the context of a small Texas town) to be out, open and loving within LGBT-affirmative groups. Much less are we often willing or able to be so in public. When the tension finally rises, our pride and love for ourselves against the bigotry and hatred we experience from others, we have a responsibility as human beings to “respect” someone else’s opinion. We also have a choice to either 1) stand firm in our self-assurance or 2) go quietly away from an injustice, having taken it.
Neither choice is particularly appealing, as both often place us in direct opposition with our sense of self and (for our siblings of faith) our sense of righteous justice.
Now, all that said, I do not particularly like “accommodation laws”. I don’t find them particularly effective, except in the ability to file suit when really, obviously wronged. Such laws NEVER change the mindset of intolerance from which they are born. However, I believe they are the only thing allowing our LGBT siblings the ability to receive adequate claim through lawsuits when beaten, when left homeless, when left jobless, etc. I also believe that some of our LGBT siblings take advantage of such laws for lesser offenses – i.e. your floral shop example.
Still, we can’t expect that it’s always up to the LGBT person to walk the high road. Sometimes, we have to walk the low road for our own lessons and to push the experience and knowledge of the “other” masses.
I am a woman of faith and a pastor. I affirm for myself the Christian religion and have spent many years working through the different aspects of my faith through the lens of my religion. I have learned a valuable truth along that journey…
As people of faith (again, I speak of a Christ-centered faith), we are taught to love one another as we love ourselves. To do so, we must first love ourselves, learning that loving ourselves includes setting livable and enforceable boundaries for our protection and righteous living. When we then approach someone else and are abused or not tolerated or shamed (or, or, or) we must make our responsive choices realizing that our love for ourselves is the level of love we are to show others – whether we get that back or not. We also remember that anger can guide acts of loving reproach. We can choose to 1) love ourselves enough to find a vendor who can celebrate our lives with us (sometimes leaving us to find a much lesser alternative professionally) or 2) love ourselves and the offender enough to bring to light the break in relationship in all means available to us – including civil law.
This is not a perfect world, most especially for those who do not wave the banner of the majority. As the oppressed, we have a calling to stand against oppression. We must also beware of becoming a new kind of oppressor through advantageous use of civil law.
Thanks for allowing us to comment.
Blessings,
-Mel
DaveW,
I don’t mind disco, but I prefer “weak, naive and stupid” hymns to disco when you say for “us” it’s disco in your posting of several days ago.
Especially when there are many liberal and progressive people of faith working alongside those who have no faith (but who respect those good and fair-minded folks who do have a faith) to work to achieve a positive outcome for all.
John, I’m a little confused about what kind of accommodation you’re offering to the religous. As far as I can tell, and as Leon points out, at best you’re only clairifying an already legal point. As a metalsmith, I’v been commissioned to make religous items including a cross to be used as an alter piece. While I accepted those comissions, it never occured to me that I couldn’t point out that I’m athesist and sugest that I might not be the best person for the job. Your “accommodation” seems to just point out that their whole argument is a straw man.
One citizens right to religious practice and beleif ends at the point where it impacts another citizens rights. Period. No accomodation involved, that’s just the waY IT SHOULD BE AND IS!
If you are a business owner serving the public and your religion prevents you from providing service equally to all then you shouldn’t be in business.
This may appear to be draconian, but it is not. It is simply the standard set forth by our founding laws regarding the equal worth of each citizen and respect for ALL religions.
It is the only way for the “melting pot” approach to a diverse polpulace living together in harmony.
For being the first folks to slam the people seeking equal rights for wanting “special” rights, these Christian extremists sure ask for a lot of special treatment.
Hippocrits.
We don’t have to accomodate anybody. Hate is hate whether masked in a religious facade or not it’s still hate with justification on behalf of one’s “chosen” religion.
Sounds too much like Jim Crow. We can’t photograph, bake your cake, cater because it’s a “homosexual” wedding. Your kids can’t come to our school because they have “homosexual” parents. “Homosexuals” are all pedofiles because we say so and no facts or studies will convince us that it’s actually heterosexual men that make up that majority, and women never do that kind of stuff. They “CHOSE” their religion. I DID NOT “CHOOSE” TO BE A GAY MAN, and I wouldn’t and couldn’t change it even with a knife pointed at my throat, and yes that has happened.
Alexander Fisher-levesque,
“We don’t have to accommodate anybody. Hate is hate whether masked in a religious facade or not it’s still hate with justification on behalf of one’s “chosen” religion”.
*****
Agree with you on that point.
Bad bad bad bad bad Idea. I am 100% opposed to this bullshit concept of accomodation. Once we allow unreasonable accomodations under the guise of religion, the ignorance will not stop.
I am going to use my self as an example. I have a Jewish friend, who is dead set on marrying a Jewish girl. Not because he loves her, but because as an orthodox Jew he believes in fullfilling the mitzvah of marriage and having kids. Love, compatibility and sex are all minor and secondary concerns. I personally believe any marriage should be based on love and compatibility, and being thrown together by an arranged marriage is an affront to what I believe marriage is. If I were a photographer or florist and I was free to discriminate to my heart’s desire, I wouldn’t serve this wedding. Why? Because I oppose orthodox wedding and marriage customs, as contradictory to what I feel marriage is about. I could easily read some passage in the New Testament, about marriage and how it’s about love. According to your criteria I should be able to refuse to serve them, on religious grounds. This sets a dangerous precedent of permitting discrimination in the name of religion.
According to the law, if I acted upon my views against orthodox Jewish marriage, I broke the law. The Jewish couple would be discriminated against by my decision, even though I am entitled to believe what I want about their marriage. I am NOT allowed to discriminate against them and their decision to marry.
Likewise. As many of you know, I don’t care for too many black people. After the election of HomophObama and Prop 8, we’ve seen the tribal nature of these people. I personally get pissed when I see black men abandon their “baby’s momma” and kid and go marry someone else. The issue of fatherhood, abandonment and remarriage are issues in the black community. Now, the law restrains me. The law prevents me from discriminating against people due to their color. If if I knew that Shithead(Sha theed) Jamaal was divorced and had abandoned his kid, yet he was engaged to some ditzy white girl. I would think to myself. What is this idiot doing marrying a new woman, when he has a kid and a wife whom he is abandoning. Let’s say I am a florist, photographer or even the supplier of the champagne. I feel this worthless missing-link of a schmuck should go back to his baby’s momma and take care of her and his kid. I am also not a big fan of divorce, and to top if off inter-racial marriage is actually considered by MANY to be unbiblical. So, do I have a right to refuse to serve Mr Shithead(Sha Theed) Jamaal and Becky? Even though I might religiously oppose divorce, remarriage as well as interracial marriage? No. The law doesn’t and shouldn’t allow it. Am I opposed to interracial marriage because I am racist or because of the Bible? Truth be told, I am racist and if need be, I could find justification in some religion or book, if need be. Do I oppose divorce and remarriage on religious grounds? No, I hate divorce for purely personal reasons, I think people who abandon their marriages especially when they have kids are scums of the earth. But I could easily find Biblical justification for my opposition to this guy’s remarriage.
What YOU’RE proposing is that we allow religious exemptions to same-sex marriage. If that is the case, I want to have the same right to refuse to serve blacks or orthodox jews.
Homophobia whether or not it is religious in it’s origin, or religion is used as a means of justifying it, is the base reason for those who oppose same-sex marriage. Catholics for instance oppose divorce and remarriage, but how many Catholic florists and photographers refuse to serve at someone’s second, third or even fourth marriage? Jews have STRONG views against inter-marriage, as in, a Jew marrying a Gentile. Some Jews whose kids marry outside the faith, disown and will pray Kaddush(the prayer of the dead) when their little boy marries chicksa. Yet, more than half of all American jews marry outside the tribe, and you don’t see many Jewish florists and photographers refusing to work at a mixed marriage. Hell, Reform and Conservative(really should be called Liberal) Rabbis will actually preside over the wedding, in hopes that the gentile spouse and the kids might convert to judaism.
Only when it’s same-sex marriage are we called upon to allow unreasonable accomodation to those who oppose our marriages. We already give reasonable accomodations, a Church, Synagogue or Mosque does NOT have to marry us in their sanctuary. Such is the only accomodation religious groups get, be it divorcees remarrying, inter-faith marriage or same-sex marriage. To allow more and more religious accomodation, due to same-sex marriage, it wouldn’t be long until people found all manner of religious justification for things.
I practice I don’t work but 4 day a week-ianity. I should always have a 3 day workweek, and to deny me my right is religious persecution. I am also a member of the church of homosexuality, and watching porn is a sacrement. If you allow a Muslim to pray at work, you have to allow me to watch porn. I also believe in the doctrine of only wearing my Sunday’s best on Sunday, so I refuse to wear suits and ties to work, I come in casual and to force me to wear a suit and tie is discrimination. If you allow a jew to wear a yamulka and a Muslim woman a veil, you have to allow me to wear casual. CAN YOU SEE THE IMPLICATIONS!?!?!
Where the hell did you get your law degree, from a cracker jack box?
Rule #1 for businesses. The customer is always right.
Rule #2 for businesses. When the customer is wrong, see Rule $1.