The 68-year-old proprietress of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, is the target of a lawsuit by Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson because she refused to provide wedding flowers for a customer who was marrying his partner. Washington state legalized same-sex marriage in December.
According to CNN’s Belief Blog, Barronelle Stutzman, an evangelical, “said she agonized over the decision but couldn’t support a wedding that her faith forbids. ‘I was not discriminating at all,’ she said. ‘I never told him he couldn’t get married. I gave him recommendations for other flower shops.’”
Not surprisingly, “Among conservative Christians, Stutzman has become a byword—part cautionary tale and part cause celebre.”
Must progressivism decree that the power of the state be so absolute that there be no exemption from its dictate for religious conviction, not to speak of individual liberty? Apparently so, given Obamacare’s model of requiring private business owners to pay for their employees contraception, including abortifacient drugs, despite their religious convictions. In both cases, the state is not stopping one party from harming another; its forcing what it sees as positive behavior upon those who have a different view.
The pagans persecuted the Christians, and then the Christians came to power and persecuted the pagans. Similarly, there’s more here of animus against those who deviate from the one-true correct political line than anything else. It’s not only mean and vulgar, it’s politically counterproductive. But I’m sure using the power of the state to crush those who don’t toe the line makes those who can now persecute feel smugly empowered.
38 Comments for “The Ugliness of Reverse Animus”
posted by Lori Heine on
Incidents of that type are also used against us by homophobes who claim that ALL churches will be forced to perform same-sex unions, Christian ministers jailed for speaking against “homosexuality,” etc. Where do they get these weird notions? Well, duh!
posted by Houndentenor on
These rules and laws are well-meaning but I think overall they do more harm than good. They play into the persecution complex of fundamentalist christians. You know, the ones who think that if the city isn’t paying for religious displays that THEIR “rights” are being violated.
posted by Mike on
If the proprietor had refused to provide service to an inter-racial (straight) couple, would you and others be as outraged? The principle (and the law) are the same.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. Good point Mike! If the proprietor has a right not to provide services — based on religious objections — to same-sex couples, then why not also straight inter-racial or inter-faith couples? The legal principle is certainly the same. Personally, I would prefer that the civil rights laws made general exemptions for small business owners (which they generally do if you read a law typically it says…’a business that hires more then ‘x’ number of people’). If the owner was up-front about it (sincere) and their were other viable options, then I can see a case being made for an exemption.
2. I would also generally agree that some religious based exemptions may need to be addressed with the new Affordable Health Care Act. However, not wanting to pay for your employees birth control — should actually be based on a sincerely held religious belief — and should not be used as a pretext to make it harder for women to get birth control or to set up cameras in employees homes.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anti-discrimination laws typically cover sex, race, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.
So long as the “religious exemption” applies equally to all categories, the “equal means equal” test is met. If sexual orientation is carved out as a special case, and treated differently from the others, then the “equal means equal” test is not met.
Reasonable people can differ, it seems to me, about the wisdom and efficacy of anti-discrimination laws. But I find it remarkable that social conservatives advocate carving out a special exemption for same-sex marriages.
How does a religious conscience objection applicable to marriage between gay and lesbian couples differ from a religious conscience objection to marriage between and interracial couple, or a religious conscience objection to a remarriage after a divorce, or a religious objection to an interfaith marriage?
On what basis can a distinction between the cases be made, using a religiously-neutral rationale that meets equal protection standards? Until those who advocate a special-case exemption applicable to same-sex marriage but not the other cases answer that question sensibly, it seems to me that it is unwise to create the special case.
posted by Jorge on
How does a religious conscience objection applicable to marriage between gay and lesbian couples differ from a religious conscience objection to marriage between and interracial couple, or a religious conscience objection to a remarriage after a divorce, or a religious objection to an interfaith marriage?
Simple.
The latter three do not exist in so widespread a form as to make the current law a mass persecution.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The latter three do not exist in so widespread a form as to make the current law a mass persecution.
Huh?
I’ll grant you that the three forms of marriage (interracial, remarriage after divorce, interfaith) are more common in terms of sheer numbers, but more widely accepted culturally, than same-sex marriage, but what has that to do with the validity of a religious conscience objection to such a marriage?
Why shouldn’t a religious conscience objection to an interracial marriage, a remarriage after divorce, or an interfaith marriage be treated with equal dignity with a religious conscience objection to a same-sex marriage?
Is it that only widely held religious conscience objections should be protected, and religious conscience objections less widely held swept aside as unworthy of protection?
If that is the case, what is the tipping point? When does a religious conscience objection become sufficient uncommon so as to no longer deserve protection?
posted by Doug on
It is my understanding, and I could be wrong, but I believe that Ms. Stutzman was later asked to provide flowers for an abortion provider and she had no problem with that even though it is against her religion. There were several other ‘tests’ and she provided flowers to all of them.
I may be confusing this case with a similar one in Oregon but still if you are a public purveyor of services you are not allowed to discriminate.
posted by Houndentenor on
A fundamentalist who’s a hypocrite. I’m SHOCKED! Wait, I”m not because I grew up around them and meet them all the time and I’ve yet to meet one who isn’t a big raging hypocrite.
posted by Houndentenor on
So, I am now at the mercy of the nutty religious ideas of my employer? Do I need to make sure that the company I work for isn’t owned by a Jehovah’s Witness that isn’t going to allow me to have a blood transfusion? This is absurd. And more absurd, most of these companies, including Catholic Hospital systems, already had insurance that paid for the things to which they now object.
As for the florist, I personally would never have filed a complaint. I’d have given someone else my business and made sure everyone knew that it was owned by bigots. But I have to wonder if that florist wouldn’t be complaining if someone refused to supply her with flowers and supplies because they are gay and they don’t like her views? Would that be okay if she violated THEIR religious views?
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
–So, I am now at the mercy of the nutty religious ideas of my employer?
In the particular case mentioned the issue was whether or not a small business owner should be exempt from legally having to provide certain ‘martial’ services for same-sex couples. I would have to say that forcing such a person to do that is a mistake (assuming that they are up front about it and their are other viable alternatives).
Yes, I do not think that its a good idea to force the Catholic Church to pay for birth control. I do not think its a good idea to force a small business owner — with sincere religious beliefs — to pay for birth control. That does not mean that the business owner (or the Catholic Church) should be allowed (in my mind) to meddle in the family planning decisions of its employees.
posted by Houndentenor on
But the Catholic church is not paying for anyone’s birth control. The insurance offered through employment at a Catholic-affiliated hospital offers birth control to those who need it. Are they even paying for ALL of the employees’ health insurance? Few employers do these days. If so they kind of have a point that they are indirectly paying for birth control. Otherwise, they are claiming that they are paying for part of something that might be used for birth control but which they are not fully or even directly funding and may or may not even be used. See how absurd that gets? In short, if you are an employee of a Catholic hospital and you want birth control, you are going to have to pay the highest price possible for that birth control (because the discounts, co-pays, etc will no longer be available to you if you have to go outside your insurance). Why should employees have to do that because of their employers’ religious beliefs?
posted by Thom Watson on
Stephen: I think it would be helpful for you to note if you believe that business owners also should be able to refuse services to customers on the basis of other religiously oriented beliefs, i.e., to refuse to sell to interracial or interfaith couples. Also, would it make a difference if this had been the only florist in the couple’s town, i.e., if they had nowhere else to go if the local business refused them? Also, which kinds of businesses should be exempted from selling products or providing services to same-sex couples or LGBT individuals; would the same principle apply if it were a grocery store refusing to sell food to a gay couple, or a pharmacist refusing to sell them medications?
If there are public accommodations laws that require businesses to serve everyone equally without regard to race, sex, religion or sexual orientation, why should the state refuse to hold businesses to them? Why shouldn’t a business owner have to follow clear, published law in this regard? You might disagree with such laws, but are you actually suggesting that where such laws exist they should and can be routinely ignored as long as the lawbreaker says their religion is the basis for doing so?
posted by Doug on
Stephen doesn’t have the guts to answer your question, he just wants to whine about how the left have forced the GOP to be bad.
posted by esurience on
This is nothing more than businesses being required to follow the law. And no, that’s not a violation of individual liberty, since a business isn’t an individual. Anti-discrimination laws have existed for over 50 years now… if there was a problem in principle with them, it was time to speak up a long time ago. No complaint about their application in matters of anti-gay discrimination can be taken as genuine and principled, at least not from a conservative.
As for Obamacare… it’s regrettable that we tie health insurance to employers in the first place. It’s bad policy but the Republican Party’s recalcitrant attitude makes any other arrangement impossible, for now. We shouldn’t compound this problem by giving employer’s veto power over their employee’s health decisions.
Requiring that employer’s provide certain health coverage to employee’s is no different than a law requiring an employer to pay them for labor in the first place.
How can you think you have the mantle of “freedom” when you favor allowing employers to control such intimate decisions of their employee’s lives absolutely boggles the mind. You don’t favor freedom, Stephen H. Miller, you just want to everyone to serve a different master.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Wisconsin’s anti-discrimination law has covered sexual orientation since 1982, when a Republican governor signed the bill into law. In the 31 years since, the law has created no problems.
You can bet the farm that the minute the Court nulls Wisconsin’s anti-marriage amendment in the 2018-2020 range, Christians will suddenly discover the need for an exemption from the law as a matter of religious conscience, and the Republican Party will be carrying on about “using the power of the state to crush those who don’t toe the line”.
Need I say more?
posted by JohnInCA on
I’d be more impressed with these people’s “sincere religious beliefs” if they applied to denying service to, y’know, anyone that wasn’t gay.
But nope… you only hear about it when it’s gay people. Never any of the many other people that their “sincere religious beliefs” tells them they should hate/kill/outcast/stone/etc. Only gay people. Makes it hard to take their “sincere religious beliefs” at face value.
posted by Jorge on
“Follow the law, follow the law, follow the law”. What a load of crap. If this was ever the intent of gay marriage laws, I’m ashamed I ever supported them.
Equal means equal. Equal does not mean “I am better than you and I am going to destroy you just because I don’t like your attitude.”
The spirit of most anti-discrimination law is that there are tangible harms to discrimination that cause a disfavored group harm, especially economically or to their health or to their ability to get something. Discrimination makes it impossible for a disfavored group to get something. You can’t buy a house or get a job–I mean you can’t. Or keeping a job forces you to endure trauma due to harassment.
The spirit of actions like these is that discrimination has made gay married couples feel offended.
I simply do not believe there is or should be a right to have one’s marriage afforded an equal dignity to every other marriage when that “dignity” signifies nothing more than social approval. That is what is different here. Freedom from harassment, the freedom to attain any opportunity you desire, the right to be left alone, absolutely. The right for the impartial arm of the government to not bother you, the right for the government to treat you mundanely based on your actions and status, not irrelevant thigns, certainly.
The right to demand a florist who does not believe in gay marriage to sell you flowers for a wedding is so far removed from the purpose and intent of anti-discrimination law as to make a mockery of the entire civil rights movement.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Jorge,
As several others have noted previously, the situation in Washington state (and Oregon, etc…) is not about “gay marriage laws”.
The reason the state (the attorney general) is filing against the florist is because the florist is violating the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Not because of the state’s recognition of same sex marriages.
The florist is explicitly refusing to provide a service to a customer because the customer is gay. That discriminatory act runs counter to the state’s anti-discrimination law.
This has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Other than the fact that the florist suddenly decided to find some religious objection to a business transaction because of the customer’s sexual orientation. If the florist refused to provide flowers to a lesbian parent for Mother’s Day – because the parent was a lesbian – the legal principle would be the same.
And @ Doug – the hypocrisy you are referencing happened in Oregon. The local weekly paper contacted the bakery that had refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. (A couple that had been customers for years, btw. But when the bakery found out the couple was planning a same sex marriage, the bakery refused the customers.)
The local paper made several calls – telling the bakery they were planning a ‘divorce party’, and several other celebrations which ran counter to the baker’s christian beliefs. The baker had no problems providing everything the paper requested.
i.e., the “Christian/religious” objection was found only in the case of a same sex wedding.
posted by Don on
I have always been uncomfortable with laws forcing public accommodation to all precisely for the reason that it forces people to do something they don’t want to do. But I don’t see a way around them. One can express social condemnation of gays without denying them a job or flowers at their wedding. This isn’t an endorsement. It’s a financial transaction. The Amish disapprove of 99% of America’s “lifestyle” and yet they have no problem selling us all kinds of stuff they make. Mostly because they realize their religious life is the one they chose for themselves. And they have no desire to lobby Congress or a Legislature to compel us to give up cars and electricity. And yet, this is what populous center-right popular do every day. I bet if you asked an Amish person, they’d tell you “if only you gave up your technology and rampant consumptionist philosophy, you would be happier. You would have more time to yourself. and the world would be an easier and happier place.” They would have a good point, but still not one I would want to live by force of law. Should we legislate their lifestyle?
It is such a simple concept, and yet we get so hung up on it. Mostly because boycotts are so popular, I guess.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I suppose in Stephen & Jorge’s world, it was reverse animus when they desgregated the lunch counters… why, I mean, the humanity of it all… the state coming in and trampling all over the rights of people to refuse service to colored folk — or not rent to Jews — or removing property line restrictions…
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. Again. It is probably a very good idea — in the short term — to say that a small nonpublic business does not have to offer its services for a gay wedding if the owner has religious objections and their are other options in the gay couples community. Likewise, it is probably good idea — in the short term — not to compel the Catholic Church to pay for birth control or Catholic employees assuming that employees that want birth control can still access it.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
When Minnesota added ‘sexual orientation’ to its civil rights code back in 1993 (the first to also include gender identity protections based on how the law defines ‘sexual orientation) special exemptions were made for religious groups, youth groups and small nonpublic businesses where the owner has a religious objection.
Yes, these are more exemptions then would exist for say, race, color, religion or sex. However, these exceptions made it possible for the law to get passed and (flash forward to today) has become part of the Minnesota mainstream.
I think a similar thing needs to happen with small nonpublic wedding-related businesses (with the conditions that I have already spoken of). It will help to get same-sex marriage in more conservative-leaning States.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For what it is worth, a religious conscience exception amendment to Wisconsin’s constitution is under consideration (AR 43, SR 46). The text to be added to the constitution is:
I don’t know whether the proposed amendment will get to the people for a vote (under Wisconsin’s constitution, a constitutional amendment must pass both houses of the legislature in two consecutive two-year sessions, and be approved by referendum, a process which normally takes 4 or 5 years) but the proposed amendment has the appeal of applying equally to all laws of the state.
I don’t think much of the idea of special exemptions relating only to law relating to gays and lesbians. It seems to me that special exemptions violate our basic goal of “equal means equal”.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Religious ‘freedom’ for me, not thee.
Note that all of the strum & drang over florists who don’t abide by public accommodation laws (which, BTW, would not be having a similar ‘religious freedom exemption’ discussion if the targets were Jews, African-Americans or even veterans)… but nary a peep from Stephen, Jorge or the rest about how Indiana makes criminals of anyone who follows their faith and solomnizes a same-sex union… Even though it is permissible within that religion’s doctrine.
No minister or priest as ever been compelled to perform or recognize a marriage between people of the same sex – but a state in the U.S. has criminalized the doctrinal teachings of its citizens.
Where is the outrage at this clear violation of the First Amendment? Why does the religious tolerance argument only seem to flow towards re antigay bigots?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The legislature in Indiana has set up a near-perfect test case, if the social conservatives can find a county prosecutor stupid enough to actually try to enforce the law against, say, a rabbi “solemnizing” a same-sex marriage for religious but not civil law purposes, illustrating another core principle of our struggle: Give a social conservative enough rope …
posted by Houndentenor on
If Indiana can successfully apply this law (I’m willing to bet they can’t and won’t even try) then the opposite could occur in another state. If clergy can be fined or jailed for performing a ceremony, then why couldn’t they be fined or jailed in a different state for refusing to do so? Yes, the social conservatives really are that stupid. They can’t fathom that the separation of church and state, while hindering them from forcing their religion on others, also protects THEM. This lack of empathy and compassion for other religions and denominations who are in the minority is as baffling to me now as it was when I witnessed it as a child.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
They can’t fathom that the separation of church and state, while hindering them from forcing their religion on others, also protects THEM.
They don’t think.
A couple weeks ago, I found myself in an unwanted discussion with a fundamentalist who (after he got done telling me that Jews were unfaithful to God, that the St. James translation was the True Inspired Word of God, that Catholics and Lutherans aren’t Christians, that there were Red Thrones and White Thrones and I don’t know what else in his “I just read the Bible and don’t add anything to it” theology — in short, a half-hour’s worth of the usual tripe) was expounding that the Constitution did not preclude the states from establishing Christianity as the official religion.
When I pointed out to him that if we did establish the largest denomination as the established religion in each state, 37 states would establish the Roman Catholic Church, 2 the Church of Jesus Christ and latter day saints, 1 the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the remaining 10 the Southern Baptist Convention (the latter, at least, something that he might consider “Christian”), he started sputtering, and eventually cut off the discussion by announcing loudly that he would pray for me.
While I welcome his prayers, I wonder if he wouldn’t be better off emulating the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz and seek help finding a brain.
posted by Don on
I’ve found discussing these topics with evangelicals to be like the old skits with Gilda Radner as Emily Litella. Except they leave out the most important final line: “nevermind”
It also reminds me of the discussions I had with arch conservative family members leading up to Obama’s first election. I simply told them “I’m torn about my vote. I can’t decide if it’s because I hate America or if it’s because I hate the troops. I’m gonna have to say both.”
Now that’s my usual refrain. Why don’t you want guns in schools? I hate America. Sometimes I add that I want the troops to die. But only if they’re really, really obnoxious like that wanker over at Gay Patriot.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, because “supporting the troops” means sending them to die or come back with brain injuries and severed limbs. It means sending them into combat without body armor and underfunding the VA hospitals they need for treatment. That’s what a right-winger means by “supporting the troops”.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The pagans persecuted the Christians, and then the Christians came to power and persecuted the pagans.
Uh, actually, the Christians put a lot of effort into persecuting other Christians.
Our country’s history is testament to that fact. Massachusetts was founded by persecuted Puritans, who in turn persecuted Roger Williams for arguing in favor of religious freedom, who escaped and founded Rhode Island. Pennsylvania was founded by persecuted Quakers. Maryland was founded by persecuted Catholics. And so on. I won’t go into all the blood and tears spilled during various persecutions back and forth in Europe following the Reformation.
The United States was founded as a civil society, respecting freedom of religion and keeping church and state separated.
As Barry Goldwater put it in 1998: “By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars … Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state? We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn’t stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic.”
The Christian right, insisting that ours is a “Christian” county and demanding that their version of “Judeo-Christian values” form the basis of our laws, has forgotten our own history. We best keep our country’s history in mind.
posted by Mark F. on
I don’t believe anyone should have a “right’ to force someone to do business with them against their will. That’s the issue, it does not matter what the reason is. As a customer, do I have to give a reason why I either patronize or don’t patronize a business? No, it’s none of your business. Likewise, if somebody doesn’t want to make me a cake, that’s their decision. I don’t have a “right” to compel them to do so. All laws regarding private discrimination should be repealed.
posted by Kosh III on
Why do you wish to return to the practices of Jim Crow?
posted by Mike in Houston on
This is the usual glibertarian, free-market nonsense that only works during late night discussions playing RISK in your dorm room…
We don’t operate in a completely free market where there are endless buyers and sellers, always at parity and equilibrium, guided only by the dead hand of Adam Smith.
You have a product to sell to the public? You want to open a business? Then you operate within the legal framework – which includes public accommodation laws. Otherwise, don’t.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
Aw, shucks I seem to be rejecting both of the extremist elements that seem to be developing around private sector non-discrimination policies.
I reject the Ayn Rand/libertarian fantasy that all such laws (private sector equal opportunity/nondiscrimination laws) violate ‘associative’ or ‘property’ rights. This is not something that the philosophy is quite as open about when its doing the sales pitch, but is one of the more odious things about the philosophy.
However, I also believe that forcing a small business owner to provide his or her services for a gay wedding (when their are other alternatives) is stupid, silly and short-sighted.
Civil rights laws should exist and they should certainly cover ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’, but their also has to be some exceptions when sexual orientation and gender identity are involved. Just as I believe that the BSOA should set its own internal policy, even I opposed the ban on gay Scouts and I still oppose the ban on gay Scout masters.
To put it another way, let us suppose that a Church is in the path of a Federal highway project. What to do? Tear down the church? Force it to move? What?
Ayn Rand and her libertarian friends would say ‘See, this proves that the government cannot have a transportation policy and we should privatize every road and sidewalk.’ Some folks on the left would say, “The church is in the way and needs to be relocated or moved, where it can still be a church’.
I would suggest that the government change the highway route to go around the church…..
don’t believe anyone should have a “right’ to force someone to do business with them against their will. That’s the issue, it does not matter what the reason is. As a customer, do I have to give a reason why I either patronize or don’t patronize a business? No, it’s none of your business. Likewise, if somebody doesn’t want to make me a cake, that’s their decision. I don’t have a “right” to compel them to do so. All laws regarding private discrimination should be repealed. – See more at: https://igfculturewatch.com/2013/07/06/the-ugliness-of-reverse-animus/#comments
posted by Houndentenor on
My parents are old enough to remember segregation. By the logic we get from many on the right (and no I don’t think they believe this because they are racist), eventually businesses would have come around to serving African American customers because of public pressure. The problem is that in many of these communities, the public pressure would have been against the businesses that served African Americans, not the other way around. Sorry, but if we had done things the libertarian/anarchist way, the south would still be segregated in non-government public accommodations. To this day in many areas. I think a lot of people will disagree because they never spent any time in the rural south (or midwest or other parts of the country…we shouldn’t always and only pick on the south. Racism existed/exists elsewhere too).
All that said, this isn’t 1964 and gay people do not face the exact same prejudices that African Americans did. There are similarities but also differences. In most towns there will be someone happy to provide food, flowers, music and other services for gay weddings. Some are gay friendly and others just don’t give a crap because business is business. Let me make this clear, I don’t want to twist a bigot’s arm to take my money. I don’t want them to HAVE my money. I’ll give my money to someone else. So I think in this case the libertarians/anarchists have a point. If people are so bigoted that they’d rather do without customers to avoid “approving” of something they think is wrong, then let them go bankrupt.
And that brings us to the real issue on so many fronts. People think their “approval” of other people’s personal choices matters to anyone besides other bigots. I don’t need their approval. I didn’t ask for it. I don’t care. I do care when the state discriminates against me. I’d rather have a wedding with no flowers than give a bigoted florist my money.
And that brings us to what is going to be the real issue. The Anti-gay organizations are trying to find a clerk in a state with gay marriage to refuse to give a couple a license. They will find someone and they will try to make that person out to be a martyr. That’s going to be the big fight. Flowers really aren’t the big issue.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Anti-discrimination laws typically cover sex, race, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.
So long as the “religious conscience” exemption applies equally to all of the categories covered by the law on an equal footing, the “equal means equal” test is met. If sexual orientation is carved out as a special case, and treated differently from the others, then the “equal means equal” test is not met.
I think that reasonable people can differ about the wisdom and efficacy of anti-discrimination laws. But I strongly object to carving out a special exemption for same-sex marriages, which is what has been happening in states around the country.
The reason I object is that I cannot find a rational basis on which a “religious conscience” exemption applicable to marriage between gay and lesbian couples differs from a “religious conscience” exemption to marriage between and interracial couple, or a remarriage after a divorce, or an interfaith marriage.
With respect to public accommodations and other anti-discrimination laws in general, it seems to me that the same “equal means equal” concern applies. If “religious conscience” is a exemption with respect to one category, it should be an exemption with respect to all. I cannot find a rational basis on which to distinguish between an employer who objects to homosexuality on religious grounds and an employer who objects to women working outside the home on religious grounds.
Looking more broadly, it has been widely reported that NOM and other conservative Christian groups have internally acknowledged that they are losing the fight over marriage equality, and will now turn their focus to obtaining broad religious exemption laws.
I don’t know if it is directly connected (it would seem so, because the sponsors are religious conservatives), but “right of conscience” exemption constitutional amendment has been proposed (AR 43, SR 46) in Wisconsin, and is under consideration. The text to be added to the constitution is:
I don’t know whether the proposed amendment will get to the people for a vote (under Wisconsin’s constitution, a constitutional amendment must pass both houses of the legislature in two consecutive two-year sessions, and be approved by referendum, a process which normally takes 4 or 5 years) but the proposed amendment meets the “equal means equal” test.
If broad-scale “personal conscience” exemption laws and/or constitutional amendments are the direction in which we are headed, then, at least, we can begin to have a national discussion about the proper scope and boundaries of personal conscience (including religious conscience) exemptions to our laws.
That discussion is worth having, it seems to me. Confining the discussion to the scope of personal conscience objections to same-sex marriages, on the other hand, is not worth having in my view.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I think that a similar ‘religious freedom’ law was proposed to the voters in North Dakota a while back. Did not win and probably because the right-wing already runs the State anyways.
This one in Wisconsin seems to be similar to the one in North Dakota — text wise — and I kept thinking in reading the ND one how this would probably be really, really fun to watch unfold (for reasons beyond LGBT issues).
Although, this ‘religious liberty’ amendment could very well lead to gay marriage. If you read the text, you do not have to be a genius to figure out how such a court case could go.
But beyond gay marriage, I kept thinking (as a legal studies undergrad) about people using this amendment to challenge laws against drugs and prostitution (for example)….