I'd like to add to what Jonathan has written below, on allowing religious people "conscientious-objector status" when it comes to requiring actions that affirm the equality of same-sex unions.
Almost all gay people, I'd say, want to be treated equally by the government, with the same rights and responsibilities as all citizens. That includes the right to marry (even if they choose not to marrry) and, for most, the right to serve in the military (even if they would choose not to do so).
Some gay people, however, don't merely want equal treatment by the state. They want to use the state against those who, based on deeply felt religious belief, do not want to offer their services to same-sex marriage or civil union ceremonies, as Jonathan describes below.
That's called progressivism, but others would say it's engaging in a legal vendetta against those who hold religious convictions that run counter to the principles of gay equality.
Another example that has garnered much publicity is from Canada, where an anti-gay pastor is appealing his conviction for writing a letter to a local paper that was found to defame gay people (who were compared to pedophiles and drug dealers), and thus to have contributed to a climate that fosters anti-gay violence.
The U.S. religious right is having a field day with this action in Alberta, charging that it's a reason to oppose measures such as the proposed federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act. And that, in turn, has led some supporters of gay nondiscrimination to defend the Alberta ruling, holding that speech that incites ill will should be banned.
But that is indeed a slippery slope, and one that runs counter to the right to express unpopular, and indeed ugly, opinions - a principle once defended by liberals.
More. Dale Carpenter, writing over at The Volokh Conspiracy, shares his thoughts on religious liberty and same-sex marriage. Excerpt:
Religious freedom is a first and founding principle of this country. I think religious accommodation to private persons and organizations should be generously provided, even where not required by the Constitution. At the very least, accommodation should be made where it can be offered without harming the protected class. For that reason, I think an exemption should have been offered in several of the cases cited in the NPR report....
While I'd be generous about accommodating the religious objections of private persons, I am very wary of introducing a system of exemption for public officers serving the public with taxpayers' money.
28 Comments for “Gay Rights v. Religious Liberty? Pt. II”
posted by Daniel on
Actually, it’s worth noting that one of the most famous liberals, the 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, said in On Liberty that all speech should be defended excepting that which incited others to do harm – since the pastor in Alberta’s speech is accused of having “contributed to a climate that fosters anti-gay violence”, it isn’t something those liberals would have defended, because it does do personal harm, interfering rather extensively in a whole other set of personal freedoms.
posted by avee on
Better be careful, Daniel. If holding that gays are engaging in immoral behavior can be deemed as contributing to violence (rememeber, we’re talking about expressing an OPINION here about gays’ behavior, not an actual call to take violent action), then if the times should change just a bit, folks who criticize the religious right — often in colorfully hateful language — also could be deemed to have expressed views that can be framed as "inciting violence."
posted by grendel on
you’re right that much hysteria has surrounded the event, which is why accuracy is important when talking about it. The anti-gay pastor is not appealing his “conviction” because there was no conviction. The Human Rights Commission is not a court and has no criminal jurisdiction. It didn’t convict him of anything. It made a ruling that he had violated certain provisions of the Human Rights Act. The difference may not seem important, but it is. “Conviction” implies the possibility of criminal penalties, like incarceration. The HRA has no authority to impose anything of the sort.
And it is worthwhile to note that a gay teen was attacked shortly after the letter was published and the commission found a causal link between the attack and the letter.
Finally, despite all this hysteria about the death of free speech in the great white north, I think there is at least a 50/50 chance the most problematic parts of the human rights act (sec. 13 I think, the section that bans hate speech) is likely to be ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on sec. 13 already. It upheld the ban on hate speech, but only so long as hate speech is very narrowly defined. I suspect courts are going to find various human rights commissions have been giving the sec. too broad a reading. My hunch is this whole thing is going to play out like it did in Sweden, remember where the right made a big deal of a pastor being convicted for inciting hatred against gays in a sermon? (a crime in Sweden) In the end, the conviction was overturned. link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4477502.stm
(As an aside I note the linked to article says the Alberta pastor will likely appeal sometime in the next 12 months — gee no great rush on his part I guess to vindicate himself. My guess is he and his supporters want to drag this out as long as they can. They couldn’t have invented a better cash cow if they had tried and are going to milk it for all they can)
posted by Richard on
I would question if such behavior is really ‘progressive’, given the high value such a person should place on religious liberty.
The key point is where should the line be drawn? and How will that impact the notion of equal government treatment if no government employees are around to do their job. If a city clerk does not approve of interracial marriages should they be given a similar exemption?
posted by another steve on
grendel, the pastor was fined — and ordered to apologize for holding a particular set of beliefs. I’m glad he’s appealing. Mincing words about it not being a "conviction" because it’s a penalty from an adminmistrative agency rather than a court isn’t particularly relevant.
I’m sorry a gay teen was attacked after the letter was published. Sadly, gay teens are often attacked. There was no proof given that the attackers had either read or been influence by the letter. The Human Rights Commission reached greatly in deciding that the opinions expressed contributed to a climate that fosters anti-gay violence.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, I agree with much of what you and Jonathan have written on this topic as a cautionary note for the long-term interests of gay social progress.
But I have to ask, when did the privilege of getting married become a “right”?
Similarly, when did the privilege to serve in our military become a “right”?
As a writer, you know words matter. In America, no one has a “right” to serve in the military nor hold an elective office nor work for the federal govt nor serve as a firefighter, police officer or EMT.
Employment isn’t a right. Serving in the military in a manner that is inconsistent with military standards is not a right.
Getting married is not a right. Do gays have a right to equal protection and equal access to benefits that flow to married people? Not unless the legislative bodies, courts or executive branches mandate them.
Getting married isn’t a right. Stretching equal protection arguments won’t make it a right in the minds of an overwhelming majority of Americans (71% who oppose gay marriage) and it will prevent us from progress on real, substantial reform that will benefit all gays -not just the minority in our community seeking a marriage certificate.
Serving in the military in an openly gay manner isn’t a right. Serving in the military is an honor and privilege. For some, it is a duty. But it isn’t a right.
Words matter and although it might be compelling to extend “right” to things like marriage and military service, but they aren’t rights for anyone. For a-n-y-o-n-e.
In fact, we -as a society- ought to be working a lot harder to reduce the 8-9% divorce rates that afflict our society rather than expanding marriage.
posted by Tom Chatt on
Stephen, I think you’re conflating two different issues here. Jonathan was talking about the thorny problems of conflict between religious liberty and equal protection. You seemed to start out that way, but then jumped onto a different track in talking about the “right” not to be offended, and Canada’s embarrassing lack of free speech protections. Here in the US, I think we’re still pretty clear on freedom of speech (and hope it remains so). But the “right to be treated equally” will be a tricky one for us.
posted by Bill from FL on
Doesn’t this Canadian case fall under the sort of laws against “inciting racial hatred” or holocaust denial, and stuff like that? I would be curious to see the pastor’s own words!
posted by another steve on
From the news story Stephen lined to: “The May 30 order states that Boissoin and the coalition must stop publishing in all forms of media any “disparaging remarks” about homosexuals.”
That’s a far cry from “inciting racial hatred.” When the state forbids citizens from saying they think homosexuality is immoral, then all freedom of expression is at risk.
posted by Bobby on
What progressives don’t realize is that by persecuting homophobes they’re actually empowering them, they’re making them heroes, they’re helping them get sympathizers, they’re turning people who don’t care about gays one way or the other into anti-gay activists.
posted by dalea on
Is the point here all religious views about others or just about gays? If the latter, I have a problem. If we are to accept religious statements and grant them great leeway, then let us do it for all minorities. There are deeply religious people whose faith has strong injunctions against dealing with black or Jewish people. Or Catholics. Or, on and on. Are you truly arguing that a gas station owner can put up a sign saying no sales to Jews and that should be accomodated? Or that a restaurant can refuse service to blacks? Find myself puzzled here. According to sincere believers the Bible has over 70 verses commanding segregation, 10 times as many as deal with gay people. Where do you draw the line?
posted by Zeke on
Sorry Michigan-Matt but I’m afraid that the Supreme Court of the United States of America shot one of your arguments in the foot in 1967. According to them, and backed up by forty one years of state and federal laws that acknowledge the precedent of the CIVIL RIGHT to marriage set by the ruling
In the majority opinion on the Loving v. Virginia, 1967 Chief Justice Warren wrote:
?Marriage is one of the “BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS OF MAN,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.? [EMPHASIS mine]
This is now unquestioned and unchallenged legal precedent.
I suggest you read the entire ruling and apply the exact same statutory and constitutional arguments that they make to the current legal battle for recognition of same-sex marriage.
You can find the entire opinion here:
http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp
posted by Zeke on
Somehow I get the impression that if the issue were reversed and we were talking about a gay person being harrassed or arrested for giving a hate speech to a crowd against Christians or sending out flyers that made false and hateful claims about the Christian faith and called for its removal from society, some of you would be the first to come here, and go to WorldNetDaily and some of the other fundamentalist sites and demand that the homos be prosecuted.
Some of you guys really act as if being gay is a choice but people are born Christian and that Christians should be a protected class (especially against gays) whereas gay should not be protected (especially from Christians).
You all DO realize that Christians are ALREADY protected under the anti-discrimination laws that some of you find so inappropriate to apply to gays. You DO realize that under the current system Christians have MUCH more legal protection from gay people than gay people have from Christians and that’s a bit ironic considering I’ve NEVER heard of a case where a Christian was Jesus-bashed by a gay person for being gay yet I’ve heard of countless cases of people beating and even killing a gay person and testifying that they did it because their religion beliefs.
How do you guys possibly ignore these facts when you get onto yet another one of your “evil, pushy, selfish gays” versus “poor, innocent, good Christians” discussions?
Michigan-Matt, are there any other minorities that are American citizens that you support excluding from certain American institutions, laws, protections and parts of the American Dream or is it just gay citizens that you feel should settle for being second class and being excluded from any or all these things? You really seem to relish the idea that gay people are excluded from marriage, denied the opportunity to serve honestly in the military and/or denied employment or fired for no other reason than being gay. I honestly don’t understand that.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Zeke, I have absolutely no problem with gays being able to serve in the military. But it isn’t a right, as StephenMiller suggests above. “Honest” in your book means unequal and preferential treatment for gays in the military… you want the military code adapted to suit the special needs of gay service personnel… in my book it means being truthful –and if a gay soldier can’t abide by DADT, then they need to leave the military and serve our country in another capacity. But they don’t have a “right” to be gay in the military.
I would argue to you that we should all be against reverse discrimination and preferential treatment based on sex, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation and other attributes because, just like any form of discrimination based on those immutable traits, reverse discrimination is wrong. Do you think gays deserve the sanction of marriage just because heteros have it? Of course you do. Frankly, I think gays should be FIRST focused on securing partner benefits that accrue to married couples and leave the “marriage” brass ring for later battles… by grabbing for it now, we’re alienating the voters and politicians we desperately need to gain those partner benefits. We’re tossing the baby out with the bathwater. And frankly, as a partnered spouse and father of two, what society needs to focus on is lowering the divorce rate, stengthening marriage as a institution, weeding out those who are serial wedders.
What would you think if, I, as a gay father, said that the #1 issue wasn’t gay marriage, wasn’t repealing DADT, wasn’t EDNA but was making sure that gay couples could adopt and tripling the kiddie tax credits? You’d probably say… whoa, there… that’s your speical issue and special interest in the gay community but it’s only shared by a minority of us here.
Right, just like I think gay marriage is a minority issue within our ranks. And repealing DADT is even more remote an issue… and EDNA is more remote yet.
It’s that the gayLeft has set out agenda and locked us into the political slavery with Democrats… civil unions and partner benefits help a larger segment of gays… that should be priority #1… not chasing after the brass ring of gay marriage.
But I’m still trying to figure out why you and others on the gayLeft can assault religion with joyous batterings and then, when a target of unwarranted attack yourself, you scream “Pity the Victim, We Need Special Protections”?
If you ask most conservative Christians, they’d quickly tell you that gays have been long battering institutions in our society, undercutting our moral foundations and loosening the fabric of our culture… the aggressive, gayLeft agenda is responsible for the backlash in 46 states who now have strongly worded CONSTITUTIONAL amendments or laws recognizing 1man+1woman marriage and effectively thwarting any effort to secure partner benefits in those states.
I really don’t understand why you think being gay necessarily means we all have to be against religion?
The thread is about religious liberty of the many encroached upon by gayLeft activists of the few… but you try to turn it into a PityParty.
We all, you included Zeke, ought to be against anything that errodes religious liberty and anything that engages reverse discrimination. Right?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Somehow I get the impression that if the issue were reversed and we were talking about a gay person being harrassed or arrested for giving a hate speech to a crowd against Christians or sending out flyers that made false and hateful claims about the Christian faith and called for its removal from society
It would have happened by now, I assure you.
Some of you guys really act as if being gay is a choice but people are born Christian and that Christians should be a protected class (especially against gays) whereas gay should not be protected (especially from Christians).
Anti-discrimination laws against religious belief are rooted, not in any particular specialness of Christians, but in the fact that the Constitution specifically and explicitly bans discrimination against people based on their religious belief.
In contrast, there are exactly zero in the way of provisions in the Constitution against discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. You are perfectly free to call heterosexuals “breeders” or other names, rail against them, and fire them from their jobs for being heterosexual.
and that’s a bit ironic considering I’ve NEVER heard of a case where a Christian was Jesus-bashed by a gay person for being gay
Google “ACT UP” and “St. Patrick’s Cathedral” and you might learn something.
You really seem to relish the idea that gay people are excluded from marriage, denied the opportunity to serve honestly in the military and/or denied employment or fired for no other reason than being gay.
So what? Heterosexuals can be fired for being heterosexual, not everyone is allowed to serve in the military, often for reasons outside their control, and people are routinely denied the right to marry the person(s) with which they want to have sex.
posted by bls on
“Google “ACT UP” and “St. Patrick’s Cathedral” and you might learn something.”
I did this. What were we supposed to learn? I didn’t see anything at all about physical violence.
We do know, though, that gay people are physically assaulted (and worse) all the time for being gay.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
bls offers: “We do know, though, that gay people are physically assaulted (and worse) all the time for being gay”.
Last month, here in Michigan, the newspaper and blogland headlines were all a’titters about the exponential increase in violent crimes against gays in 2007… and it was a 3-day spin cycle with a full load of bullsh*t and no rinse.
Question: Who tracked these incidents?
Answer: Michigan’s gay activist groups.
Question: What were the violent crimes?
Answer: While they did include physical violence, they also included incidents where anti-gay’ish words were painted under railroad overpasses, letters to the editors railed against same sex marriage and even 1st grade playground taunts from kids reported via the schools… among other equally silly “crimes against gays”.
Question: Who were reporting these “crimes”?
Answer: Victims were reporting them, third and fourth parties removed who heard about them were reporting them, newspaper articles were sources –and all of them without a single call to law enforcement officials to seek validation. Anyone, without any credible checking, could report a “crime against gays” and get it in the count.
Question: Guess who released the report and provided “independent” analysis of the report’s findings?
Answer: Gay rights groups who released the report and those who took out full page ads for 11 months in alternate newspapers begging gays to report “everything, anything, even rumors and we’ll check it out” -that line from the 2007 ad that ran in the Michigan Chronicle.
The MSM bought it all hook, line and sinker. The gayLeft activists used it to press for greater enshrinement in the Hall of Victims… and the public got hosed.
Yeah, bls, everyone knows that gays are getting bashed everywhere, everyday, by millions of Christianist radicals. You stick with that because, after all, it’s a statistical fact!
By the way, bls, did you know that the majority of crimes against gays reported by gays in a 9 state study in 2006 were gays physically abusing their gay lovers, friends and one-nite-stands?
Hmmmmm
posted by HUH? on
WHAT? Oh…just delusional right-wing queers pissing in the wind. Carry on.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Huh is really more an uninformed “DUH”: short on facts, short on reason, tight on three snaps dismissals. Except, in this case, the normal human trait of having an opposing thumb is absent.
Honey, you need to get a new act… nothing delusional about the truth.
posted by Richard on
Nope. The United States Constitution only prohibits religious discrimination by the government itself, or, depending on how you read it, only the federal government.
Civil rights laws that apply to the private sector have little to do with Constitutional rights for due process, equal protection or even civil liberties.
They are an attempt to secure some measure of equal opportunity in important matters. While ‘religion’ in a civil right law has to apply to everyone, in the 1960s the primarily frame of reference was addressing discrimination against Catholics and Jews.
Federal and State Civil rights laws are, generally, constitutional. Things get fuzzy as such a law applies to voluntary civic groups (i.e. BSOA), political or faith based organizations.
It is certainly possible that a gay person would target another person for violence, because of their religious or political beliefs.
But it is more common for a minority to be targeted for discrimination, harassment or bias motivated violence from the majority.
Military service is not a right per se, and the USSC prefers to ignore the gays in the military issue, but the ban is stupid, irrational and without merit.
posted by b;s on
Whatever you say, Matt. If you want to pretend it’s all an “MSM” conspiracy, that’s your business.
It’s interesting that the police seem to be in on this, in some cases, though. And that 13-year-old kids acknowledge it in other cases. There’s even a legal defense that tacitly acknowledges a certain pattern.
Political leaders seem to feel safe using death threats against gay people, and gay people have, in fact, been murdered in some countries.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I could add literally hundreds more links here; so could most people reading this, I’m sure. But I know it won’t make a dent, in the light of the political correctness that must be upheld. I know that what really counts is bashing the “left” at all costs.
BTW, I’m still waiting to hear what happened at St. Patrick’s Cathedral…..
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, BLS, you provide an excellent example of the credibility problems of the gay left on this issue.
For example, you state that the police are “in on this” in one of your articles. Where in your article does it prove that? Call out exactly where it proves that police are assisting in gay bashings in that article.
Furthermore, the existence of a legal defense — especially one that didn’t work — does not mean anything. Using that logic, we can assume that liberals like you all lie because Bill Clinton claimed he had to lie as a legal defense.
What this all adds up to is a bunch of leftist gays who are attempting to prove how persecuted they are. If you were really interested in stopping the one thing that actually harms, injures and kills the most gay men annually, you’d attack promiscuous sex and gay irresponsibility.
But, since that has no antireligious or political value, and in fact calls into question your entire theory that gays never do anything wrong and are just helpless victims, you ignore it.
posted by bls on
If you read the article, North Dallas 30, you will find this paragraph:
“The 21-year-old Santa Fe man who police say was savagely beaten in a gay-bashing incident last weekend is clinging to life in critical condition, a family spokeswoman said Wednesday.”
IOW, it’s hardly the “MSM” at work here, although I realize that’s convenient political rhetoric.
As for the rest: I’m religious myself, and not a “leftist,” so most of what you say above is actually quite absurd. (As I said, I do realize that political correctness on IGF requires “leftist”-bashing – and I realize, too, that that goes whether or not there’s any truth to what’s being said or not.)
This thread isn’t about “gay promiscuity”; the topic is violence against gay people. I don’t know anything much about gay promiscuity first-hand, I’m afraid. All the gay people, both men and women, that I know are partnered and monogamous and/or celibate.
Is this all to avoid actually having to answer for your statement about St. Patrick’s Cathedral, BTW? Just curious.
posted by bls on
(And BTW, exactly what “entire theory that gays never do anything wrong and are just helpless victims” are you talking about?
Call out exactly where I’ve said anything remotely like this. Please. I’d be very interested to see that in black and white.
Sheesh. This stuff gets so old.)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Well, BLS, as Matt pointed out above, gay and lesbian liberals define “violent crimes” as including any sort of verbal abuse, vandalism, or space encroachment.
Now shall we talk about St. Patrick’s Cathedral?
Meanwhile, I live in a city where gang beatings are more than a bit common. I see ones in which a gay person is beat up as being no different than that where another person is beat up; in both cases, people are showing a shocking disregard for human life.
But the problem here is that leftist gays only care about the former, not the latter, because the issue is not the physical violence; it’s whether or not, as in the Canada case, leftist gays can exploit the physical violence for use against Christians, religious people, and other people they don’t particularly like.
If you want to cut down on physical violence against gays, crack down on all crimes. Don’t play favorites.
posted by Richard on
It would seem gay partisans — liberals and conservatives — care more about scoring partisan points then gay rights.
Once again, the Independent tells the truth. 😉 But will the gay partisans listen?
Offensive, even hateful, speech is protected (in the USA) as long as it is not obscenity, lible, slander, or fighting words.
Freedom of speech does not meaen a righbt to commit crimes against other persons or their property.
Freedom of speech means something different in different nations, because they have different histories. laws and constitutions.
In the United States criminal justice system, motiviation does matter in determing what a defendent is initially charged with. It can also impact sentecning.
posted by Jared on
John Stuart Mill, said in On Liberty that all speech should be defended excepting that which incited others to do harm
Very good point.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard declares from the throne “It would seem gay partisans — liberals and conservatives — care more about scoring partisan points then gay rights. Once again, the Independent tells the truth. 😉 But will the gay partisans listen?”
Much like CharlesWilson before you, Richard, you have a one-note mantra… partisan gays are bad, unaligned gay independents are good (or, in your case, a gayDemocrat hiding behind the label “independent”).
You really need to work on that schtick… it’s not convincing anymore except to the wayward, once-in-a-while IGF reader.