The Progressive Death of Religious Liberty


When basic constitutional rights conflict, as they often do, it’s vital to work out common-sense accomodations. Historically, civil rights laws have allowed for these, based on evidence of deeply held moral or religious beliefs. Using the power of the state to force a devout women to violate her beliefs by engaging in expressive activity to support same-sex marriage, and, in fact, advocating the repeal of religious and conscious protections, is the extremist position that progressive LGBTQ+ activists have embraced. Rights for we, but not for thee, is their position.

10 Comments for “The Progressive Death of Religious Liberty”

  1. posted by Gerry M. on

    Whether couple could ‘easily” find another florist selling the very same stems is beside the point. They were members of the public seeking to make a purchase at a public accommodation. Thus, they had every right to make that purchase without navigating the religious beliefs of the owner. Washington decided that it prefers not to turn shopping and commerce into a minefield of racial, ethnic and religious discrimination, so it protects consumers. If Stutzman doesn’t like this, she has every right to organize like-minded citizens to change the law. She has never made any effort to do so. Also, the couple did get their stems elsewhere and did not seek to force Stutzman to take any action. They sought a small amount in damages. Do basic research on the case before posting.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Whether couple could ‘easily” find another florist selling the very same stems is beside the point.

      It is the point.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Gerry M: Whether couple could ‘easily” find another florist selling the very same stems is beside the point.

      Jorge: It is the point.

      Are you suggesting that Stutzman should be able to act on the central tenet of her Christian faith if a customer could easily find an alternative supplier, but should not be able to act on that tenet if a customer could not easily find an alternative supplier? If not, what in the hell do you mean?

      Reply
    • posted by agee on

      Gerry M.: “…the couple…did not seek to force Stutzman to take any action. They sought a small amount in damages. Do basic research on the case before posting.”

      Pure sophistry! The point of inflicting financial penalties on Stutzman is to force her to comply with the law, and if she persists in her refusal and the fines continue, she’ll go out of business.

      Reply
  2. posted by Kosh III on

    “Easily” find another? Yes, if, like the author, one lives in a safe blue city. But not every one has an option.
    I grew up in a tiny Appalachian town, one florist. The next florist was 20+ miles away.. Not “easily.”
    As Gerry said, it’s irrelevant.

    Reply
  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Taking Stutzman and Fulton together, it seems clear that the Supreme Court has no interest in overturning Employment Division at this time. I think that is a good thing, although I don’t have any illusions about the long-term survival of Justice Scalia’s reasoning in Employment Division.

    The irony is that the much-derided Warren Court (Sherbert and Yoder) established established a broad constitutional standard with respect to free exercise, only to see Justice Scalia snatch that away in Employment Division, leading to the current battle among conservatives to reestablish Sherbet/Yoder as the constitutional standard.

    Legal historians will eventually document how cultural conservatives have flipped, flopped and thrashed around on the question over the last 40 years, having now reached the point that Justice Scalia’s constitutional reasoning in Employment Division is anathema.
    As for Stutzman in particular, I’m hoping that we’ve seen the last of conservative Christian craziness on supposed conflict between public accommodations laws and free exercise among bakers, florists, photographers and other wedding suppliers.

    While I have no doubt that Barronelle Stutzman is entirely sincere in her conviction that she will suffer eternal damnation if she sells a flower arrangement for a same-sex wedding, there don’t seem to be many more cases of this sort in the pipeline. I doubt that we will see the Supreme Court deal with that issue again. It always was a nonsense issue and it is about time that it comes to an end.

    Reply
    • posted by agee on

      You have a rather crimped view of religious faith if you think that Stutzman’s refusal to make the arrangement can be reduced to “fear of eternal damnation.” She does not want to be complicit in sinful behavior, based on the tenets of her faith. She believes it is in the gay men’s best interest that she not help to promote sinful behavior. It is not hate, and it is not fear.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      She believes it is in the gay men’s best interest that she not help to promote sinful behavior

      I might buy that nonsense — the same way that I buy Tony Perkins’ insistence that he opposes equal treatment under the law for gays and lesbians because he loves us as Christ loves us — except for the fact that Stutzman is very selective about her attempts to “not promote sinful behavior”.

      In the state-level hearings it became clear that she provides flower arrangements for straight couples remarrying after divorce. Either she doesn’t care to help straights avoid sinful behavior or she doesn’t care about Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12 or Luke 16:18. Mayne both.

      Stutzman reeks of hypocrisy, as do conservative Christians in general when it comes to matters gay, lesbian and transgender.

      Reply
  4. posted by Kosh III on

    agee says “She believes it is in the gay men’s best interest that she not help to promote sinful behavior.”

    I’ve often heard that patronizing, arrogant and offensive lie by avowed Christians. Trying to “save” them by harming them. It’s still garbage.

    Reply

Leave a Comment