IGF CultureWatch

[Note: Due to a server/software problem, recent postings had disappeared from the site for a few days and we were unable to update, The problem has been fixed and the site updated. IGF appreciates its volunteer support.]

In not quite breaking news, GOP remains at odds with LGBT Americans, Raymond Buckley, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, writes that:

“It’s been a year since the Republican Party pledged to be more inclusive, but all it has done is highlight that the GOP continues to stand at odds with the values and priorities of LGBT Americans.”

Buckley’s op-ed in the Washington Blade was perhaps a sop to counter-balance the Blade‘s running a profile of Dan Innis, the openly gay Republican candidate for Congress in New Hampshire. But it’s interesting that the Wall Street Journal, on the same date, ran GOP Wrestles With Its Stance on Gay Marriage (subscriber firewall), noting:

But in a half-dozen state legislatures controlled by the GOP, bills allowing businesses to refuse services for gay weddings are dead or on hold. In Illinois, three Republicans who voted to allow gay marriage in their state won primaries this month, despite opposition from social conservatives, preliminary results showed. … As candidates, both Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez opposed gay marriage. Recently, they said they wouldn’t fight court decisions in their states. … In Massachusetts, former state Sen. Richard Tisei introduced his husband at a speech this month and then accused the Republican Party of being “stuck in the 19th century” for not supporting marriage rights for gays. Carl DeMaio, a former San Diego city councilor now running for a House seat, ran a TV ad that includes footage of him holding hands with his male partner.

Small steps, to be sure. But Buckley’s assertion that the GOP has and will do nothing to evolve its position is partisan hackery that seeks the objective (the GOP remaining as anti-gay as it’s ever been) that it appears to be condemning. [Added: Yes, those who seek to defeat openly gay GOP candidates such as Innis are working to ensure that the GOP doesn’t change.]

More. And those who say social conservatives will not let the GOP change don’t see that religious right traditionalists are already moving to accept their defeat as they negotiate the terms of surrender (that’s not original to me; it’s been on the blogosphere but it’s a good line). As the Washington Examiner takes note, prominent “family values” advocates’:

fallback position — there’s no other way to describe it — is to insist that once the marriage fight is lost, the beliefs of Americans who oppose homosexual marriage on religious grounds be respected. … [The position of Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention] fits perfectly with a recent assessment by the Washington Examiner‘s Tim Carney: “Conservatives see religious liberty arguments as the last redoubt in the culture war: You guys won your gay marriages, permissive abortion laws, taxpayer-subsidized birth control, and divorce-on-demand; let us just live our lives according to our own consciences.”

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Hobby Lobby vs. Sebelius, on whether business owners can be mandated by the Affordable Care Act to pay for employees’ contraceptives that involve abortifacients such as the “morning after” bill, which take effect after fertilization and are viewed by the business owners as a form of abortion. The Obama administration has steadfastly refused to allow limited religious exemptions for business owners in this dicey area.

The New York Times reports:

“The questioning was sometimes technical but often unusually blunt and direct…. By the end of the argument, there seemed to be a tentative consensus that the two companies, both controlled by religious families, could be allowed to claim rights under the relevant law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, without opening the floodgates to objections from major public corporations.”

Scotusblog observed:

“Chief Justice Roberts wondered why, if a corporation could bring a claim of race discrimination, why couldn’t it bring a claim of religious discrimination? And, seeming to look for a way to rule narrowly for corporations, he suggested that the case might be decided by finding such protection only for corporations that are owned by a tightly limited group of shareholders.”

The upcoming ruling will impact cases heading toward the high court dealing with the right of religiously conservative small business owners to refuse assignments that involve servicing same-sex weddings, particularly expressive services such as creating floral arrangements or designing cakes with two grooms or brides atop. Progressives argue against religious exemptions here as well, citing the beloved slippery slope (first we fail to compel business owners to provide a service they feel violates their faith, next we’ll have anti-gay segregation).

Also on display at the Court during the contraception case arguments, the fear that allowing individuals to make faith-based choices will erode centralized authority: “So one religious group could opt out of this and another religious group could opt out of that and everything would be piecemeal and nothing would be uniform,” liberal Justice Elena Kagan fretted.

But other justices noted the difference between a small, independent business and large corporations. Ultimately, resolving the issue of self-employed florists and bakers might involve making a similar distinction.

From The Atlantic, Republicans Are Driving the Momentum for Gay Marriage: “From politicians and donors to the party rank and file, a change of heart in the GOP is a major factor in the issue’s increasing public acceptance.”

The headline might overstate things a bit, but there is a definite change in the grassroots. As I’ve said before, the party is no longer monotone on the issue (unlike the carping of LGBT Democrats who might have nothing to get them up in the morning if not their hatred of all things Republican).

Speaking of which, the level of Democratic mendacity in the party’s attacks on openly gay GOP congressional candidate Carl DeMaio is reaching new heights, which is hopefully a sign of desperation. I’ve written about DeMaio often before, most recently in Gay Republicans Who Might Win Drive LGBT Democrats Berserk.

A hat tip to Walter Olson, who pointed me to this development at World Vision International, the evangelical overseas charity, announcing it will now hire Christians in same-sex marriages (but expects all unmarried employees to abstain from sex outside of marriage).

Walter noted it’s a sign that same-sex marriage is rapidly being integrated into sectors of American culture heretofore unrelentingly resistant. Progressive secularists will scuff and demean this change among those they view as benighted, but those of us who want equal treatment, and not to force our worldview on others, should cheer.

More. Rachel Held Evans writes On the World Vision Reaction: Some Bad News, Some Good News, and Some Ideas:

The good news—and I want those of you who are discouraged to hear this—is that things are changing. As loud as these legalistic voices may seem right now, you will notice that they are often the same voices, over and over again. What I hear every day on the road and in my office is something different. It’s a freedom song, and it’s coming from thousands of pastors, writers, parents, teachers, and Christ-followers from all walks of life from all around the country and world. My desk is cluttered with books arguing for a more compassionate and inclusive way forward. Where I once scoured the internet for articles in support of women’s equality and LGBT equality, they are now plentiful, overwhelming. Letters detailing changed hearts and minds clog up my inbox. Things are changing. Hearts are softening. People are listening to their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and engaging Scripture in fresh, yet faithful, ways.

Furthermore. World Vision reversed its decision after an uproar for the religious literalist establishment. But you can’t hold back the changing attitudes among younger evangelicals; you can only delay the inevitable.

A GOP strategist wed his partner in one of Michigan’s first same-sex marriages, notes MLive.com, which also reports “Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1988 appointed U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, who on Friday struck down Michigan’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.”

Alas, but as expected, the ruling has now been stayed pending appeal.

Loyal Democrats will soon comment that Michigan’s GOP Gov. Rick Snyder and Attorney General Bill Schuette are leading the appeal. But the GOP is no longer monotone, as disturbing as that prospect is to ideological partisans on both sides.

More. In another decision in favor of equality under the law, Friedman previously struck down the University of Michigan Law School’s use of race-based preferences (a ruling that was subsequently overturned), as noted in this backgrounder in the Detroit Free Press.

While the immediate tendency would be to say “good riddance,” I take my hat off to GetEQUAL for noting the passing of Fred Phelps Sr. with uncommon grace:

There will always be those who are so in pain themselves that they feel compelled to inflict pain on others. We re-commit ourselves today to loving those who hate us. We re-commit ourselves today to seeing the humanity in those who cannot or will not see it in us. And we re-commit ourselves today to working toward an America that is free of that pain — an America in which LGBTQ folks can live and love openly.

In all, Phelps helped expose visceral anti-gay prejudice, often (though not always) grounded in a gross distortion of religious principles, for all its ugly nastiness, which others usually conceal behind for more polite facades. For that, we can all be thankful.

The trap, however, is viewing all disagreements about gay rights matters as if our opponents were all crypto Fred Phelpses. Some conservatives have real concerns about social stability amidst social change — I think they’re wrong in this instance, but they’re not “haters.” And certainly, issues such as using the state to force expressive service providers to do our bidding can cast certain LGBT activists and their supporters in the role of the mean-spirited bully. GetEQUAL’s reminder to recognize the humanity of our opponents would serve us, and them, far better.

The Christian Science Monitor reports:

“Iconic Irish beer brand Guinness made waves after it pulled its sponsorship from New York City’s St. Patrick’s Day parade on Sunday, because the parade excludes LGBT groups. This move came just days after Boston Beer Co., the parent company of Sam Adams, announced it would pull its sponsorship from the Boston St. Patrick’s Day parade. Heineken pulled its sponsorship for New York parade for the same reason”

Here’s why:

“[LGBT economic power] isn’t the overarching driver – it is generational,” says [Bob Witeck, president of Witeck Communications, a marketing group focused on the LGBT demographic]. “What corporations see are the large numbers of younger consumers who are very passionate about human rights and nondiscrimination. Sending a message that anyone is not welcome is wrong.”

On the other hand:

“There are mixed feelings about marketing alcohol to the LGBT community. Studies suggest the LGBT community has higher rates of substance abuse issues than other demographics. Some say heavy marketing efforts by beer and liquor brands have played a role.”

More. How corporate America, acting in its own competitive interest, advances social and legal equality:

The rapid rise in public acceptance of gay marriage also has its roots in the workplace, says Lee Badgett, the director of the Center for Public Policy & Administration at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst. … “Many of the arguments were first tested in the corporate context before they made it out to the broader public,” she says. … “Even if corporations didn’t go into this with the intention of creating social change, in the process they created social change,” says Ms. Badgett.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed also posted on the Cato Institute’s website, Eugene Volokh and Ilya Shapiro write:

We support the extension of marriage to same-sex couples. Yet too many who agree with us on that issue think little of subverting the liberties of those who oppose gay marriage. Increasingly, legislative and judicial actions sacrifice individual rights at the altar of antidiscrimination law.

The crux of the argument:

Of course, a couple that is told by a photographer that she does not want to photograph their commitment ceremony may understandably be offended. But avoiding offense is not a valid reason for restricting or compelling speech.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Wooley guarantees the right of photographers, writers, actors, painters, actors, and singers to decide which commissions, roles or gigs they take, and which they reject. But the ruling does not necessarily apply to others who do not engage in constitutionally protected speech. The U.S. Supreme Court can rule in favor of Elane Photography on freedom-of-speech grounds without affecting how antidiscrimination law covers caterers, hotels, limousine drivers, and the like. That’s a separate issue that mostly implicates state religious-freedom laws in the more than two-dozen states that have them.

The First Amendment secures an important right to which all speakers are entitled—whether religious or secular, liberal or conservative, pro- or anti-gay-marriage. A commitment to legal equality can’t justify the restriction of that right.

Which won’t, of course, convince those on the LGBT left who view individual liberty and expressive freedom as subversive and anti-progressive doctrines that mustn’t be tolerated (see comments soon to be posted below).

More. And then there’s this look at the shape of things to come from the U.K., complicated, admittedly, but the fact that that the Church of England is, in fact, the state church in England. State churches are an unholy abomination, but so is suing a church in court to perform your wedding.

Furthermore. Will Saletan at Slate, on the broader issue, writes: “For the last couple of weeks, I’ve been defending people who oppose gay marriage. That feels pretty strange, since I’ve advocated gay marriage for more than 20 years.” He concludes:

“We’re not the losers in this fight anymore. We’re the winners. Our task now is to win the right way, not by dismissing our opponents as bigots and haters, but by persuading them that marriage is just as good for gays as it is for straights. We don’t have to shove our answer down their throats. They will come around to it—they’re coming around to it already—because it’s true.”

The paradox of religious freedom and governmental neutrality toward religion is not new; it’s embedded in America’s DNA in the First Amendment, which guarantees the free exercise of religion and prohibits the government from establishing or even endorsing religion.

What is new is the question of whether a business, rather than church or a person, can exercise religion.  Businesses must have a right to communicate with the public, and it seems necessary to me that the First Amendment’s speech protection applies to them — though there are many reasonable questions about how far this protection should extend.

The religion clauses are trickier.  The Establishment Clause requires government not to take sides in religious disputes, but there are some cases that courts, in particular have to decide: When two parents of differing religious beliefs divorce, can a court enforce one parent’s veto of the other’s decision about taking the children to church, or raising them as non-believers?  If there is a dispute between two Jewish business owners over what is kosher, should a court of law be able to decide which one is right?  These are hard questions.

For lesbians and gay men, though, it is the Free Exercise Clause that is most difficult right now.  There is no doubt that individuals must be free to exercise their religion without government interference.  But is selling cakes the exercise of religion?  Is anything a sincere religious believer does the constitutionally protected exercise of religion?  If not, what are the limits?

More broadly, do businesses as businesses have the same kind of First Amendment right to exercise religion as they do to communicate under the Free Speech Clause? There is a particular subjectivity to the Free Exercise Clause.  Under Establishment Clause rules, government must accept any sincere religious belief, even if it isn’t “acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others.”

A sensible limit I see built into the Free Exercise Clause is that the exercise of religion, at least as the founders would have understood it, will tend to be with and among other believers.  This is not a strict rule, since many activities of religious believers will take place in the broader world: caring for the sick or poor or elderly, for example.  But in general, the exercise of religion is something more than just any activity motivated by a religious belief.  I cannot drive my car in violation of the speed laws just because I sincerely believe (however illogical it seems) that the speed laws are a violation of the laws of God because biblical authority does not support them.

What we have today is a subset of believers who want to use sincerely held religious beliefs that are at the least controversial among a very large number of non-believers to avoid laws that apply broadly to all businesses.   These laws were passed at the insistence of the gay community, but they are not an unmixed blessing.

As I’ve said before, while I remain doubtful as a constitutional matter that selling cakes and flowers or renting apartments is anything like the exercise of religion the First Amendment intended, I think it is better social policy to allow some business exercise of religion than for government to try to forbid it.

But I think a line can be drawn.  Unlike individuals, businesses are not human beings; they are fictional “persons” for sensible legal and economic reasons.  As such, they are constituted pursuant to legal processes that give the public notice of what they will do and how they will operate.

The almost complete deference that government gives to the personal exercise of religion respects the constitutional mandate prohibiting the government from establishing or favoring any particular religion (or no religion at all).  That deference also respect the fact that people’s religious beliefs are always subjective, and even sometimes contradict their own church’s stance – as the Catholic Church well knows when it comes to same-sex marriage and contraception.  Government has no business interfering with that.

If a business wants to engage in the exercise of religion, this deference to religion’s subjective nature presents unique challenges.  The government cannot inquire into anything but the sincerity of religious beliefs, and that would have to apply to a business’s “beliefs.”

I think that can be managed consistent with the constitution if a business states up front in its incorporation papers (which establish the parameters under which the business will operate) that, among its other rules, it will operate pursuant to certain religious beliefs.

This will give the public notice that certain businesses, while not religious entities themselves, will be exempt from certain laws.  Customers can choose how important, if at all, a religiously motivated business philosophy is to them.  A publicly stated religious purpose will also serve as notice to potential employees that certain benefits (like contraceptive coverage) will not be provided.

It will take time and thought to develop such a policy.  It may apply only to closely held businesses, for example, like bakeries and local florists, though in theory it could apply to larger companies.  Such a rule would be a line that could be drawn in cases like Hobby Lobby v. Sibelius, where non-believing employees would have a clear understanding that certain kinds of contraceptive coverage would not be included in any benefit package.  It could also identify businesses like Chik-Fil-A, if they determine that serving homosexuals is a violation of their religious rights.  In the modern world, this would be a business risk, but it may be one companies ought to be able to take, and accept (or suffer) its consequences.

In addition, it is not immediately clear at what level of generality or specificity the religious statement would need to be drafted.  A statement that the business would observe “Christian” principles would not be very helpful as notice to non-believers, since there are so many versions of Christian teaching and thought.  On the other hand, the number of possible issues a religious business could address is nearly infinite, and notice to the public and other third parties normally requires a certain amount of specificity.

This is a problem inherent in the nature of any exercise of religion that implicates the rights of non-believing third parties.  That, in itself, is a strong argument against this proposal.  But since the religious landlord cases in the 1990s, it is clear that courts seem to accept some business exercise of religion.  If that continues – as seems likely – it will make sense to think more deeply about what it means for businesses to be religious when they are dealing with the public at large.

I have some sympathy for those religious believers (Christians aren’t the only ones) who object to being called bigots and haters.  Damon Linker is not wrong to be put off by the lack of “charity, magnanimity and tolerance” of our own haters.  Some lesbians and gay men are poor winners.

But this might be a good time for those who oppose same-sex marriage in good faith to think a bit more about the enormous change among heterosexuals who now disagree with them.  They, too, grew up in a world where same-sex marriage was unimaginable — and for most of the same religious reasons as Linker, Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher and others continue to articulate.

Andrew Sullivan provides a catalogue of the good reasons some people continue to support what is often called “traditional marriage.”  But even the best intentions don’t always lead to good results.  The disconnect is what leads to skepticism or cynicism about whether opponents are truly acting in good faith or out of something far less noble.

It comes down to a simple question: If homosexuals cannot get legally married, what should they do?

The hard-liners have always said tough luck.  Marry someone of the opposite sex or stay single.  The nicest hard-liners say same-sex couples can live together, but shouldn’t expect any social recognition of the relationship.

In 2014, where same-sex couples are known and accepted, those options are inhumane and literally intolerable.  For most of history, though, these pathetic options were pretty much all there was, and no one needed to inquire much deeper.  But today it is fair to push the rhetoric.  “OK, if you won’t let same-sex couples marry, you’re really content to let same-sex couples live in social and legal limbo?”

True moderates can accept some legal recognition, like domestic partnership or civil unions.  Even the new Pope has suggested that this might be a feasible civil option, or at least an option the church need not object to in the civil realm.

But now that civil marriage itself is not only imaginable but quite real, Marriage-Lite looks less like a compromise and more like a fig leaf.  And it isn’t just lesbians and gay men who say if the civil rules for marriage don’t demand procreation as a prerequisite, why go to all the trouble of maintaining a two-track system?

When Linker, Dreher, Douthat and others complain about how homosexuals are being mean to them, they are leaving out those heterosexuals who have changed their minds.  Part of their discomfort may come from the fact that the questions from fellow heterosexuals are getting harder.  Lesbians and gay men obviously have the lead in the debate, but we wouldn’t be winning if we were all alone.  Blaming us for the change is, itself, a bit of — well, I won’t say bigotry or hatred.  But it isn’t nice.