Thursday, February 27, 2014
Political Mayhem Thursday: The Weird Landscape of "Religious Freedom"
Last weekend I was in Arizona, as we performed the Trial of Jesus in Tucson. All the political talk there was about a proposed law which would allow people to discriminate against gay men and lesbians without fear of being sued, if their discrimination was based on religious conviction. In the end, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the bill after business interests made a fuss.
Sadly, the only context in which I hear people plea for "religious freedom" lately has been in the context of trying to deny people coverage under health plans for birth control or discriminate against gay men and lesbians-- and all of the pleas to be able to do these things come from Christians.
Just as the Constitution doesn't actually create "separation of church and state" (rather, it bars the establishment of a national religion by Congress), it doesn't guarantee "religious freedom"-- instead, it allows that Congress cannot "prohibit" the free exercise of religion.
Is discriminating against gays really how Christians "exercise" their religion? It seems contrary to what I know of my faith, which requires us to love our neighbor-- even if our neighbors are very different than us.
Sadly, the only context in which I hear people plea for "religious freedom" lately has been in the context of trying to deny people coverage under health plans for birth control or discriminate against gay men and lesbians-- and all of the pleas to be able to do these things come from Christians.
Just as the Constitution doesn't actually create "separation of church and state" (rather, it bars the establishment of a national religion by Congress), it doesn't guarantee "religious freedom"-- instead, it allows that Congress cannot "prohibit" the free exercise of religion.
Is discriminating against gays really how Christians "exercise" their religion? It seems contrary to what I know of my faith, which requires us to love our neighbor-- even if our neighbors are very different than us.
Comments:
<< Home
This attempt to alter the already ridiculous landscape of tort law in America is also an object lesson of hypocrisy in America, sadly summed up in the last paragraph…in the United States, victory really arrives on the glorious day when people with money decide discrimination is bad for business. Or "love thy bottom line" rather than "love thy neighbor" as one brilliant comment so eloquently nails, I think.
In trying to learn more about Arizona's SB 1062, I came across this quote, which I thinks presents an interesting (albeit fact sensitive and immensely nuanced) proposition:
"Do you believe a photographer who identifies as homosexual should be punished for refusing to photograph an event celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church’s hateful ideas? Do you believe a Jewish printer should be threatened for declining to promote a conference criticizing Israel? Do you believe a pacifist should be coerced to paint pro-war posters for a rally? If you believe all these are wrong, you should support Arizona’s SB 1062—because that’s what the bill’s about rather than the things you may have heard."
Putting aside whether the concept of Christian charity (in a traditional sense) compels those who identify as Christian to love their LGBTQ neighbors in a non-discriminatory way--clearly an unsettled issue within the church--it remains the case that neither my faith nor your faith, in a particularized way, supply the constitutional standard for free exercise. Indeed, one hallmark of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the matter is that it is not the provence of the courts to instruct individuals on the validity of their own religious beliefs.
The question I am interested in, then, is what about our intuitions reflecting a tension between equal protection and free exercise/freedom of conscience allows us to to condemn something like SB 1062 while affirming the rights referenced in the quote above? Frankly, I don't have a good answer. The Supreme Court doesn't really help either.
After all, they recently decided that the Westboro group is free to spew hatred at funerals and weddings and other events as they always have. Yet I'd be surprised if the same group could successfully sue for discrimination if a business refused them creative services.
What's the constitutional difference between that situation and the one at issue in Arizona? It's not so obvious (to me anyway).
"Do you believe a photographer who identifies as homosexual should be punished for refusing to photograph an event celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church’s hateful ideas? Do you believe a Jewish printer should be threatened for declining to promote a conference criticizing Israel? Do you believe a pacifist should be coerced to paint pro-war posters for a rally? If you believe all these are wrong, you should support Arizona’s SB 1062—because that’s what the bill’s about rather than the things you may have heard."
Putting aside whether the concept of Christian charity (in a traditional sense) compels those who identify as Christian to love their LGBTQ neighbors in a non-discriminatory way--clearly an unsettled issue within the church--it remains the case that neither my faith nor your faith, in a particularized way, supply the constitutional standard for free exercise. Indeed, one hallmark of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the matter is that it is not the provence of the courts to instruct individuals on the validity of their own religious beliefs.
The question I am interested in, then, is what about our intuitions reflecting a tension between equal protection and free exercise/freedom of conscience allows us to to condemn something like SB 1062 while affirming the rights referenced in the quote above? Frankly, I don't have a good answer. The Supreme Court doesn't really help either.
After all, they recently decided that the Westboro group is free to spew hatred at funerals and weddings and other events as they always have. Yet I'd be surprised if the same group could successfully sue for discrimination if a business refused them creative services.
What's the constitutional difference between that situation and the one at issue in Arizona? It's not so obvious (to me anyway).
Essentially all discrimination in the history of this country has arisen from or been justified by religion: Native peoples, slavery, Jews, Mormons, Quakers, Baptists, Catholics, Italians, SE Europeans, East Europeans, Blacks, Asians, mixed race marriages. Now gays and Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. The only question is whether the discrimination is openly justified by religion or only in the back halls.
# posted by 
: 3:00 PM
: 3:00 PM
It seems a tremendous amount of energy has gone into identifying creative hypotheticals. . .
"Do you believe a photographer who identifies as homosexual should be punished for refusing to photograph an event celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church’s hateful ideas?. . .”
– I’m surprised you have selected our studio to photograph your church event. If you do not already know, the owner’s are a lesbian couple. Considering your church’s position on gays and lesbians, we would prefer not to do the event. You may want to consider Leaning Right Studio (tongue in cheek). . .
And assuming physical safety is not at issue – If they were the only photographer in the area, I would believe the owner – having accomplished or desiring to be accepted for his or her lifestyle –would have the character to film such an event.
Who is to judge? With multiple options for the same service, a referral is most reasonable. If one has a reputation for providing the ‘best service’ – sharing his or her God given gifts should be unquestioned. The same should hold for one who is the ‘only provider.’
Could a Jewish woman find it in her heart to print promotional material with holocaust images promoting a white supremacist event? It would be quite an opportunity for a substantive conversation with a ‘captivated’ customer.
If the request for service is wrapped in the intent to potentially litigate, the judicial outcome sought seems uncertain at best. Running up attorney fees is another question – and in that case, the exposure and social media might help fill litigations coffers. . .
Seeking recognition and acceptance – requires recognizing and accepting.
"Do you believe a photographer who identifies as homosexual should be punished for refusing to photograph an event celebrating the Westboro Baptist Church’s hateful ideas?. . .”
– I’m surprised you have selected our studio to photograph your church event. If you do not already know, the owner’s are a lesbian couple. Considering your church’s position on gays and lesbians, we would prefer not to do the event. You may want to consider Leaning Right Studio (tongue in cheek). . .
And assuming physical safety is not at issue – If they were the only photographer in the area, I would believe the owner – having accomplished or desiring to be accepted for his or her lifestyle –would have the character to film such an event.
Who is to judge? With multiple options for the same service, a referral is most reasonable. If one has a reputation for providing the ‘best service’ – sharing his or her God given gifts should be unquestioned. The same should hold for one who is the ‘only provider.’
Could a Jewish woman find it in her heart to print promotional material with holocaust images promoting a white supremacist event? It would be quite an opportunity for a substantive conversation with a ‘captivated’ customer.
If the request for service is wrapped in the intent to potentially litigate, the judicial outcome sought seems uncertain at best. Running up attorney fees is another question – and in that case, the exposure and social media might help fill litigations coffers. . .
Seeking recognition and acceptance – requires recognizing and accepting.
Here is my simplistic problem with this Arizona issue. If I were to go to lunch with a girl friend or female co-worker or likewise a man were to do this - how do they know whether we are gay or lesbian or not? They don't! Just as they don't know if I am agnostic, atheist or a practicing Christian.
This law was just wrong on so many levels. And CTK - Christine Charles covered your hypotheticals quite thoroughly.
Post a Comment
This law was just wrong on so many levels. And CTK - Christine Charles covered your hypotheticals quite thoroughly.
<< Home
