The Right to Discriminate

68 thoughts on The Right to Discriminate

1. While I see where you’re coming from, Jill, and generally agree, I think this is a good example of how many less- or non-religious people just don’t understand how more-religious people see the world.

   As a committed Christian feminist, I can tell you that a deeply Christian florist or photographer wouldn’t necessarily see their profession as a “secular” service – I see everything I do as motivated by my faith commitment. My partner, a photographer, is not a photographer who happens to be a Christian; he’s a Christian photographer. Am I explaining the difference? And while we are personally 100% in favor of same-sex marriage and equality in all other civil rights, for everyone, always, I can understand that a Christian photographer may feel that their deeply-held religious beliefs may get in the way of being able to accurately, artistically capture the joy at a same-sex wedding and not want to take the job. And while I may think those religious beliefs are erroneous, I don’t think the photographer should necessarily have to do the wedding.

2. Just one thing: we don’t have anti-discrimination statutes that apply to queer folks, not on a federal level, and not in 33 states. Even fewer states extend protections to trans* folks. From Mapping Our Rights:

   There is no federal law that protects lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans from discrimination based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. It is still legal in 33 states to fire LGBT Americans from their jobs or discriminate against them in housing and other public accommodations because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

   (Which is why I hope the current marriage momentum can maybe also be channeled into fully-inclusive non-discrimination legislation. Because while I’m thrilled that I can marry my partner in the state where we live now, I’m not super stoked that if we ever move we could lose both the legal recognition of our union and any hope for protection against lots of different kinds of discrimination.)

3. Your take on two of the three weak-ass hypotheticals is right on (public employees, catholic universities).

   However, in the absence of sexual orientation being added to the federal Civil Rights Act, the idea of private businesses denying their services to same-sex couples would result in a publicity shitstorm, but not a violation of the law, unless there’s some more expansive state antidiscrimination protection. Since the 14th Amendment deals with government action, it could only be remedied through legislation, which would be held as valid under that BBQ restaurant case back in the 60s.

4. How is it that it’s not “religious discrimination” when a devout Muslim is required by their job to serve pork, or for an observant Jew to work on Saturday, but it is discrimination anytime a Christian has to do anything that ever so slightly annoys them?

5. Rita: I’d say it’s more about “more-religious” people (although I object to your term; the behavior described is not a question of more or less religious, since plenty of deeply religious people seem to get along just fine making a distinction between their jobs and their religious practice) not understanding that living as a part of a society means dealing with the fact that not everyone is going to be exactly like you* or believe the same things you do.

   Simply declaring your entire life a religious practice and thus off-limits is, essentially, declaring that no laws apply to you, unless you decide that they are consonant with your beliefs. That’s just not compatible with living as a part of a larger society.

   *general “you”

6. (1) Aren’t businesses generally allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason? I’m a freelance writer, and I turn down assignments all the time, including from established clients (as yet, not for reasons of ethics, but I usually don’t provide a reason beyond “I’m booked right now, sorry” or “That’s pretty far outside my area of specialization; another writer would probably serve you better,” neither of which is necessarily the real reason).

   (2) I’m pretty sure that IF businesses were required to accept all customers, if a photographer said, “I am required by law to allow you to hire me, but I am personally against same-sex marriage,” the vast, vast majority of gay couples would go find another photographer.

7. I can understand that a Christian photographer may feel that their deeply-held religious beliefs may get in the way of being able to accurately, artistically capture the joy at a same-sex wedding and not want to take the job.

   And they wouldn’t have to take the job.

   I do a little work on the side doing custom design for weddings. If for some reason I was personally uncomfortable working with a particular couple, I could turn them down. There’s nobody breathing down my neck forcing me to be a vendor for a wedding of two teenagers, or a mail order bride, or an obviously abusive relationship, and I would make no bones about turning down something like that.

   Then again, I also have to swallow my politics when I get invitation text worded with the bride’s parents giving her away. But I’d certainly never cry discrimination in a situation like that.

8. And while we are personally 100% in favor of same-sex marriage and equality in all other civil rights, for everyone, always, I can understand that a Christian photographer may feel that their deeply-held religious beliefs may get in the way of being able to accurately, artistically capture the joy at a same-sex wedding and not want to take the job. And while I may think those religious beliefs are erroneous, I don’t think the photographer should necessarily have to do the wedding.

   I’m sure that someone whose religious beliefs created such a strong aversion to same-sex marriage that they could not allow their business to take part in the ceremony, even in a peripheral way, would be motivated by nothing but concern for the couple’s joyous memory.

   This decision is one for the couple to make–I kind of doubt, anyway, that most same-sex couples will seek out deeply homophobic wedding businesses, religious or otherwise. Why give money to someone who doesn’t deserve it? Why invite a guest who doesn’t deserve to attend? But it’s a choice that they will have to make throughout their individual and coupled lives. The law should protect their right to participate in the public sphere, and to decide how and when they will shield themselves from prejudice.

9. And yet you feel free to discriminate base don age do you not? I mean you approve of the complicit slaughter of 1.5 million unborn children a year.

   If someone walked into my office where I work as a psychologist, and they told me they wanted relationship counseling on their gay marriage, then I would say no, because I think it is immoral. But the law would imprison me for my beliefs. It is not discrimination. We do not allow people to molest other children do we? I mean We discriminate against them with lists and registries and things that essentially ruin their lives.

   Yes I equate homosexuality with pederasty. And murder. And rape. They are all equally sinful and need to be corrected. Homosexuality however is a defect unlike the other ones, one that can be controlled and minimized just like most other diseases or mental defects.

10. Yes I equate homosexuality with pederasty. And murder. And rape. They are all equally sinful and need to be corrected. Homosexuality however is a defect unlike the other ones, one that can be controlled and minimized just like most other diseases or mental defects.

    Unfortunately, a cure for virulent stupidity still lies beyond our grasp.

11. 🙂 skullhunter. lol.

12. OK, imagine if you’re a feminist photographer or caterer or something. And then a christian fundamentalist asks you to photograph their purity ball. you refuse.

    didn’t you just discriminate on the basis of religion? wouldn’t you want to retain your “right to discriminate” even within the sphere of economic activity?

13. The thing for “more religious” people is, in this country we have a constitutionally protected wall between church and state. You can practice your religion however you choose, but you absolutely can’t extend your religious practice into the public sphere governed by law, not if it breaks the law. That goes for laws of any size, including discriminating against people. I do agree with some part of the LA Times, that maybe this kerfuffle highlights the need for “private religious decisions” to be clearly delineated from the “public sphere.” Those tests are already being made and resolved — in New Jersey, a church doesn’t have to rent itself out to weddings of a different faith or gay weddings if it doesn’t want to, but if they own other kinds of property and rent it out to the general public, then it’s in the public sphere. Time and time again, the constitution and legal precedent in this country have come down saying that yes, once you’re in the public sphere, you are bound to obey the same laws as anyone else, regardless of your religion.

    So Rita, I understand how you or your partner may feel about being, for instance, a Christian photographer. But do you really think the law shouldn’t apply to how photography is practiced and sold as a good in the wider public sphere? Or do you not believe in separation of church and state?

14. “While I see where you’re coming from, Jill, and generally agree, I think this is a good example of how many less- or non-religious people just don’t understand how more-religious people see the world.”

    I’d be more sympathetic if this wasn’t the exact same bullshit trotted out forty years ago about interracial marriage. No one’s amended the Bible in that time, but miscegenation has (almost miraculously, even) still managed to cease being such an unholy, God-forbidden abomination in the eyes of most American Christians since then. A fair number of the more-religious aren’t getting their bigotry from their religion so much as they’re using their religion to justify their bigotry.

15. It’s already enshrined into law, Jill, it’s called “state action.” The public/private divide protects the rights of the private citizen to discriminate against whomever they want, so long as they do it privately, subject to the reach of the Commerce Clause power. As homosexuality is not currently covered by the reach of the Civil Rights Act, these people would have the right to refuse to take photographs, make wedding cakes or other such wedding-related activities, including the right of churches to refuse to perform the ceremonies.

    However, I am confident the market would ultimately prevail (and seriously, how many florists out there are anti-gay?). The market has a way of punishing assholes for their discriminatory attitudes.

    Let people be assholes. Someone else will start up a business to fill the niche and the assholes will run out of customers. The alternative is awful lawsuits based off of hurt feelings and religious defenses. You’re essentially using the government to force your world view upon them, under the guise of your enlightenment. You’re viewpoint is tyrannical, nonetheless.

16. That’s just federal law though, Nicholas? Correct me if I’m wrong? States and localities have the right to enact their own anti-discrimination laws, based on the same rationale that allows the Civil Rights Act to operate.

    When you talk about using the government to enforce a world view — do you also think that the Civil Rights Act is tyrannical in this way? It is certainly far from unthinkable that sexual orientation would be put alongside race and other things deemed by society to be “immutable characteristics” into that act. Tyranny? How about for race?

17. If someone walked into my office where I work as a psychologist, and they told me they wanted relationship counseling on their gay marriage, then I would say no, because I think it is immoral. But the law would imprison me for my beliefs.

    Shut your troll ass up. Yeah, I know, I’m being rude, but you’re lying. What state do you live in where you would go to jail for not providing a service as a psychologist? At the absolute outside you’d lose your license, but even then you could make a pretty strong good-faith argument that you’d be unable to work with the individual in question because of personal issues. Perhaps you’d be ethically obligated to provide a referral, but thats between you and an ethics board. Most states don’t even consider it a criminal matter when a psychologist has sex with a patient (which is rape regardless of circumstances).

    So yeah, as something of an expert on professional psychological ethics (and someone who holds an advanced degree on the subject) I’m calling bullshit. Go cry somewhere else, you won’t find unconditional positive regard here unless you pony up my hourly.

18. “including the right of churches to refuse to perform the ceremonies.”

    Churches have the right to refuse to perform ceremonies for people who are covered under the Civil Rights Act, so I’m not entirely sure how that one’s relevant.

19. God dammit, the more I think about it, the more I can’t get over the anti-miscegenation parallels. Regardless of homosexuality’s immutability (of which I am personally of the opinion it is), religion is treated with the same respect as race and sex, and is certainly not immutable by any stretch of the imagination. Upon further consideration, tyrannical was hyperbole, and fuck it, it’s more than just Free Speech, it’s outright market discrimination. Ultimately, the market will solve the problem, but it’s just wrong and at some point the government has to be the parent and step in and slap the people around when they’re being discriminatory, because that’s part of what the government does–protect rights of citizens.

    And you’re absolutely right about States and localities. It unsettles me that the government needs to protect this class of people, but if a government so chooses to do it, so be it. Fuck it, if it were 1960, you could read what I wrote and substitute interracial for gay and it would almost be word for word.

    I retract my argument, yours is more convincing, Holly.

20. “Time and time again, the constitution and legal precedent in this country have come down saying that yes, once you’re in the public sphere, you are bound to obey the same laws as anyone else, regardless of your religion.”

    Its not that clean cut. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, a ritual slaughter case where a law banning the public slaughter of an animal was deemed an unconstitutional violation of the free exercise clause.

21. Yeah, the Hialeah case was one where the city was so stupid as to outright target that and only that group. It was not a law of general applicability, but one where the government directly targeted the religious group.

22. “But the law would imprison me for my beliefs.”

    That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day. These trolls seem to be very uninformed about the law…

23. Troll once again demonstrates that bigots do not understand the concept of consent.

24. Yeah, targeting a no-no Nick…but even if you don’t target, the state is subject to strict scrutiny. see Sherbert v. Verner where a law generally applied (must seek work on Saturday to collect unemployment) was deemed unconditional because it unduly burdened a religion belief.

25. But Manju, non-discrimination laws don’t burden those of a particular religious affiliation, like laws requiring someone to do work on a Saturday. They burden those with a particular bigotry, which, as we’ve seen, crosses religious boundaries, and is not protected.

26. rebecca: that the belief in question crosses religious boundaries doesn’t give it lower constitutional protection. i think i know what you’re getting at, the first amendment is designed to protect religious minorities. it is. but it also protects individuals who hold commonly held religious (or even non-religious) beliefs. see boy scouts case, where the free association, free speech, and (arguably) religious beliefs of the boy scouts trumped anti-discrimination laws.

27. Yeah, I didn’t express that very well. However, I wasn’t trying to say that the 1st only protects minorities – a law requiring someone to work on Sunday would presumably be just as unconstitutional. It’s more what others were saying above with the race parallel – that as much as one’s religion might say discriminating on the basis of race is right and correct, someone’s right not to be discriminated against trumps the religious person’s right to discriminate.

28. The most elegant solution would be to do as Holly said and add “gender or sexual orientation” to the CRA.

    Realistically, I think a very religious** wedding industry employee who wasn’t also a total asshole would find a polite way to suggest they might not be a good fit for each other, probably a softened version of what Mel noted, “I am required by law to allow you to hire me, but I am personally against same-sex marriage,” the vast, vast majority of gay couples would go find another photographer.”

    **Fwiw, I object to the entire idea that the only “very religious” people are those who are also fundamentalist fuckwits. There are devout people who are also ferociously liberal, they just aren’t as annoyingly loud since they feel no need to shove their beliefs on others with laws.

29. didn’t you just discriminate on the basis of religion? wouldn’t you want to retain your “right to discriminate” even within the sphere of economic activity?

    As I’m sure has been pointed out upthread (and had already been stated before you posted), the existence of legal gay marriage, and even the existence of ENDA laws, would not require religious people (or, hell, garden variety judgmental assholes) to participate in gay weddings.

    As I said, upthread, I sometimes act as a wedding vendor. When I do so, it basically works like this: a couple comes to me and asks me to design their wedding invitation (or any of a myriad of total wastes of money for the sake of tradition and formality). I am free to accept or decline the work. The choice is mine. And insofar as those decisions align with protected status, as long as I don’t advertise why I turned it down, it’s nobody’s business but my own. Nobody can make me take any work I don’t want to take.

30. “someone’s right not to be discriminated against trumps the religious person’s right to discriminate.”

    this is generally true of regulating economic behaviour (can’t discriminate when hiring) but not true of personal behaviour (a white woman has the right not to date black men, for instance).

    but sometimes the two get murky, like when religion and business combine. i think generally (not sure here) apartments for rent within private houses aren’t subject to anti-discrimination laws. Bob Jones University was allowed to ban interracial dating. Newpapers (and presumably) blogs are given a lot of leeway under the first amendment. i think its understood that a newspaper entitled the “nazi times” doesn’t have to hire jews.

    because if they did it would undermine all our freedoms. we must protect the most vile among us.

31. I think people here are mixing up business and government. No one has to take a photography or wedding planning job they don’t want to–they can decline for whatever reason they choose. But a government official cannot refuse to, say, grant a marriage license based on the fact that his/her religious beliefs are all offended by the couple in question.

32. “Nobody can make me take any work I don’t want to take.”

    Not true. see Greensboro sit-ins: protesting Woolworth’s policy of not serving blacks at the cofee shop.

33. 1. Daniel, civil rights laws are not criminal. With the exception of a small number of laws regarding official misconduct — election laws mostly — there are no criminal penalties for illicit discrimination. You can be sued in civil court, which is its own kind of misery, but no jail time.

    2. This is completely unrelated, but I thought Jill might like to know what kind of a reaction she’s getting: here. Don’t read this unless you have a really strong stomach.

34. But a government official cannot refuse to, say, grant a marriage license based on the fact that his/her religious beliefs are all offended by the couple in question.

    Sure. And an Orthodox Jewish health inspector can’t close a restaurant simply because they serve food that isn’t kosher. A Jain fire marshal can’t decline permits for extermination services. A Pagan librarian can’t conveniently “lose” all nonfiction books about historical witch hysteria*.

    If you don’t like the fact that your government job requires you to do things that offend your religious sensibilities, you’re probably better suited to the private sector.

    *disclaimer: I am a Pagan, and no, not all of us have a bee up our ass about Teh Burning Tiems. Then again not all Christians are homophobes.

35. good distinction sheelzebub. classic equal protection only restricts government behaviour (like the 14th ammendment), ie the govt can’t discriminate. that’s gay marriage and it dosn’t affect the wedding planner one way or another.

    but civil rights laws in employment or public accommodation are a different breed. they are aimed at individuals, not the state. they’re understandable, but problematic, since they’re tantamount to legislating morality.

36. Not true. see Greensboro sit-ins: protesting Woolworth’s policy of not serving blacks at the cofee shop.

    Very true. I cannot openly have a policy of not serving X group, but I am not required by law to accept all business that comes my way from X group, either. The Greensboro sit-ins did not result in a requirement that all black people be jumped to the top of the waiting list at Red Lobster on Friday night.

37. Karen – thanks for the link – I’m masochistic enough to have immediately left a comment over there.

38. Shorter Daniel:

    I know lawyers! I will report this site! 1/3 of the people I could have been friends with are dead!

    It’s like troll leftover soup.

39. You’re welcome Rebecca, and considerably braver than I am. I want to write a blog post of my very own addressing all the utter nonsense he raises, but blind, blithering rage doesn’t produce coherent reasoning. I will just say that I can’t understand people who think it’s no big deal for a 9 year old to have a C-section in a third – world hospital.

40. Opoponax – The problem is that in at least one case, a photographer was penalized by the New Mexico HRC for refusing to take on a same-sex wedding. Personally, if I were in New Mexico, I would boycott the photographer and encourage others to do the same. But cases like this are fueling the anti-SSM movement.

41. Manju, you’re wrong when you say, “but even if you don’t target, the state is subject to strict scrutiny.” Sherbert was overruled by Employment Division v. Smith, which held that the Court only must use rational basis review for “neutral laws of general applicability.” Strict scrutiny — i.e. the Sherbert standard — only applies when the law is neither neutral nor of general applicability. The law in the Hialeah case was found to violate the free exercise clause because it was not generally applicable; rather, it targeted the specific religious group.

    You should really Shepardize before you cite cases.

42. cases like this are homophobia is fueling the anti-SSM movement

    FTFY.

43. but sometimes the two get murky, like when religion and business combine. i think generally (not sure here) apartments for rent within private houses aren’t subject to anti-discrimination laws.

    Thats actually true. If the owner lives in the building and it has fewer than (I believe) six units, they can do whatever they please. I remember way back when I was renting apartments getting a call from a woman who was quite unhappy about my having rented the second unit of her two flat to a black woman. I found the whole situation personally repellent, but I have to admit that the concept of forcing someone to live in their own home with someone they don’t want to seemed wrong.

44. yeah, thanks althena. i was aware of the scalia/peyote thing but i thought there was a backlash against it (state and federal religious accomodation laws that reinstated “compelling interest” somehow, though incompletely) i’m not a lawyer, so i just left it at that. i’d shepardize but i don’t watch the view.

    it does go to show how scotus isn’t going to line up easily on a constitutional challenge here. the so called liberals like in the warren era, activists who protect individual liberties as classically understood, would normally strike down the civil rights law but will be torn over their desire to protect people from discrimination..

    conservatives who practice restraint will be torm by their desire to preserve religious liberty, especially for the christian majority. could be interesting.

45. @chava – absolutely, I agree. I would classify myself and most of my friends as both very religious and ferociously liberal… and the liberalism is an outgrowth of my religious beliefs. But the religious beliefs do cause one to see the world differently, wouldn’t you agree? And that’s what I think is often missing from feminist discourse – a recognition that their faith is as an important factor for many people as their feminism.

46. Rita –

    But at what point does that make discrimination right? It wouldn’t make discrimination on the basis of race right, nor on the basis of gender, why for being gay?

    Sounds more like it’s a problem with faith itself if it overwhelms someone so much that it makes dealing with those one differs from such an issue.

47. There are already plenty of chances to discriminate against people in day to day life. I, for one, discriminate against bigots almost 100% of the time.

48. but civil rights laws in employment or public accommodation are a different breed. they are aimed at individuals, not the state. they’re understandable, but problematic, since they’re tantamount to legislating morality.

    Except that religions get a big old pass. Look, go to any hospital affiliated with/run by the Catholic church and ask for EC, the pill, or an abortion. They will not provide them, as they find it morally repugnant. Doesn’t matter if you’ve been raped. Doesn’t matter. They will not accommodate you, and as far as I know, they seem to do this with impunity.

    The Catholic Church actively discriminates against women and gays–no women priests, and no out gay priests. Other Christian organizations do the same. One church affiliated with the Vision Forum does not allow women to speak in church, because a verse in the Bible forbids it. And it’s just fine, legally. If you think that they don’t allow women to speak but that the law will force them to hire people fairly or treat them fairly, you’re sorely mistaken.

    Michele McCuster was fired from the Catholic school where she was teaching because she was unmarried and pregnant. She sued, on the basis that a man wouldn’t get fired as it would be harder to prove he had premarital sex (therefore, the rule was unfair to women) but I don’t know how the suit turned out. I do know that since the school was not a public school, they had, AFAIK, the right to fire her. The law isn’t coming down hard like a ton of bricks on these religions.

    I wouldn’t normally care, except that these institutions are taking the place of our publicly-run (or privately-run but corporate) institutions that are accountable to the law. Religion is a convenient cloak for bigots to shroud their hatred with, it’s a great cover. I’m not that jazzed about these institutions getting huge tax breaks when they actively try to fuck over large swaths of the population–when these religions in fact, are trying to legislate morality.

    So yeah, I think it’s a strawman and a bit of a paranoid fantasy to assume that religions and people with certain religious convictions will be forced to treat other people like human beings (OH NOES THE HORROR!!1!). And I think it trivializes the issue to equate the egregious and frankly, disgusting discrimination that some of these religious institutions and the more right-wing religious fundamentalists visit upon women and the LGBT community with say, a photographer who feels he cannot do justice to a same-sex wedding because of his strong Christian beliefs.

    And many of these scare stories neglect to mention that it’s not the state that is causing these religious organizaitons headaches, it’s funders and popular opinion–and I have no problem with that at all. These folks have to realize that their actions hurt real people, real families, and that they will be regarded as shabby and bigoted for their actions. They don’t get to be insulated from negative reactions to their policies.

    Catholic Charities used to process a small number of adoptions for same-sex couples in MA. Once it was reported in the papers, the state’s four bishops said they were going to review the practice, with the aim of forbidding it. The board of Catholic Charities, consisting of mainly lay people, voted unanimously to continue the practice. Yet the bishops decided to ask for an exemption to the anti-discrimination laws. As a result, eight people in the 42-member board left in protest over the bishops’ actions. The United Way, which provided much of Catholic Charities’ funding, said they’d have to review how much they would continue to allocate because the UW does not support discrimination (which is also their right). As a result of the public and internal pressue, Catholic Chharities decided to stop adoptions. They decided they would rather do that than fight for an exemption in the courts–and exemption they may well have gotten.

    And if you think for one minute that I’m broken up about that, think again. I think the actions of the Catholic Church’s leadership was hateful, bigoted and vile. And I find it rather ironic that we are sweating bullets over the feelings of bigots and about “legislating morality” when conservative religious organizations freely legislate their own version of morality.

49. Rita, I have to say, I really don’t give a shit about someone’s worldview. Great, a faith feeds someone. I attend the UU Church (oddly enough, no one sweats the fact that UU Churches marry same sex couples yet in many states, these marriages aren’t legally recognized. Why is it only the bigoted assholes who must be respected?) Though I’m not faithful in the traditional sense, and I don’t even believe in God, it feeds me. But I don’t expect the rest of the world to accommodate me because of my beliefs (hell, being of the pinko persuasion, they don’t anyway). Why is it that I’M supposed to put up with biogtry from others because it’s part of their belief system? Why am I exepcted to extend empahty and compassion and understanding to people who have treated me hatefully because I’m a woman, and my friends hatefully because of their sexual orientation?

50. If someone walked into my office where I work as a psychologist, and they told me they wanted relationship counseling on their gay marriage, then I would say no, because I think it is immoral. But the law would imprison me for my beliefs.

    Sorry, but you cannot possibly be a psychologist. Or maybe you just need to take an ethics refresher course. I’m a former counseling student, and I know that the statement you made is completely false. A psychologist is completely within their legal rights and the APA ethical standards to deny counseling and/or assessment services to anyone. Psychologists just have to refer them to a competent counselor or psychologist who will treat them, which no empathetic mental health professional would have any problem doing.

51. No, this is not about the right to discriminate it is about giving a set of people new protections of law that other people do not get to have. By introducing anti-discrimination bills into existence, the federal government can define discrimination.
    What happens if a preacher preaches on the immorality of abortion and homosexuality? Oh he or she must be discriminating! Take away their damn tax free status!

    What happens when a teacher has to tell her kids that gay marriage is ok but doesn’t want to (California). Oh there we go again, she must be discriminating!

    What about a landlord who knows about the romps that have been going on in his gay tenants’ apartment, what with the constant stream of visitors and evicts them for disturbing the other guests? Wham, discrimination! Even though it would be the same if it were a hetero sexual doing it.

    You call call me a troll all you like but the fact is this: The government has no right to force a minority’s beliefs on the majority.

52. @ Sheelzebub

    While I agree with your frustration about the insistence of the dominant class fervently co-opting the rights protected classes fought so fucking hard to earn, your antagonism to Rita’s post is upsetting to me. I believe that Rita is responding tangentially to this thread, not defending bigotry, and I agree with her comment.

    We who are motivated by religious compassion and faith hold it as dear as our political values. I for one often feel antagonized by the narrow-minded disdain for religious people displayed by many otherwise open-minded, rational and compassionate liberals, and appreciate it when people speak up about the wide-band blasting that seems perfectly OK to commit in these circles. It unnecessarily alienates us when we hold all the same values that you do.

    Saying “I feel antagonized by the comments about religious people in this thread” is not the same as saying “your antagonism is misplaced and you should stop picking on bigots who identify with my religion”.

    Let’s focus our anger and our action at those who are perpetrating evil, not the broad categories those individuals identify with.

53. Just to correct some details:

    GLBs have human rights protection on employment, accommodation etc in 20 states.

    Transsexuals have human rights protection on accommodation etc in 13, but Hawaii doesn’t give employment protection.

    And the New Hampshire Senate just voted 24-0 NOT to give trans people the same human rights as gays in that state.

54. @ Rita–

    I think it does color your worldview, yes. The example I’m most familiar with are Orthodox Jewish feminists who, yes Virginia, are still feminists even if they take a very different view of many issues. And mainline feminist discourse does tend to alienate them, yeah, partly because those issues (same sex marriage, abortion, interfaith marriage), are flashpoints for the rest of us. The best comfort you usually get from and Ortho feminist on these is “well, I don’t agree with it, but that’s what HaShem said to do, so that’s what we have to do, even though it sucks.”

    My point was more that I’d like to take the word “devout” back from the fundies.

    The key is to not project those views on others. Like everyone was saying, it of course colors your worldview, but you still shouldn’t discriminate against others. Saying “my religion colors my worldview so this is how *I* act,” is very different from saying “and this is how you should act too.” That’s why we have (theoretically secular) law.

55. @ Concerned Citizen, I did sort of put this thread on a tangent – thanks for stating clearly what I was trying to get at 🙂

    @ chava: I agree. Well put.

56. But cases like this are fueling the anti-SSM movement.

    Wait, so unless everyone who does any sort of wedding-related business bends over backwards to accept every same sex wedding that comes their way regardless of whether they can realistically do the job or not, we are just playing into the hands of homophobes? Say what? (I say this, btw, as someone who would LOVE to work on same sex weddings and any wedding of an “othered” group.)

    Again, last I checked the lunch counter sit ins didn’t require all public accommodations to accommodate people of color regardless of whether they were actually able to or not.

    Yes, a photographer who told a couple, “I’m sorry, I don’t do gay weddings” (or probably even, “Sorry, I only do weddings that are state sanctioned” or “Sorry, I only do church weddings”, or something that could be seen as a homophobic policy in all but the name) could well be sued out of house and home, and thinking people would be right to take their business elsewhere. This is already the arrangement, of course, for other protected groups (interracial weddings, different kinds of non-Anglo/Christian ethnic or religious weddings, etc).

    But there is nothing to prevent that photographer from turning down all gay couples by saying, “Sorry, I’m already booked that weekend” or “I don’t think I can do the job to your specifications”.

57. The Catholic Church is still discriminating against me and will not allow me to be a priest…and that is the law: I can’t sue them over it, either.

    I assume same-sex marriage will be similar. What is the big deal? Churches have always conducted their own business in their own way.

    This is complete bullshit. Secular law has no bearing on Canon or religious law(s). And vice versa.

58. Yup, it’s homophobic, and it sucks. But Opoponax claimed that anyone could refuse any client, and I was pointing out that this wasn’t exactly true. You can’t claim on one hand that religious people will be protected by a change in marriage laws and then turn around and say, “Of course, you’ll get sued if your religion prohibits you from doing ________.” You can claim that there’s no right to discriminate, and I agree. But as long as homophobes can claim that people will lose their houses if they refuse to do flowers for a gay wedding, they’re going to have serious ammo on the right. If we don’t give a damn about this fact, that’s fine by me. I’m arguing strategy, not the right or wrong of it.

59. There are commercial transactions and there are essential services. A lot of the troll-line argument is focused on commercial transactions, because they have unreasonable faith in the market to “solve everything” (they can just go somewhere else! If I’m really treating my customers badly my business would fail! regulation only hurts businesses until the economy collapses! etc) and because the consequences seem small enough to justify while still getting to enjoy the bullying rush.

    But denying essential services to a particular class of people is even more troubling, and something that these folks don’t want to focus on. Marriage licensing is an essential service. Medicine and health care is an essential service. Education is an essential service. A bouquet of flowers is not what’s at stake here. The religious right would like to build a roadblock to all of the things they personally oppose, such as marriage, such as contraception, such as sex education, not for themselves but for *everyone else*. The object is not to refrain from participating in things they don’t approve of, but to make it as difficult as possible for those things to take place at all.

    It’s exactly the same argument that is had about pharmacists who refuse to dispense doctor-prescribed drugs. The object is not to force the pharmacist to “get their hands dirty” or whatever the concern is. The object is for the patient to get the services that they need without roadblocks standing in their way. That pharmacist can hand the patient off to an alternate, but it should be illegal to actively prevent or delay the patient from getting their medicine.

    Applying that back to the florist who doesn’t want to give their flowers to a same-sex couple — if they feel THAT strongly about it, there should be a plan in place to give an alternate resource to those customers without unduly interfering in their event. “I can’t do your ceremony, but my assistant can.” Or, “Can I recommend Jim’s Flowers down the street instead?” If this is SO DIFFICULT, as Jill says, cry me a fucking river.

60. What happens if a preacher preaches on the immorality of abortion and homosexuality? Oh he or she must be discriminating! Take away their damn tax free status!

    Well, I feel that churches should be required to pay their taxes just like any other business, but thats neither here nor there. A preacher can say whatever he pleases without fear of legal repercussions so long as he doesn’t incite a riot. I’d refer you to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie for a particularly illuminating example of that concept in the law.

    What happens when a teacher has to tell her kids that gay marriage is ok but doesn’t want to (California). Oh there we go again, she must be discriminating!

    Thats not discrimination, thats not doing your job. She doesn’t have to tell kids hat gay marriage is OK, but she also doesn’t get the special privilege of being able to be a teacher in a public school and not teaching what she is directed to by her superiors. Now who’s asking for special rights, hmm?

    What about a landlord who knows about the romps that have been going on in his gay tenants’ apartment, what with the constant stream of visitors and evicts them for disturbing the other guests? Wham, discrimination! Even though it would be the same if it were a hetero sexual doing it.

    Actually, housing law doesn’t extend to homosexuals in most states. Even if it did, the situation you’re describing isn’t discrimination. See, a landlord generally rents using a lease. He can’t kick someone out just because he wants to (though he can decline to renew the lease for pretty much any reason he wants, he just can’t be stupid enough to give discrimination as his stated reasoning). He can kick someone out if they violate the terms of the lease. In the situation you’re talking about that would seem to be the right of quiet enjoyment. If the landlord says “I don’t like these gays with their anal sex parties and their cavorting and such” then he’d be in violation. If he says “I’ve documented extensive traffic at odd hours, unacceptable noise levels, and tenant complaints” then he’s good to go.

    You call call me a troll all you like but the fact is this: The government has no right to force a minority’s beliefs on the majority.

    How about we meet half way and I just call you a tool? Look, the fundamental idea behind the American concept of liberty is that you mind your own business. Someone else being gay might offend your delicate religious sensibilities, but unless they’re fucking on your kitchen table its none of your damned concern.

61. But as long as homophobes can claim that people will lose their houses if they refuse to do flowers for a gay wedding, they’re going to have serious ammo on the right.

    Boycotts and the like are not “discrimination”. I don’t think threatening to send bigots to the poorhouse is a great tactic, but I also don’t think bigots should be insulated from public reaction. Right after #amazonfail, I placed a big order with Powell’s. And I don’t think that was wrong of me, or unfair to Amazon, or discriminatory. It was my choice as a consumer. Do something that pisses me off, and you stand a good chance of losing my business.

62. Let’s (and by us, I mean y’all bigoted trolls, though you won’t) look at what happened in the specific case of the photographer who felt she couldn’t, in good conscience, work a same sex wedding. She did not say, when originally approached by the happy couple, “I’m sorry, I’m just totally swamped, I just can’t.” Which would be the polite way to discriminate against queers without looking like you’re discriminating against queers and is all sorts of legal. She did not even say, when approached by the happy couple, “I’m sorry, my religious convictions won’t let me work your commitment ceremony or whatever you perverts call it.” Which would be overtly discriminatory and may not be so legal, depending on the laws in her jurisdiction.

    What she did was say “Oh, sure, I can do that.” And then a day or so before the wedding she backed out, claiming that her religious beliefs forbade her from working the event. Play close attention here, bigoted trolls, because this might get complicated. She broke the contract — I don’t know if it was verbal or written, but either is enforcable in civil court — in such a way to impose an undue burden on the undue contractees, now in the position of having to try to find a photographer in a day or having to go without professional photography entirely. That is the harm done and the basis for bringing suit. Not the simple fact that she’s a bigot.

    Daniel @ 9 — no one is going to put you in prison in the United States for being a bigoted hateful shitstain of a human being. The state might — and probably should — strip you of your license to provide counseling services. That you claim to see no difference between sex among enthusiastically participating adults and murder shows you to be wildly unqualified for the job you claim to have.

63. @Concerned Citizen–I call BS–and I say this as someone who is part of the UU faith. The OP is about the idea that people have the right to discriminate against people–people who are my friends, my family, my neighbors, and my fellow congregants–simply because their religion tells them so. And you know, if someone refuses me EC because of their faith, or refuses to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and cites their faith as the excuse, they are doing real harm. I am not particularly interested in their worldview. It is not my business. I am interested in being able to live my life, and other being able to live their lives, unimpeded by the dogma of others (and let’s face it, the dogma that’s being defended in these arguments for the religious freedom to discriminate outside of the church is Christian.) Not everyone has those beliefs and I am very sympathetic to those who are alienated and angry as a result of the arm-twisting they get from some fundamentalists (and the sympathy these fundamentalists get). You cannot ignore the role of religion (compassionate or fake compassionate) in this subject, as this is about the “rights” of people to screw over and harm other people (many of whom are people of faith, or who might have been, except they’ve been alienated from communities of faith) with religious dogma as the excuse. Rita brought up the Christian photographer example–and there’s a story that’s been trotted out that invokes all sorts of hysteria about teh gays just oppressing Christians who don’t want to do business with them. Yet that story isn’t true (read kaninchen’s post on the subject). I find it trivializes the real and very harmful discrimination, violence, and bigotry that LBGT people face on a daily basis to equate it with some random photographer who declines someone’s business. You feel alienated? Oh, join the club.

    @kaninchen–THANK YOU. Jeez, I am weary of the scare stories that people put out there–and it’s quite illuminating when all of the facts are finally included in these stories. Here’s a turnaround for trolls like Samantha (who needs some reading comprehension skills)–when a business owner does something unprofessional and lawsuit-worthy to a gay person or gay couple, all they have to do is say it’s because their religion condemns homosexuality. Then, if they’re held to account, people can screech about religious freedom.

64. Just so we’re clear, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission is a state agency that reviews human rights complaints, usually in employment or housing. The decision turned on a finding of what sort of business the photographers ran. Since it was more like a store than an independent contractor, they could not discriminate against same-sex couples. Furthermore, the photographer put in writing that they explicitly would not photograph same-sex weddings. Here’s an article: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx

    What is fueling the anti-same sex marriage movement is bigotry. The fact that there are well-funded assholes out there is no reason not to fight for rights.

65. Pingback: Femmostroppo Reader - May 7, 2009 — Hoyden About Town

66. “If someone walked into my office where I work as a psychologist, and they told me they wanted relationship counseling on their gay marriage, then I would say no, because I think it is immoral. But the law would imprison me for my beliefs.”

    Bullshit. If there are any such laws in the U.S., and I doubt there are, they aren’t being enforced. The worst that could happen is that people find out about your bigotry and boycott you, which is completely fair. If you want the right to pick and choose who you do business with, then everyone else must get that right, too. I don’t have to buy shampoo tested on animals, and I don’t have to hire a homophobic psychologist, either.

    “It is not discrimination.”

    Yes, it is. Discrimination is “treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit”. Your example is inarguably discrimination, because your decision not to treat the gay couple is based on the fact that they’re a gay couple, not on who they are as individuals. Just because you think discrimination is bad, and what you’re doing is good, does not mean you can rewrite the dictionary just so you don’t have to feel uncomfortable.

    “We do not allow people to molest other children do we?”

    Do bigots really still buy this argument? We don’t let people molest children because children are not capable of fully understanding sex and all it entails; they are not able to consent in any meaningful way. This is the same reason why it’s rape to “have sex” with animals and comatose people. Most adults, on the other hand, can give consent. Choosing to have sex with consenting adults of the same gender, rather than the opposite gender, doesn’t change their ability to make these choices. I’m getting real tired of people trotting out this old chestnut; it’s old as dirt and as dumb as it, too.

67. If a photographer shows up to the ceremony and is distressed by the yarmulkes, should he be able to walk out — or refuse service in the first place?

    Funny that you should ask about photographers. My answer to your question is that people providing wedding services should not discriminate based on race, religion or sexuality but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

    When I got married 20+ years ago in Dallas, TX (part of the Bible belt) we planned a small wedding at home but wanted a professional photographer. While discussing the details with one potential candidate he noticed my husband’s “foreign” name and quickly asked, “Is this a Christian ceremony?” (and the way he asked the question showed that he didn’t want any part of it unless it was) This attitude was extremely offensive but I’m glad it was discovered early rather than having him walk out on the day of the wedding.

    Here’s another story. Because the Hindu priest who was going to perform the wedding ceremony was not authorized in Texas to sign a marriage license, and we did actually want those 1400 legal rights that go along with marriage, we had a civil service the day before. The justice of the peace told us “this will be a Christian ceremony” and then proceeded to say the Lord’s prayer. That’s right, tax dollars paid for a civil servant to pray for two folks (both non-Christian) who just wanted a quick, legal marriage. Sigh.

    I was all ready to protest but I looked at my husband and he seemed more amused than angry so I went along with it (we didn’t have any time scheduled for a political protest, LOL!). We still laugh and tell that story and many folks find it hard to believe (but we have two witnesses!).

    I would hope that things are better today but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

68. I think that the decision should be made with public funding in mind. If Catholic hospitals don’t want to perform abortions, or catholic schools don’t want to provide same-sex couples married housing to their students, then they shouldn’t be able to receive any pubic funding at all. And that particular hospital or school should lose its tax-exempt status and any other perk that there is to being a religious institution. (They can still keep those perks as it relates to their place of worship.)

Comments are currently closed.