Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson is suing Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, after she refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding. I have been writing about the tension between free exercise rights and anti-discrimination laws — a subject that I discussed at the conference this week at the Utah Valley University’s Center for Constitutional Studies. This is now an issue that is arising with greater regularity, including conflicts over wedding cakes and other items.
Ferguson is acting under provisions of the state’s Consumer Protection Act that bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and is seeking an injunction requiring the florist to comply with the law. He is also demanding a fine of $2,000 for each violation.
The case involves the refusal to serve customer Robert Ingersoll. Stutzman insists that her religion barred such work. She described the scene: “He [Ingersoll] said he decided to get married and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.’ We hugged each other and he left, and I assumed it was the end of the story.”
However, the Attorney General says that the standard is clear: “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.” Advocates of such enforcement note that we long ago stopped businesses from refusing to serve people due to their race and that this is merely an alternative form of discrimination.
Recently, a same-sex couple sued over an Oregon bakery’s refusal to make a cake for a same-sex couple.
The question is whether anti-discrimination laws are cutting into free exercise and first amendment rights for religious individuals, particularly those who believe that they are engaged in a form of expression or art in the preparation of flowers or cakes. These types of expressive acts may be distinguishable from other public accommodation cases like hotels or restaurants. Even though the same religious objections can be made by an evangelical Christian hotel owner, the flower and cake makers can claim that they are engaged in a more expressive form of product. It is, in my view, a difficult question because I do not see how anti-discrimination laws could not be used to negate a wide array of expressive activities.
I have long been a critic of the Bob Jones line of cases on tax exemption. I have long held the view that we took the wrong path in dealing with not-for-profit organizations, particularly in such cases as Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). We need to re-examine how anti-discrimination laws are encroaching upon religious organizations to give free exercise more breathing space in our society — a position I discussed in a book with other authors.
I find these more recent cases more difficult than the tax exemption cases. I find the analogy to race discrimination in public accommodation to be compelling. I have also been a long supporter of gay rights and same-sex marriage. However, I have serious reservations over the impact on free exercise in an area of core religious beliefs. What do you think?
Source: Seattle Times
RWL,
This has nothing at all to do with how things or genders are named. We happen to speak English. If you are from Scotland and spoke Gaelic you would be fireann and a woman/female would be boireann.
Language does not determine how one reacts emotionally and hormonally to pheromones or physical features. What I have a problem with is bigotry and those who would deny others equal treatment under the law.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. had this to say about bigots and bigotry: “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”
Spot on Mike A. The idea of gay marriage just shakes the bible to the core.
OS,
I am speaking in terms of the very basic. In other words, you are told that you are male or female. You are not born into this world knowing that my nose is called a nose or my feet is called feet. You are told this. I said that you are not born in this world knowing that you are a male or female. You are told this. How many 2- month olds know the terms or words ‘feet’ or ‘hand’?
When you were born a male, based solely on how the term ‘male’ is used from one’s anatomy and physiology, you grew up knowing that you were a male. You didn’t know the terms or words ‘male’ or ‘female’ at birth, 3 months, 6 months, etc. You were born with the capability to know these terms but you didn’t know the meaning of words until you were informed.
Society could have switched the words or terms to make the meanings of ‘female’ & ‘male’ the exact opposite of what they are now. And guess what, I would be calling myself a female, because the definitions of a male and female have changed.
Also, I wasn’t using Dr. Wilson as an example of or for proof of this discussion, I just stated that I had the pleasure of meeting him.
Homosexual marriage is not a threat to heterosexual marriage. It is instead a threat to heterosexual attitudes about sexuality itself. When opponents of gay marriage are unable to scientifically support their insistence that homosexuality is a function of choice, they retreat to the assertion that it is nonetheless immoral and therefore threatening to social norms governing sexual behavior.
Mike Appleton wrote: “When opponents of gay marriage are unable to scientifically support their insistence that homosexuality is a function of choice, they retreat to the assertion that it is nonetheless immoral and therefore threatening to social norms governing sexual behavior.”
Not a fair assertion. There are plenty of scientific studies showing that genetics is not the whole picture and that environment and choice are both involved. The studies involving identical twins, individuals who are genetically identical to each other, yet one turns out homosexual and the other heterosexual, these are very convincing that we must look beyond genetics to understand homosexuality.
When I speak of choice being involved, I do not mean that someone just makes a single conscious decision one day to be homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Sometimes that does happen later in life, like in the case of Clive Davis, but it is not really the norm. What I mean is that people make choices about what they think about and meditate about, and they make sexual choices about what they will do and try. A long series of these choices define their sexuality. This is the reason we have R and X ratings on movies in relation to nudity and sexual content. Some parents want to guard their children’s minds from having to deal with these kinds of thoughts too soon in life. They prefer for them to mature more before they have to make decisions about their sexual behavior. If a person decides to have sexual relations with either someone of the same sex or opposite sex at the tender age of 12 or 13, this will drastically affect how they think about sex later, and it affects their future choices about sexual relations as well. Traditionally, this has been a motivation behind encouraging a young person to keep his or her virginity until later or even until marriage.
The legal benefits to marriage, such as tax benefits, happened with the rationale that the government had a compelling interest to encourage couples to marry rather than just shack up together and have children out of wedlock. It was good for society if couples formed strong family units. It was good for the raising of the children, and it was good for society in general. I would argue that today, that compelling governmental interest still stands, and it also stands in the case of carefully defining gay unions. If gay unions are lumped into the concept of marriage, it creates a quagmire because the two unions are not the same from a biological point of view.
The word “equality” has been perverted by the gay community in the same way that they have perverted the word “gay.” One can no longer use the word “gay” without a sexual connotation. In the same way, the word “equality” in a legal sense use to be more about the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Defining marriage based upon the gender of two individuals does not violate equality. Even if marriage is defined and practiced in the U.S. as it was in the 1990’s, every person equally has the opportunity to practice marriage in the way it is defined, as between a man and a woman. Take the case of Josh Weed. He is a homosexual Mormon man who generally speaking has no sexual attraction to women but only to men. He decided to marry a woman, one of his best friends, and have children and raise a family. He is still homosexual. His wife is the only woman he has any sexual attraction toward, and from what I understand, that came after his choice to be involved with her sexually. Like Clive Davis, Josh Weed does not seem to fit in with the propaganda put out by the homosexual community. Josh Weed illustrates quite clearly that there is no legal discrimination by defining marriage using gender.
I think if a person disagrees with the compelling government interest in fostering reproductive family units based upon basic biology of the two parties involved, they should focus upon defining legal domestic partnerships or civil unions, affording these partnerships the necessary rights in regards to their responsibilities toward the other party involved. If homosexuals are going to partner up, they definitely need some legal constructs to define the relationship. Unfortunately, by trying to use marriage to do it, they are destroying a long held institution which will lead to more societal disharmony and unrest.
RWL,
This is where you go off the rails: “However, you are not born into this world knowing (mentally) that you are a male or female.”
********************************************
That is not true. As soon as sexual attractiveness comes into awareness, youngsters are attracted to one or the other genders. They KNOW who they like (or love). Learning theory models, as propounded by Watson, Pavlov and Skinner have nothing to do with it. This is more closely akin to “imprinting” than learning.
Dr. Wilson is a sociologist, and a very learned gentleman. However, he is not a psychologist, anatomist or neuroscientist. He is qualified to study and report on the societal fallout from bigotry and discrimination, but not the etiology.
David,
I think what you were trying to say maybe as follows (anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong):
In my psychology and sociology courses in undergrad and attending some of psychology and sociology conferences as a graduate student (I had the pleasure of shaking hands with famed sociologist William Julius Wilson), I was given the impression that what solely determines if you are a male or female is your human anatomy & physiology (i.e. if you are born with male body parts, therefore you are labeled a male).
However, you are not born into this world knowing (mentally) that you are a male or female. You’re socialization process by society (including family members, neighbors, friends, etc.) labels you a male (based solely on your anatomy & physiology), and therefore ‘expects’ you to act as a male.
Million dollar question: What does it mean to ‘act like a male’? What are the roles of males & females in any given society?
The roles of males and females have changed or evolved over the last few centuries in the American society. My (and probably yours) concerns is how far is going to far with changing of the roles before the word insanity comes into play.
For example, IMO, I think it is going too far when a male believes that he is a woman born in a male body, based solely on his feelings. I think that it is going too far when a male believes that it is ok for him to wear woman’s clothing, wants to use women facilities, and wans a sex change so that he can become a woman (knowing that he can never become a woman sense he was genetically born a male).
I also think that it is going too far if a man wants to accept the role of ‘Mr. Mom’ (One of the worst movies that my wife made me watch), unless he is physically deformed, too old, or suffering from some sort of mental illness.
However, I wouldn’t advise advocating for any social, legal policy, preventing members of the GLBT community from marrying, adopting, etc. Just raise your family as you seem best, and go about your business.
RWL,
Trust me, a gay male brain has more in common with a straight female than straight males. And vice versa. The research reports I linked to explain it in painful detail; but the short version is, some people are born heterosexual and some are born homosexual. There is no “choice” involved.
My concern is civil rights. Everybody’s, not just straight people. Recall as recently as 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in some states.
OS,
I read the study, but you cannot make that leap by stating ‘you are born heterosexual or homosexual’ even the researchers in the study state that work needs to be done……and that they cannot make that assumption.
David:
“The truth is that sexual identity is more akin to something like alcoholism, where there is some genetic component that affects a person’s inclination toward becoming an alcoholic, and then there is the behavioral choices that a person makes that affects whether or not he will become an alcoholic.”
Are you trying to say that you dont like penis because you cant just have one?
I dont think sexual identity is like alcoholism. If it is then an alcoholic is an alcoholic whether they drink or not. Not drinking doesnt mean you are not an alcoholic it just means you arent letting it destroy your life. I dont think being gay destroys your life if you have always accepted being gay. The problem arises when you marry and have children and then finally acceppt being gay. Now you have caused big problems for the people in your life and great emotional turmoil to yourself.
I think it is much better to just be gay than to hide behind a woman’s skirt. People are gay, I think people just need to accept that fact and move on.
If someone is going to define marriage as between one man and one woman, that someone has to first define man/woman.
So here is the tossup question:
What is your objective determination of a person’s gender?
RWL:
I would like to know how they differentiate into male and female brains. Is there much structural difference?
David,
Hush! OS just made a great point in your favor and you didn’t see it (unless I didnt see it…lol..)! However, don’t beat around the bush if you are against the GLBT community, and resort to name calling. There are billions of people on both sides of the debate.
OS,
You are too intelligent for this blog if you think that readers understood what the heavens you just said:
“Wrong. Gender identity is due to brain development, not choices. We know this due to a growing body of brain research made possible by fMRI, MRI PET, and other advanced scanning technology.”
“An individual has no more choice in the anatomy of their amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex as they do the shape of their nose and chin. Morals have nothing to do with it.”
You probably need to go into detail about what you just posted (i.e. explain if brain development is genetic-females & males are born with different brain ‘parts’ or different amounts of ‘fluid’, differentiating the two? or explain that our brain development is environmentally- pyscho-socially constructed?)
davidm2575,
Would you please spell out exactly how a gay couple getting married infringes on ANY of your freedoms as spelled out in the Constitution? I must be dense, because I seem to be missing something.
If you are married, how is your marriage threatened by a gay couple, anywhere on the planet, wanting the same legal benefits (and responsibilities) that you have?
And….um…one more thing. Where did your expertise on brains come from? Want to compare credentials? Mine came from an earned doctorate.
David,
I guess you did not read OS’s post that corrected your misconception that homosexuality is a choice and is not a sexual morality issue.
davidm2575,
Wrong. Gender identity is due to brain development, not choices. We know this due to a growing body of brain research made possible by fMRI, MRI PET, and other advanced scanning technology.
An individual has no more choice in the anatomy of their amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex as they do the shape of their nose and chin. Morals have nothing to do with it. That is, unless you discount the immorality of bigotry and intolerance which you display here as though you are proud of it.
The link is to only one study. This was published by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2008. Since then, there have been hundreds more studies which have expanded on these findings.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403.short
Marriage is a legal construct. By your reasoning, people who do not wish to have children, or are too old to have children, should not be allowed to get married. I have news for you. Marriage is about two things. Companionship, and certain legal benefits. The latter includes taxes, inheritance, health care benefits, and hospital visitation rights.
Before you come into a public forum to advocate discrimination against other human beings, may I suggest you do your homework on the science. The work of Dr.Ivanka Savic and Dr. Per Lindström is not new to those of us who actually are scientists and follow neuroscience research.
Let me make it easy for you. Here are a few more studies:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=cerebral+asymmetry+and+functional+connectivity+between+homo-+and+heterosexual+subjects&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C43
I am aware of these studies. In my short post, I never meant to convey that there is no genetic component whatsoever to sexuality. Only a fool would do such a thing. What I did advocate is that the choices a person makes affects the development of their sexual identity. The error that you make is assuming that documenting cerebral diversity equates with establishing that there is ONLY a genetic component to a person’s sexual identity. The truth is that sexual identity is more akin to something like alcoholism, where there is some genetic component that affects a person’s inclination toward becoming an alcoholic, and then there is the behavioral choices that a person makes that affects whether or not he will become an alcoholic. Surely you are aware of identical twin studies concerning homosexuality?
There is a much greater difference in brains between male and female than between homosexual and heterosexual. Culturally, the homosexual agenda has fought to obscure these differences and ultimately with gay marriage seeks to destroy these gender differences as being important altogether. After gay marriage, there will be the ongoing fight for unisex bathrooms. The traditional cultural movement has been about celebrating the differences between the sexes, celebrating the need that the two sexes have for each other to be complete, celebrating the union of the two genders in marriage, celebrating the creation of offspring, and celebrating the virtue in raising a family. You want to pretend that destroying these traditional values is a value in itself, that it is somehow not discriminatory against others to destroy these values of sexual morality. What flies in the face of this pretense is a legal case like this one where a florist is not allowed to agree with a prospective customer not to provide flowers for his wedding because of her philosophical perspective on life being contrary to what he is doing. Now she is being prosecuted by the state for that belief system. Under the threat of punishment, people are being forced to change their opinion on sexual morality? This is not freedom. This is real discrimination against those who have a different line for acceptable sexual behavior than you do.
Our sexuality is defined by a number of choices over our lifetime regarding how we think and act about sex. Sexual identity is not at all as clearly defined by genetics in the same way as race is. Sexual identity is related to sexual morality. Obfuscation of this understanding is the primary reason we get into trouble as this case so clearly demonstrates. The support for gay marriage will result in all manner of injustices because marriage was created on the primary fact that we come into this world biologically as male or female, and we are designed with the purpose of a man and woman coming together in matrimony to complete ourselves, create offspring, and raise a family. It is part of our inherent destiny due to the fact of being born male and female with numerous differences between the sexes. Homosexual marriage destroys the concept of this inherent biological, psychological, and social design. Laws that seek to protect homosexuals are actually protecting sexual immorality and the idea that there should be no laws against sexual immorality. I find that this is not in accordance with natural law, so only societal disharmony will result if the legal profession embraces it.
There are several establishments that have a sign on entry or close to the entrance that says “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. Customers know this as they enter the business. They have the right to refuse service and this lawsuit is a frivolous one. Not everyone accepts this disorientation that special interest groups are forcing upon everyone. People need to understand this.
That’s what business needs, more State telling them how to run their business.
Sayeth the magnanimous State: “Mom-and-pop business owner, you must sell you product to everyone and anyone (and soon we’ll tell you how much you can charge).
Oh, TBTF banks and other contributors to my campaign, go forth and be free. Extract at will. We’ll write the regulations so that you can take the jobs oversees and continue to destroy our economy.
Am I not merciful?”
Well done progressives. Continue destroying free people and their institutions in the USA, and we’ll thank you when we’re all so dependent on the power of the State that we can’t feed or clothe ourselves, much less think of doing those things alone.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2heyBa24u8UC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=mafia+florist&source=bl&ots=PK7e1sLvZT&sig=0TmN9BOaBs72b7j8sdAbJ2q0b7U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bANoUZTfJ5i84AP3uIGYDA&ved=0CFAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=mafia%20florist&f=false
———————————
What?
NHL Announces Support For Gay Rights, Pledges To Fight Homophobia With New Initiative
The Huffington Post
By Cavan Sieczkowski
Posted: 04/11/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/nhl-gay-rights_n_3062518.html
Excerpt:
The National Hockey League (NHL) has offered its support of gay rights with the announcement of a new partnership to combat homophobia in sports.
The NHL has teamed up with the You Can Play Project, an organization that promotes equality in sports, to develop “what appears to be the most comprehensive measure by a major men’s league in support of gay rights,” according to The New York Times. The initiative will include training and counseling on gay issues, along with participation in public service announcements.
“Our motto is Hockey Is for Everyone, and our partnership with You Can Play certifies that position in a clear and unequivocal way,” NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said in the statement obtained by the Times. “We are delighted to reaffirm through this joint venture with the NHL Players’ Association that the official policy of the NHL is one of inclusion on the ice, in our locker rooms and in the stands.”
lotta:
“Mespo, I think you’re getting into a whole separate orientation there… ”
*******************
Thanks for noticing my little double entendre.