This week, I appeared on the CNN special addressing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana. While I have been a long-standing supporter of same-sex marriage, I raised concerns over the dismissive treatment of religious concerns over the scope of anti-discrimination laws and how they may curtail free exercise of religion. I have previously written both columns and academic work on this collision between the two areas of law. In the program, I raised an example of the growing conflicts that we discussed earlier on this blog of a bakery that refused to make a cake deemed insulting to homosexuals while other bakers are objecting to symbols that they view as insulting to their religious views. This issue also came up with an advocate for LGBT rights on the show:
On the show, Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, appeared and gave an excellent case for those opposing this law. The HRC does very good legal work and has a distinguished history advocating LBGT rights. I however was most interested in one exchange with host Christ Cuomo:
Cuomo: Now, Sarah, you’re going to hear people flip this analogy on you and say, “Well, wait a minute, if this were a Jewish baker and some KKK couple came in and said, “We want you to make a cake.” If he said no, well than how would you feel about the situation?
Warbelow: Well, most of these business owners really are providing cakes across the board, but there are a select few who are choosing to discriminate. And there’s a huge difference between having to write something objectionable on a cake and being asked to provide a cake for a same sex couple.
The exchange was interesting between Warbelow seems to suggest that bakers should be able to refuse “something objectionable on a cake” but insists that bakers cannot refuse to make cakes that they find objectionable for same-sex couples. For some religious bakers, a cake with a same-sex image or language is objectionable.
My point is only that we are brushing aside a difficult and unresolved question of where to draw this line. We are all so eager to show (as I did above) that we support homosexual rights and/or same sex marriage, that there is little frank discussion of the obvious conflict with free exercise and free speech. There is also a limited discussion of the difference between certain forms of expressive arts like photography or baking as opposed to less expressions forms like diners or transportation businesses. For example, there does seem a meaningful distinction between serving a gay couple at a diner and a photographer who is asked to participate in a same-sex marriage and celebration in recording the event and arranging photo settings. That does not mean that we would not reach the same conclusion, but we are not having this debate.
I have struggled with this collision between anti-discrimination laws and free speech/free exercise for many years. I still remain uncertain on whether to draw this line between the two cakes that I described. We should have an answer for those citizens who are raising these concerns rather than dismiss them all as bigots. If the HRC is saying that bakers can refuse to make objectionable cakes, we should have a better understanding of when such objections are deemed legitimate and protected. Free speech and free exercise are rights that require bright line rules to avoid the chilling effect of possible criminal or civil liability. We need to be able to explain why the refusal to make one of these cakes is an unlawful form of bigotry and why the other is a permissible form of free speech.
What do you think?
Well, people are getting beheaded, whipped, and stoned under Sharia Law. It abuses human rights everywhere it’s practiced, whereas there are many Christian denominations that perform gay weddings. So there’s that . . .
But that’s the joy of freedom of speech. We all get to have our own opinion about Christianity, gay marriage, and Sharia Law.
Can you imagine if you could lose your job for posting something against Christianity? I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, but many people seem to think that’s OK to do to someone who opposes gay marriage.
If I could get someone fired for being anti-Christian, I would have no rest. it would be fire-fire-fire all day long. I’d be like Donald Trump from morn to night.
Karen S.
Please find the Islamic group that supports discrimination… and stop conflating religious customs with a bakery.
People who are against the RFRA are not anti Christian as Michael Haz and other people have said. There are many moderate Christians that have come out against this. It’s the extremists that seem to be supporting it and that’s not surprising.
Karen S.
That’s the same logic that supported this…
http://aclassapartmovie.com/images/inset-whitesonly.jpg
Max – seriously? Well, a mosque does not allow men and women to sit together. There are extremist Imams calling for death to Israel, anti-semitism, and anti-US sentiment. (Hint: GOOGLE home grown terrorism, radicalization, or extremist mosques in the US.)
Also, conservative Muslims do not support gay marriage, either.
There are many religious denominations, including Christian, who do. And if you do not find a local church you like, you can start your own via freedom of religion. You can never be shut out because you can always start your own church that reflects your vision of God’s supreme love and acceptance.
Unless I’ve missed it, you have not addressed my polygamy question.
And I can imagine the “outrage” by the Christian Conservatives IF Muslims were pushing for these discrimination bills as cries of SHARIA LAW!!!!!!!!!
I support gay marriage. I am a Christian.
How in the world is that relevant to the actual question of whether someone ELSE is allowed to make a business decision based on personal or religious beliefs??? Would it be relevant if I cried? I went to a Christian elementary school. Does that answer the question? Add anything? What if 10 people have one belief and 2 people another. Does the ratio in any way address the legal question of a business owner’s rights?
A DARE:
Find an Islamic Temple that supports discrimination in America…
… Because from what I see, it’s predominately Christians pushing intolerance.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/28/disciples-of-christ-lgbt-indiana_n_6955558.html
“Though the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) has made Indianapolis its headquarters for nearly a century, the denomination is considering pulling its next biennial convention out of Indiana over a new state law that allows businesses to turn away gay customers.
“Purportedly a matter of religious freedom, we find RFRA contrary to the values of our faith — as well as to our national and Hoosier values,” stated the letter, which was signed by Sharon E. Watkins, the church’s general minister and president, as well as the leaders of its overseas and domestic missions.”
Max – to be honest, I do not support legalizing polygamy. If people want to live together, with a line of women waiting outside a man’s bedroom waiting for him to say, “next”, that’s their business. But I don’t want it legalized with government benefits.
Does that mean I support a version of Sharia Law in the US?
I support gay marriage but not polygamy. Can I lose my livelihood out of retaliation? Am I a bigot? Entitled to my own opinion? Should I be forced to bake a cake for a polygamous wedding to a 16 year old bride? Should I get death threats if I don’t participate but ask them to find another vendor?
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/03/28/hundreds-in-indy-protest-rfra-law/70594058/
“Hundreds of LGBT supporters cheered Blanchard on, including Whittney Murphy, a first-year student at Christian Theological Seminary.
The seminarian in-training said she wept when the bill was signed on Thursday.”
Max – so if you support a loving family unit, you are not allowed to support divorce in an abusive relationship? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Anyone whose gone through divorce or widowhood, or is stuck in an abusive marriage can tell you that it is unbelievably hard to raise a family under those circumstances, and certainly not ideal. I’ve seen women that I frankly expect to turn into a diamond one day from all that pressure.
Thinking a loving, safe, stable family unit is best does not mean that you think divorce should be outlawed.
Who here is perfect? Ask people to raise their hands if they oppose speeding. Then ask them to raise their hands if they’ve ever sped. Does that mean they are not allowed to support a speed limit in a school zone?
So when the buybull said that when God looked upon all of his creation and called it good… these “Christians” have something to say about THAT!
Really… so, whose gawd then? Them or the Lord?
Annie,
What mote… I don’t see a mote in my … oh but your’s is knotted and huge.
MUST. STAMP. OUT!
Because self professed “Christians” that don’t fight divorce yet fight two adults seeking to wed aren’t practicing their faith… They’re totalitarian Christians seeking to enslave America in Christian based Sharia Law.
Max, because they don’t see the plank in their eye.
I guess all these Christian leaders and clergy who have spoken out against RFRA must really hate Christianity.
Annie,
We ALL recognise the cognitive dissonance used to explain “family values” and how the religious folks aren’t really concerned with man and woman marriages…
… IF they were concerned about the destruction of the family, then they’d seek to outlaw divorce, the only legal tool used to break up families. But they aren’t.
Why would THAT be?
Reading this thread, I keep seeing people defend homosexuality or gay marriage. It’s irrelevant what you or I believe about gay marriage. It’s the beliefs of the business owner and the right to make business decisions based on those beliefs.
What does it matter if you don’t feel strongly against something if someone else does? All you’re accomplishing is stating that you disagree with their opinion. That’s great. But the salient point is can a business owner make business decisions based on their opinions?