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?
I also oppose creating human children in a lab from 3 parents. A vast number of children would be deformed or die young to perfect such a procedure, and it could introduce novel genetic defects into the gene pool that could never be contained. It could also lead to designer children and eugenics. To be born with a handicap or birth defect can be rough. But for it to have happened because a lab experimented with your genes is just cruel.
Elton John would clearly think my livelihood should be boycotted, just like Dolce and Gabbana. Is that OK?
Are any of us allowed to have our own opinions as a business owner?
on 1, April 1, 2015 at 11:00 amIngannie
Why not make a law that prohibits forcing merchants from providing a cake, or whatever that has lewd images or hateful speech on it? Being forced to do so would be a real personal affront, not the sexual act that is done in the privacy of the customers home, after all, the Bible also says eating shellfish is an abomination. Should Christian merchants be allowed to deny service to shrimp eaters?
Karen S
First you should explain why the US Supreme Court got their Civil Rights cases so wrong… No?
And imagine the outrage when a Christian is told, ” sorry but we don’t serve infidels.”
In 2011 Indiana attempted to ban Sharia Law… As IF the Sipremacy clause never existed (ignorant lawmakers).
https://m.facebook.com/notes/cair/cair-indiana-lawmaker-will-not-introduce-anti-sharia-bill/494668694441
Now, in Indiana, a Muslim cake maker can tell single ladies that they can’t be served without a male chaperone or their Hijab.
Lol… Precious.
Max:
“Are you actually arguing that a business has more Rights than you do?” No. I’m trying to get people to discuss what rights business owners do have. No rights? Some?
“Why throw your “gay friends” under your bus arguing that your “gay friends” don’t deserve legal protections.” When did I say that? In fact, I said the exact opposite. I said let’s get the government out of the marriage business and just do civil unions. (Rabbi Schmuley’s idea.) They would we gay couples, so they would have legal rights. Religious organizations could either perform or not perform gay weddings. If a gay couple didn’t belong to a congregation that supported them, they’d just go to the courthouse. Win win.
Could you please address my polygamy question? If you have already, I’ve missed it. If you agree that I can oppose polygamy but support gay marriage, why? Or can I lose everything I have because I oppose allowing polygamy to be granted legal status? (Besides, that is, people just living together and calling each other sister wife.)
We see their outrage when Christians do it, but they make excuse for Muslim extremists.
Then there’s me, whose an equal opportunity judgmental person. I happily and soundly judge Muslism, Christians, Jews, and atheists when I think they behave badly. I even judge myself when I do wrong. Go figure. When the orthodox Jews held up that airplane because they refused to sit next to a female, I criticized them. I didn’t make excuses for them. I’m funny that way.
bam bam
“For the sake of argument, let’s just say that what Ingannie claims is true and that there is no genuine concern for the health of gay men by certain individuals. If it that is so, then how about arguing that the health risks, posed to ALL of us, by the rampant spread of AIDS, especially within the gay community, is cause for alarm, regardless of one’s sexual orientation.
“As a health professional, according to your description, you, Ingannie, should known this all too well. AIDS knows no bounds, and those who do not participate in a dangerous and promiscuous lifestyle are still capable to contracting this disease through various means. A failure to recognize the impact that certain lifestyles pose to ALL of us within society is necessary, since we all will pay the price.”
As a sexually transmitted disease (STD) epidemiologist trained by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) who has studied the evidence regarding the etiology of AIDS in depth over a very long period, I beg to strenuously differ with you.
The HI virus (HIV) is a harmless passenger virus that has been ginned up by the Government-Medical-Industrial Complex as the cause of a constellation of symptoms called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) whose causation is multifactorial, but which does not include HIV, for financial, not public health reasons.
The general public is emphatically not at risk from HIV infection, nor is anybody else.
THE GREAT HIV/AIDS HOAX
“The multi-billion dollar AIDS/HIV fraud is based on two fabrications: that
AIDS is a single disease and that it is caused by the HI virus or the ‘HIV
virus’ as some medical/media masterminds call it – perhaps they think the V
in HIV stands for volcano.
“In Japan ‘AIDS’ is virtually unknown: yet, in random tests, 25% of people
were found to be ‘HIV-positive’.
“HIV-positive [antibody] response means nothing of any relevance to health: it can be triggered by vaccination, malnutrition, M.S., measles, influenza, papillomavirus wart, Epstein Barr virus, leprosy, glandular fever, hepatitis,
syphillis … : over sixty different conditions.
“Dr. Robert E. Willner inoculated himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, a
HIV-positive haemophiliac, on live Spanish television : an event which was
not picked up by the pharma-beholden British or US media.
“The great HIV/AIDS lie was created by Robert Gallo who was found guilty of
‘scientific misconduct’. “…instead of trying to prove his insane theories
about AIDS to his peers…he went public. Then, with the help of Margaret
Heckler, former head of Health and Human Services, who was under great
political pressure to come up with an answer to AIDS, the infamous world
press announcement of the discovery of the so-called AIDS virus came about.
” ‘This great fraud is now responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
thousands… It was no accident that Gallo just happened to patent the test
for HIV the day after the announcement…Gallo is now a multi-millionaire
because of AIDS and his fraudulent AIDS test.’ Dr. Willner.
“By grouping together 25-plus different diseases and other allied factors –
pneumonia, herpes, candidiasis, salmonella, various cancers, infections,
vaccine and antibiotic damage, amyl nitrate damage, malnutrition etc.and,
particularly in Africa, TB, malaria, dysentery leprosy and ‘slim disease’ –
and calling the whole thing an ‘AIDS epidemic’, a multi-billion
dollar/pound ‘AIDS research and treatment’ racket has been created.
“The mythical ‘HIV-induced AIDS plague’ in the Third World generates huge
sums of cash from Western relief organisations whilst smokescreening the
vaccine/drug boys, responsible for the carnage.”
http://whale.to/b/hiv.html
If you want to know what has caused AIDS in the gay community in the US and Europe, and among non-gays in Africa, based on the evidence, rather than on a self-serving press conference and a multi-billion dollar boondoggle, see: http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
Max:
“All the more reason to protect LGBT people from theists that seek to oppress and murder us… NO?”
Yes, absolutely I would stand up to anyone threatening to murder gays. This is about baking a cake or otherwise participating in a gay wedding. Is it equivalent to murder if you don’t want to attend a gay wedding?
I get that you know more about how it feels to not be accepted as a gay man than I ever could. Your opinion holds weight for that reason. I also know something about religious intolerance. One of my previous office mates told me a couple of times that I was literally going to hell unless I converted from Catholicism. But I was raised a Catholic in the South, so I was used to that. I just mentally rolled my eyes, thanked her for her concern about my soul, and got back to work.
Anyway, happy Passover and Easter. A time we learn about sacrifice and forgiveness… And about a woman who stood by her son till the day he died.
Karen S.
Are you actually arguing that a business has more Rights than you do?
Yep Max, we see their outrage when Muslims do it, but when Christian’s do the same, they make excuses for the religious bigotry.
The distinction is between forcing a bakery owner to sell something that he regularly sells in the course of his business (a cake) and forcing him to perform a service which his conscience opposes or religion forbids. If a baker has wedding cakes for sale, and a customer walks in and buys one, that is a regular business transaction and the shop owner should not be allowed to refuse sales to persons because of race, gender or other classifications protected by law. If a gay man asks to buy one of the cakes, the shop owner should not be allowed to refuse the sale because he knows or assumes or speculates that the gay man is buying it to celebrate his own or someone else’s gay wedding. But the state should be forbidden from forcing people to perform services for others in violation of their religious beliefs. The state should not force a baker to bake and decorate a cake for a gay wedding, polygamous wedding, or any other which violates his religious beliefs.
If I were a baker, I would just put a sign in the window, “We do not sell wedding cakes, please don’t ask.” Is the state then going to send a police officer over to force me to make one a gunpoint? The lost revenue would be a sacrifice I would be willing to make for my religious convictions, just like companies such as Chick Fil A, which probably could rake in millions more per year if it wasn’t closed on Sundays. Small bakeries with slim profit margins may be forced to close, but people could still get wedding cakes at the newly enlightened Walmart.
I suppose an unemployed young lawyer could make some money by going to the Black Muslim Bakery in Berkeley and requesting they bake him a wedding cake with two male figurines holding hands (one black and one white), and oh, by the way, it should be a rum cake with bacon bits sprinkled on top. Of course they would refuse the order, and the lawyer could then sue under California’s strict anti-discrimination laws. A self-righteous liberal jury could pat themselves on the back for awarding the victim-lawyer a windfall, which would also serve the dual purpose of putting an unpopular minority (Black Muslims) out of business. And with that precedent, the enterprising lawyer could pull the same stunt at Orthodox and Hassidic bakeries in Los Angeles. An unsavory way to make money, yes, but not appreciably worse than gays bullying small bakery owners to push a political agenda.
p.s.
Karen S and others,
If you have “gay friends” then your concern for their well being should be evident… IF you have “gay friends” at all. Why throw your “gay friends” under your bus arguing that your “gay friends” don’t deserve legal protections. I’d argue that your “gay friends” don’t deserve your friendship. After all, enemies stab others in the back…
Karen S.
All the more reason to protect LGBT people from theists that seek to oppress and murder us… NO?
So, why seek to be more restrictive like those you cite as being a threat to LGBT? How are you being better when you’r siding with their perverse ideology of hate toward gays?
You’ll gladly show us who hates us around the world but when it comes to actually doing something about it in your own country… snoozers. You don’t care and in fact, have argued as to why LGBT don’t deserve protections, much of which is repeated by those in the Middle East that do seek to do harm to LGBT. I really don’t see much difference there, rather , overt INDIFFERENCE!
But the baker refused to bake the cake because of religious ideals. How can you separate them? Even if it was just a personal belief, and not religious, it still would be part of the debate.
Try looking up “Louis Farrakhan” or doing the search I suggested above. Do you really think there are no imams in the US preach discrimination? Only Christians?
Max, such bigotry also was displayed in Nazi Germany, it started with laws discriminating against Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah Witnesses, mentally ill, and yes, gay people. “Juden raus”, lest we forget.
@Max-1
You are mistaken. I did indeed answer you. Perhaps you were to busy link bombing the place the notice. Go look it up.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Well, I think the real villain here is The Universe! Because the Universe, that is this reality on this astral plane, is extremely homophobic! The Universe has arranged things where gays and lesbians can not pass their genes onto the next generation without some cheating. The Universe has also expressed its sincere disapproval of playing in poopie and fecal matter by giving all sorts of funky diseases to those who engage in that activity. Apparently the Universe originally figured that simply providing an unpleasant smell to that area of the body was warning enough, but some people must be slow learners. The Universe also views with displeasure such activities as sex parties and promiscuity.
Sooo, maybe the Gays should be taking their complaints to the Universe???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Annie,
I asked miss “kill the gays” if she’d throw me off her balcony like ISIS does…
Crickets…