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?
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
“@Ken Rogers
“I don’t agree with your position, but I did watch this documentary today which expresses your argument very well.”
I was already familiar with “House of Numbers,” but I’m certainly glad that you watched it and posted a link to it, here. The only thing that has changed since the documentary was made is the increased number of physicians, researchers, and epidemiologists who dissent from the HIV/AIDS hypothesis because of the overwhelming evidence against it.
I hope you don’t have to learn the hard way that HIV is a harmless virus by being tested for antibodies to it, getting a positive result, and then being treated with highly toxic drugs, as so many people have before doing their own research and getting off the drugs after they’ve done considerable damage to their immune systems.
Thanks again for posting the link__I hope a very large number of people watch it, as a result, and save themselves and/or their loved ones a whole lot of unnecessary grief.
Equality: the most dangerous word in the world.
@PaulCS
It isn’t just off my table, it’s off my bed, my couch, my chaise lounge, and every other piece of furniture in my house!
🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Paul, I haven’t said a word about my private life. Don’t make assumptions.
Edward – thanks!
Michael,
Great point. I would add just a few words to the end of your first sentence:
“Too many of his commenters are all too willing to dismiss people raising concerns about freedom of religion as bigots.”
I’d add…”while making patently bigoted, ignorant and intolerant comments themselves.”
@NickS
Well, whiners gotta whine, sooo you will like this, on “Bras as tools of Racism!
http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/28111-nude-bras-are-now-a-subtle-form-of-racism-fyi
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The “Indiana” law is the same law Clinton signed when President and 19 other States have. The intent is to protect business from looney tunes people. I would not like putting two grooms on a cake, only because I think it’s dumb. Nor would I decorate with Swastikas. Restaurants have requirements, tie required. They have a clientele and prices that want a standard.
A bakery could bake the cake with too much salt. Or add pepper. We do not like being forced to do something we don’t want to do. I don’t care if other people do it, I don’t want to! I don’t like eating out in expensive restaurants and listening to kids running around, ergo, adults only restaurants are fine by me. Does everybody look for businesses that don’t want you? Why?
This is 6% of our population wanting acceptance, even advocacy. Well, there are people who don’t want that. A Kosher deli does not serve Ham sandwiches, go somewhere else! If you want meat, don’t go to a vegetarian restaurant. Based on the arguments on how gays should be treated, I should be able to demand a steak at the vegetarian place. And a Ham sandwich at a Kosher deli. But why put myself through that? The deli tells me it’s Kosher before I walk in. So go someplace else.
I don’t care who anyone loves. And I don’t care about the physical relations people participate in. The government shouldn’t be passing laws about this. The interaction of people should be their choice. Quit telling me what I can and cannot do.
I am an Ameican and I have rights! Get out if my face!
Professor Turley said:
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
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.
We should have an answer for those citizens who are raising these concerns rather than dismiss them all as bigots.
Too many of his commenters are all too willing to dismiss people raising concerns about freedom of religion as bigots. Freedom of religion is so important that it was guaranteed in the First Amendment. That must be a part of the discussion.
Let me interject a religious comment that may bring us together. HBO just broadcast a superb documentary on Scientology. I never realized just how crazy and creepy L. Ron Hubbard was. I mean I knew he was a charlatan, but WOAH MAMA!! This is not a religion, it is a cult. The fact that the IRS caved on that a decade ago is appalling. But, it shows how bereft of integrity the IRS really is. The IRS was hit w/ lawsuits from this cult and they agreed to give them tax exempt status if the lawsuits were dropped. Incredible.
People who are hostile and antagonistic to religion, and who just cut and paste links from newspapers and magazines are laughably ignorant about theology.
Study theology, if you want to sound informed.
Squeeky, Thanks for saying that affirmatively, but I know you well enough to know that to be the case.
@NickS
How true! Even me, who can’t stand gay men, and openly admit to finding them gross and nasty, do not think one should be able to refuse to sell them a can of pork and beans.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@PaulCS
The point Annie is trying to make is that both gay and straight men may engage in sodomy, therefore “where” they put their weenie is not determinative of their sexuality. But, I defined “where” as the recipient. . . do you put it in a woman, or in a man.
But, as I noted way far above, there are many unanswered questions about gayness, including:
However, this bunch of anti-RFRAs do not deign to answer questions. That requires thinking and conceptualizing, and both activities interfere with screaming, shouting, calling names, link bombing, feigning outrage, and launching into childish tirades.
I hope that helps.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
squeeky – sodomy is something that is off the table for me. Inga can do what she wants on whatever sheets she wants. Speaking of subtle forms of racism, my wife is Asian, they don’t make any bras for them.
Good Lord, please help those afflicted by hysteria.
Amen
Paul read the definition. It’s what sex ( not sexual act) you are attracted to. Pretty elemental my dear Watson.
Inga – did not not respond to my very intense question about the burning issue confronting LGBT. If you had you would not make the silly statements that you do.
Two commenters here are lying about people not wanting to serve gays. NO ONE here has said that it is OK not to serve gay people. IT IS NOT OK!!This is about serving a GAY MARRIAGE CEREMONY. Lying is part of their anti religious pathology. Reject and ignore the people who blatantly lie. They are blinded by their anti religious hatred. I pray for them.
Dear God, please help ALL here be truthful and honest in this debate. Please help us be empathetic to those w/ whom we disagree. And, please help us all remember, the truth shall make you free. For w/o truth, we have nothing. Amen.
Not according to dictionaries Paul. You are a heterosexual, you can’t limit heterosexual sex to what you personally do or don’t do. Your manner of sex doesn’t define your sexuality. I guess you did say you weren’t well versed in biology, or the other sciences.
Yes, mentioning “weenies” and where they go is a true display of debating prowess.
Inga – if my manner of sex does not define by sexuality, what does, surely not my winning smile? You didn’t get any advanced sexual behavior work at Marquette did you?
DBQ – the failure on this thread to bravely face all sides of the issue encapsulates the problem on the national scale. People can’t even calmly talk about both sides. They hunker down and hurl arrows. It’s like a holier than thou contest worth of the Prods and Catholics.