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?
Ironic that indiana is now one of the first states to make LGBT people a protected class, lol. Oh my, how this law has brought about good afterall.
The gay mafia wins another one. When will people learn not to cave in to pressure.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/02/indiana-republicans-religious-freedom
“Indiana amends religious freedom bill to put an end to discrimination.
Indiana lawmakers have introduced a change to the state’s controversial religious freedom bill that clarifies that it does not authorize businesses to discriminate against people, Republican leaders announced on Thursday.
The proposed amendment clarifies that RFRA does not “authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service.””
*************************
VICTORY! One state down more to go.
Jim, You are a forthright man. Thanks for that perspective. As DBQ pointed out, if there is ANY doubt that this is a negative movement, what has happened to that small pizza shop owner explains it all. The heartening aspect is how folks have come to his defense. I’m going to find out how to contribute a C-note to the good small business owner caught in this spiral of hate toward religion.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/01/tapper_vs_arkansas_state_senator_im_confused_how_can_refusing_service_to_gays_not_be_discrimination.html
“In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Republican Arkansas State Senator Bart Hester says the religious freedom law in Arkansas is not discrimination but does allow a business to deny service to gay clientele.
Hester says the law does not discriminate against an individual, but allows a business owner to “discriminate against a message that they don’t feel comfortable with their strongly held religious belief.”
“See, this is what I don’t understand with supporters of this type of legislation. Would it allow the florist to not give flowers to the same sex couple or not?” a confused Tapper asked.
“You’re saying almost two things,” Tapper said. You’re saying that there’s no discrimination but the Christian conservative doesn’t have to participate in a ceremony they find objectionable. It’s just one or the other. I’m just trying to figure out what it does. I’m not judging the legislation.”
“I think to be clear, it does not allow someone to discriminate,” Hester said. “I think they should absolutely serve a homosexual couple. It also lets them hold their personal religious beliefs close on a message.”
“But how are they going to stay true to their conservative Christian beliefs and also not discriminate?” Tapper asked. “Are you saying they can hold true and not participate in an event that they don’t find holy, that they think is objectionable or sinful, or are you saying that they have to?””
Ooooh…..Look. It is still the Inga show. I guess Max had to sleep in today but will likely be along soon.
BTW: Overnight the Pizza parlor in some little town that no one ever heard of who when asked a hypothetical question said that,…..while never having been asked to they would not cater a gay wedding but that they have no problem serving gay people on a regular basis……well…..they were trashed, attacked on the Internet and threatened with destruction of life and property. They have closed their shop out of fear. If THIS isn’t terrorism, then I don’t know what it is anymore.
Not that this wasn’t expected. This is the same operational plan of previous Gay Mafia attacks.
The good news is that the donations to these poor business owners. As of this morning at least $40,000. I would expect it to top $100K shortly.
Same backlash against the Chic Fil A boycott. Gay Mafia may be strong…..but not so smart.
Nick Spinelli – “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.”
Nick, I actually do feel it is ok to not serve them. It is also ok not to serve anyone for any reason. Same as you are able to choose who you will take on as a client. The difference is, I would not got to a place that wouldn’t serve certain people. The free market and people should be allowed to settle this. Not the Govt. or the gay mafia.
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/largest-islamic-and-rabbinic-organizations-join-chorus-against-indiana-rfra
Largest Rabbinic and Islamic organizations join chorus against Indiana RFRA
“The firestorm over Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act continues as minority faith communities added their voices to a growing list of churches, corporations, civil rights advocates and celebrities speaking out about the existing law that would put the rights of minorities at risk, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
On Monday, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the largest and oldest Islamic umbrella organization in North America, issued a statement against the law, urging Indiana Gov. Pence to either “repeal this law or add sufficient anti-discrimination protections to insure no one’s rights are undermined in the name of religious freedom.”
Similarly, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), the oldest and largest rabbinic organization in North America, issued a warning about misusing Religious Freedom to justify discrimination adding, “We are saddened that members of the CCAR and members of the communities we serve may be adversely affected by these laws.”
According to the Anti-Defamation League [this needs a link] there has been a recent increase in anti-Semitic incidents and anti-Muslim bigotry in the US. Under the existing Indiana law, law enforcement could refuse to defend synagogues and mosques, or retail business owners could refuse to serve Jews, Muslims, Sikhs or LGBT people.”
Inga – I also enjoy pronouncements from groups who do not speak for their members. Thanks for passing them on. You never fail to entertain.
As a PI, I love it when someone keeps proving my case w/o having the intelligence or self awareness to realize it. I just sit back and let them talk!
Some people have no phases, they are non stop sociopaths. I hear marijauna helps.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/religious-groups-protest-rfra_n_6986002.html
These religious groups want nothing to do with RFRA.
“Our nation’s dedication to religious freedom has allowed religious minorities, including Jews, to flourish across America,” Laser said. “This history inspires us to speak out — not only to ensure that individuals and religious communities can freely practice and observe their faith — but also to fight discrimination against other minorities.”
Manic phase.
” Many Christians even see it as a heresy and perversion of the gospels.”
Some people have reading comprehension problems, maybe marijauna helps?
LOL! More and more, the stripes are shown. Anti-religion, not pro gay. Of course, there is a LONG history of anti religion, well documented on other threads. The hypocrisy of Tim Cook’s and the minions, will not stand. The Constitution and the First Amendment will prevail.
The downside of the cake wars
http://patterico.com/2015/04/01/internet-mob-attacks-indiana-pizza-place-for-saying-it-would-not-cater-a-gay-wedding/
http://listverse.com/2015/03/22/10-plans-christian-radicals-have-for-america/
“A fundamentalist Christian ideology called Dominionism is currently infiltrating a segment of the Christian Right. As a political movement, it seeks to overthrow democracy and transform America into a biblical theocracy. Also known as Christian Reconstructionism, it cuts across denominational lines but does not represent mainstream American Christianity. Many Christians even see it as a heresy and perversion of the gospels.”
http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/dominionism.htm
Inside the Christian Right Dominionist movement that is undermining Democracy.
“Dominionism is a broad political impulse within the Christian Right in the United States.”
“Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe the United States once was, and should again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, believing that the Ten Commandments, or “biblical law,” should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.”
Inga – are you OCD? You get on these memes and you cannot seem to get off them. Today it is Dominionism. Who the hell cares? Only you. I am more concerned that Harry Reid lied about Mitt Romney, knew he lied and is proud of it. I am more concerned the Lois Lerner is not going to be tried for contempt of Congress. I am more concerned that Hillary ran her State Department email from her basement and then wiped the disk. Does any of that bother you?
http://www.theocracywatch.org/chris_hedges_nov24_04.htm
The rise of the religious right in the Republican Party. Resembles fascism.
Inga – the devolution of the religious left in the Democratic Party resembles Marxism.
The rise of Christianist Fascism in the US.
Anyone else get a little whiff of Hitler in that comment?
Paul – I just checked. No Apple store in Ferguson. But plenty in the other RFRA states, and in countries where being gay results in receiving a death penalty.
That’s because Tim Cook’s public courage is weaker than his private convictions. Put otherwise, his defense of all things gay is less strong than his need for an awesome income statement.
Michael Haz – if Tim Cook had any moral fiber at all he would build an Apple store where that burned out Quikie Mart was. Starbucks can open next door. It will be an offer of solidarity with the neighborhood.
Courtesy of Instapundit:
“The Hoosier RFRA allows private individuals to discriminate only when that is absolutely necessary to avoid violating their core religious principles. A Christian restaurant owner’s refusal to serve gays wouldn’t fit the bill.
However, a Jewish baker who refuses to make sacramental bread for a Catholic Mass or an Evangelical photographer who declines to photograph a gay wedding might — might, mind you, not will. That’s because the law provides merely an argument for courts to weigh when evaluating discrimination complaints against such individuals — not an automatic defense. Judges could still decide — in fact have decided — that equal treatment is a compelling enough government interest that such discriminatory actions against gays are prohibited.”
That’s all it does, got it? It might provide a defense on the grounds of religious freedom, in very, very limited instances.