Tag: gay marriage

Balancing Religious Freedom and Civil Rights

The adoption last week of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has set off a loud public debate about religious freedom and civil rights. The debate is over the best balance between our cherished beliefs in both religious freedom and civil rights, which includes tolerance of those with religious beliefs different than ours. A standard formulation of the scope of individual freedom is that it is our right to live and do as we like as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. How we should put meat on those bones is the essence of ongoing, serious public debate.

I have blogged on this challenging topic a number of times starting with the following in November 2008: https://wcoats.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/church-and-state-in-america/ and followed in April 2010 by: https://wcoats.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/when-values-clash/

and in August 2013: https://wcoats.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/liberty-and-the-overly-prescriptive-state/

and in December 2013: https://wcoats.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/more-on-the-balance-between-the-public-and-private-sectors/

and most recently in February 2014: https://wcoats.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/arizona-and-religious-and-person-liberty/

Indiana’s RFRA is similar but not identical to the law of the same name signed into law by President Clinton in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support. These laws and other efforts to balance religious and other individual freedoms against the expectation of tolerance are based on the First Amendment to the US Constitution reproduced below (the first item in the Bill of Rights) and the guarantee of equal protection under the law contained in the Fourteenth Amendment adopted after the Civil War, in part to remove discrimination against African Americans. Success in establishing a good balance is critical to a healthy, vibrant and free civil society and depends more on social attitudes than on laws. David Brooks provides an insightful and balanced discussion of this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/opinion/david-brooks-religious-liberty-and-equality.html?_r=4

_________________________________________________

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

________________________________________

It is quite beyond my limited legal knowledge to tease out exactly what the Indiana law provided (it has already been amended to address the fears that it was an excuse for discrimination). Much has been written on the subject, some of it uninformative and/or inflammatory, others wise and insightful. I would like instead to outline the spirit and attitude of a proper balance between religious freedom and civil rights that makes sense to me.

Most of us assume that our freedom to believe what we choose and to express those beliefs publicly includes what some others might disagree with or consider “wrong” or obnoxious, such as racial prejudice. Freedom of speech means nothing if not the right to state what most of us consider wrong. The right to say stupid or repugnant things should never be confused with accepting or encouraging such views. Particular condemnation should be directed to those who use their freedom of speech purposely to offend rather than to defend their beliefs. The best defense against bigotry, whether racist or homophobic, is to use our freedom of speech to counter such views and to promote the virtues of respect, diversity, and tolerance of alternative beliefs (as long as they do not limit our own). In short, building broadly shared attitudes of respect toward the rights of our fellow men (and women) are necessary for the maintenance of a decent, free society.

What might this mean in practice? In my private life I should never have to associate with people I don’t like. I should not have to invite them into my home or my club. It was absolutely right that the Boy Scouts of America were allowed to exclude gays and that we were allowed verbally to attack them for such misguided behavior. They are gradually coming around to a more enlightened policy with better long run results than if forced by law to open up to members they did not want. Churches are quite rightly not forced to accept members that do not embrace their beliefs or otherwise satisfy whatever their membership requirements are.

The above examples are obvious. The difficulties begin to arise when we move outside our homes and private groups. Aside from the obvious question of why two lesbians in Texas insisted on the services of a photographer for their wedding who refused to accept their request (were they looking for a fight or the best photographer), I think any service provider should be free to choose their customers just as customers are free to choose where to shop. While mafia dons and other murderers and bad people have a right to legal representation, why should a particular objecting lawyer be required to provide it?

Should a Christian bookstore be required to sell the bible or whatever to atheists or Jews? For starters it would be quite contrary to their goals and evangelical nature to refuse to do so, but should they have the choice? Should Muslims be required to touch and serve pork or should Mormons be required to tend the cocktail and coffee bars of their employers? Once again it is hard to see why this is raised to the level of public policy. If a Mormon doesn’t want to serve alcohol (though it wasn’t a problem for the Mormon owned Marriot Hotel to do so), she doesn’t have to and shouldn’t work for a bar. For larger operations, such as restaurants with a bar, it is not that difficult for the manager to assign employees to tasks that respect their religious or ethical beliefs. The free market, profit motive would lead employers to do just that.

For many, the pace of progress against discrimination in the more public sphere of commerce and certainly in government bodies was not fast enough leading to the adoption of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; but exempted private clubs and the renting of the bed room in my basement. If you are open for business to the general public you are not allowed to discriminate on the above bases. The LGBT community has been working to add sexual orientation to the above list, something that was missing in the original Indiana RFRA law.

The recent Hobby Lobby decision of the Supreme Court (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby) concerned the mandate in Obama Care for employers to provide government specified contraceptives as part of the employee health plans. The Christian family owners objected to the mandatory inclusion in the list of what is often called the morning after pill. Raising wages sufficient to compensate employees for the cost of buying their own insurance would sacrifice the tax exception (i.e., subsidy) of employee provided health insurance. The Court ruled to allow closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law’s interest. Such exemptions are allowed for churches and directly religious organizations but this was the first time that the Court has recognized a for-profit corporation’s claim of religious belief.

This whole situation has more objectionable parts than I can count. First, it is bad policy to give a tax break for employer offered health insurance. For one thing, tying heath insurance to ones employer makes it more difficult for employees to change jobs and increases the cost to them of losing a job. Second, it is outrageous that the federal government is dictating the list of contraceptives that an insurance policy must provide and that everyone must have such policies. This is before we get to the issue of which, if any, private companies should be exempt from such requirements and for what reasons. Such micro management of our lives by the government has gone way too far and makes the balancing of rights I have been discussing much more complicated and difficult. A tradition of polite accommodation of differences generally trumps efforts to spell it all out in law.

Marriage equality, i.e., extending the same right to marry enjoyed by heterosexual couples, takes away no rights from traditional couples other than perhaps to be spared the anger/horror/sadness over something someone else is doing. Get over it. Having to serve LGBT couples commercially does not imply agreeing or disagreeing with their status. Fortunately society is moving rapidly to accept the virtue of extending the institution of marriage to LGBT couples. If marriage is a good thing for loving committed couples, it should be available to all such couples. Those people and religious groups that continue to disapprove are free to as long as they do not deprive others of their freedoms and rights.

Arizona and Religious and Personal Liberty

A successful society balances the interests of individuals and society. In the area of personal liberty and public tolerance, all low hanging fruits (all win – win policies) have been picked. Thus remaining discussions of the best boundary between the sphere of private belief and behavior and social behavior involve trade offs that are more difficult to evaluate. This is illustrated by the recent controversy in Arizona over the bill just vetoed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer that would have allowed businesses to deny service to gay and lesbian customers on religious grounds.

The point I want to make here (yet again) is that our society functions best when it favors persuasion over coercion (voluntary action over legal compulsion). Should a professional photographer who objects to same sex marriage be required by law to accept business from a same sex couple to photo graph their wedding? My first reaction to this question was why in the world would the couple at issue want to give their business to a bigot. Examples of my earlier discussions of such issues are: https://wcoats.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/liberty-and-the-overly-prescriptive-state/  https://wcoats.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/when-values-clash/

I abhor prejudice of any sort both on moral and on economic efficiency grounds. People should be judged on the basis of factors relevant to the situation. A job applicant should be judged on the basis of whether she has the best qualifications for that particular job, rather than whether she is Irish, Ghanaian, Muslim, Christian or Korean (though if the job is to wait on tables in a Korean restaurant, being Korean might be relevant). I strongly believe that it is more effective to persuade people of this view than to legislate it (just as I think persuading teenagers and others of the dangers of some drugs would be more effective than has been our very costly and damaging War on Drugs). For one thing businesses that express their prejudices in the market place pay a price in the form of less qualified, more expensive employees and/or fewer customers.

I am obviously a bit out of the mainstream on this as I shared Senator Barry Goldwater’s reservations about the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s restrictions on the right of “public” business to choose their customers (especially Title II on public accommodations). I prefer, both for philosophical and pragmatic reasons, the legal approach taken with regard to the Boy Scouts of American. As a “private” organization they are entitled to whatever membership criteria they want. Public discussion and evolving attitudes is gradually leading them to amend their membership requirements, which now allow gay boys to join. This is a better way to bring about that result in my view in our very heterogeneous society.

That said, if we must have laws against discrimination, gays and lesbians surely must be given equal protection under those laws.  E. J. Dionne makes some good points in today’s Post: “Arizona’s anti-gay bill hurts religious people” Washington Post /2014/02/26/

Liberty and the Overly Prescriptive State

Few things reveal a person’s views on liberty more than their attitude toward the right of others to say or do things they disagree with. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects our right of free speech and assembly, later interpreted to include the right of association. “The NSA Unravels a Civil Rights Era Win”/2013/08/29/ None of these rights is absolute (yelling fire in a theater, etc), but where we as a society draw the line has a great deal to do with how successfully our diverse citizens will live together in harmony and freedom.

The latest example of the imposition of the state into what should be private issues of belief is California’s ban on health practitioners “offering psychotherapy aimed a making gay youth straight.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled that the law does not violate the free speech rights of licensed counselors and patients seeking treatment.” “US Court Upholds First in Nation Law Banning Gay to Straight Therapy for Minors”/2013/08/29/

Conversion therapy is a scientifically documented scam, but if its practitioners believe in it, it is not a deliberate fraud (maybe they do and many they don’t). We are freer, and live in greater harmony the more we allow people to pursue and experiment with their own beliefs. This includes things the rest of us might think are silly. Such freedom, when exercised within a strong set of moral values, also tends to move society more quickly to a more virtuous level. The caveat is that in allowing people to live according to their own creed, they must do no real harm to others.  Even the “doing no harm to others” standard is subject to discussion and can moved a bit this way or that – toward more freedom or less. In the case of the California law against conversion therapy, the law was aimed at protecting minors from harm inflicted by such therapy and we have rightly been quicker to protect minors than others. In short, drawing an appropriate line between private rights and state intervention is a serious and not particularly easy undertaking.

Those of you who are lucky enough to be Facebook friends of Jonathan Rauch, author of “Denial” and currently a contributing editor of the National Journal and The Atlantic, and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institute, have access to a very thoughtful discussion of the freedom of conscience, association and speech and equal protection of the law. In comments to one of Jonathan’s postings, Charlotte Allen, Tom Palmer, and Walter Olson, Walt Becker (a pseudonym), David Dalton and others explore the interface between the freedom of association and equal protection of the law in the context of same sex marriage. In such discussions it is critical for those of us who defend the importance and morality of liberty to clearly distinguish what we individually believe is right and good from what is or should be allowed under the law. The law should allow people to make their own stupid mistakes.

In reaction to slavery and Jim Crow laws, which legally discriminated against blacks, America has gone well beyond repealing such legislation and has adopted a range of anti-discrimination laws limiting the ability of “public” businesses to choose their employees and customers. These anti-discrimination laws are now increasingly being extended to GLBTs (Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgenders). Personal beliefs and preferences, whether we agree with or respect them or not, thus confront state interference in our personal choices and behavior. Doctors, who do not believe in abortion, are required to perform them. Companies whose owners do not believe in contraception are forced to provide health insurance and condoms to employees wanting them. A New Mexico photographer and baker are sued for refusing to provide their services to a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Equal treatment in the law was put aside for Affirmative Action giving preference to blacks in some cases on what was meant to be a temporary basis until the damage of earlier negative discrimination could be reversed. The Supreme Court has now started to roll back such preferences. In the above Facebook debate, Charlotte, who has trouble accepting marriage equality for same-sex couples, takes a more libertarian position on other areas of state imposed morality when she says “Why can’t we give people the freedom to set the parameters of their own commercial transactions?” The optimal balance shifts over time and I doubt that we have it anyway.

The government, which is often a lagging reflection of public sentiment, has been one of the last to extend equal treatment to same sex couples. Pure profit motive led corporate American to move ahead several decades ago to extend “marriage” benefits to employee partners of whatever sex. They did so in order to attract the best employees without regard to their color, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. Discrimination has an economic cost.

No church should be required to marry anyone they don’t want to or don’t believe would be consistent with their beliefs. Allowing same-sex couples to receive a marriage license and the legal benefits that come with it from the State, which is surely required by the principle of equal protection of the law, does not and should not obligate any church to do so. I think that the treatment of the Boy Scouts of American set the right example.  As a private club the law allowed them to exclude gay boys from membership if they wanted to. However, evolving social understanding and attitudes and deeper reflection by Boy Scout leaders are slowly leading the Boy Scouts to change this policy. Getting the balance right will never be easy, but I prefer to error on the side of personal freedom rather than government dictated morality.