Legislating discrimination under banner of ‘liberty’

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. — Bertrand Russell

***

As most people who follow politics know by now, conservative Christian lawmakers have begun proposing measures that would give businesses, churches or other faith-based organizations legal license to turn people away based on their religion or gender identity, yet have framed the discussion in terms of increasing “religious liberty.” This, in a nation that already has unfettered religious freedom and a church on nearly every corner.

What lawmakers in states like North Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi really want is a legal workaround that would allow for the discrimination against members of the LBGT community such that, after the nation was lifted up on a wave of equality after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on same-sex marriage, Republicans now seem hellbent on organizing a pushback against what they no doubt feel is affront to their “traditional” values. Of course, given the many disgraceful policies against black folks throughout the late 19th century and continuing through much of the 20th century — not even counting all the inhumanities that took place in the land where “all men are created equal” before and during the Civil War — one could make a strong case that racism and bigotry are as “traditional” in America as apple pie and baseball on Sundays.

Credit: Associated Press/Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal announces he will veto religious liberty bill.

Credit: Associated Press/Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal announces he will veto religious liberty bill.

So when conservatives start talking about traditional family values in one breath and in another float proposals that would separate families and send parents thousands of miles away from their kids, prevent loving couples from enjoying the same protections and privileges under the law as everyone else, defund an organization that provides invaluable, affordable services to millions of women and men each year and gleefully acknowledge their belief in a book that gives us story after story of families being ripped apart or slaughtered outright at the behest of an angry god, I really have no idea what the hell they’re talking about.

Indeed, one can easily infer Republicans’ real intentions from what they have actually said on their not-so-thinly-veiled planned discrimination against the LGBT community. As a former Georgia resident, I’m not Gov. Nathan Deal’s biggest fan, but he deserves a lot credit, as I said on Twitter today, for sticking to his guns and vetoing his state’s so-called “religious liberty” bill that would allow faith-based organizations like churches, religious schools, conventions and others to deny services to those who do not share their “sincerely held religious belief” and then provide legal protection against lawsuits if and when denials take place.

State Sen. Josh McKoon called the current bill “significantly watered down” from a previous version that did more of what McKoon and his ilk were actually intending; that is, prevent businesses and other organizations from serving people who do not hold their beliefs. Here is McKoon:

I’m extremely disappointed. … (The bill) did not apply to businesses. I’m just very, very disappointed the governor would veto this modest protection for people of faith.

I sense a hint of victimhood in that last sentence. “People of faith” have a robust set of protections to ensure that they can, not only worship as they choose and congregate unhindered in every town and city in America, but churches enjoy a range of tax exemptions that actually place more financial responsibility and pressure on everyone else to make up the difference in lost revenues to support things like fire and police departments, schools and other public services.

But back to the bill. In addition to potentially allowing churches to deny services to people, perhaps most importantly, the legislation stipulates that no faith-based organizations will be required to hire people who do not agree with their worldview:

… no faith based organization shall be required to hire or retain as an employee any person whose religious beliefs or practices or lack of either are not in accord with the faith based organization’s sincerely held religious belief as demonstrated by practice, expression, or clearly articulated tenet of faith.

Nonetheless, as it stands now and if Deal’s decision is upended by a veto session, the legislation could pave the way for members of the LGBT community to face discrimination, overt or otherwise. Although the bill doesn’t come out and say that churches can screen potential employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity, which would be a clear violation of federal law, the implication is most certainly there, which is the context for this whole discussion in Georgia and states with similar legislation.

For his part, Deal said the bill sent the wrong message and did not reflect that Georgians were actually “warm, friendly and loving people:”

Our people work side by side without regard to the color of our skin, or the religion we adhere to. We are working to make life better for our families and our communities. That is the character of Georgia. I intend to do my part to keep it that way For that reason, I will veto HB 757.

Georgia’s bill was not solely about protecting religious liberty and everyone knows it, which is why a large number of large corporations, including Time Warner, Disney and Apple, admonished Deal to ax the bill, and the NFL and the NCAA have also “hinted,” as this AJC story worded it, that they could pass over the state as a location for championship games as a result of the bill.

While I realize we have little assurances of this, if Georgia lawmakers are smart, they will abandon the bill, and with it, the brazen affront to actual liberty, so that their state can avoid what is currently happening in North Carolina and Mississippi.

Religious freedom law have been around a long time going back to 1993 when President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and proponents of the bill at the time were more focused on protecting believers from being forced into taking actions that went against their convictions or protecting elements of religious practice. As this article from Time outlines, the law said the federal government must have a “compelling interest” before it could infringe on religious liberty, and “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” Perhaps the most conspicuous application of it has been in the case of Native Americans, some of whom have sought exemptions on religious grounds for the use peyote in traditional spiritual ceremonies.

The spirit of the federal law, then, is to actually protect the free exercise of religion, whereas the recent string of state laws are meant to restrict liberty among certain groups that conservatives would, if they could, more or less ignore completely except to keep passing more restrictions to effectively eviscerate them from civil society altogether.

Unfortunately for these traditionalists, the tide has already turned, and public sentiment is now largely against the kind of America that they want to create such that sooner or later, like the enfranchisement of women, desegregation, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage and other victories that have charted our path on the moral compass, the United States is moving toward a more diverse and pluralistic society, and we are headed there with or without conservatives and the Republican Party.

That’s not a prediction or wishful thinking. The march of progress may be long, arduous and slow, but it is certain.

[Cover photo credit: David Goldman/AP]

One step closer to equal rights

That it has taken until the year 2014 to get where we are on marriage equality, with most Southern states still woefully behind the curve, is a said testimony for a nation that touts equality as its highest calling. As Haynes, with Newseum reports, the “tide” of public sentiment “has turned,” and the arc of history is now bending toward equality under the law.

Following is his column for June 26:

Poll: Marriage equality trumps religious objections

By Charles C. Haynes

A solid majority of Americans now support equal treatment for same-sex couples despite religious objections, according to the State of the First Amendment survey released this week by the First Amendment Center.

Sixty-one percent of respondents agree that the government should require religiously affiliated groups that receive government funding to provide health care benefits to same-sex partners of employees — even when the religious group opposes same-sex marriage.

And 54% of the public agree that a business providing wedding services to the public should be required to serve same-sex couples, even if the business owner objects to gay marriage on religious grounds.

These findings are consistent with the dramatic rise in public support for gay marriage — 59% in a recent ABC News/Washington Post survey (75% among those under 30).

What’s somewhat surprising, however, is the strength of that support in the face of religious objections. When the first legal same-sex marriage was performed in Massachusetts ten years ago, conservative religious groups were able to mobilize voters to approve laws and constitutional amendments in many states — including deep blue California — banning gay marriage.

Now the tide has turned — not only in the courts (bans on same-sex marriage in Indiana and Utah were struck down just this week), but also in the court of public opinion.

While gay marriage remains unpopular in some red states, many conservative politicians and religious leaders have toned down the rhetoric as the public continues to migrate toward support for marriage equality.

Early in the debate, religious objectors to same-sex marriage appeared to enjoy broad public support for their efforts to secure religious exceptions to laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. That may no longer be the case.

A defining moment came earlier this year in Arizona when the conservative governor vetoed a bill that would have made it possible for religious business owners to seek an exemption from providing wedding services to same-sex couples.

Lost in the Arizona debate were the nuances of the proposed law: It would only have allowed businesses to make a claim for religious accommodation — but with no guarantee of the outcome.

In the mind of the public, however, the Arizona legislature was attempting to legalize discrimination against gay couples in the name of religious freedom. Rather than be labeled the “no gays allowed” state, the Chamber of Commerce and many Republican leaders joined LGBT rights groups in the successful campaign to persuade the governor to veto the bill.

As the Arizona outcome suggests, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is fast becoming politically and socially unacceptable. For a growing number of Americans, the movement for marriage equality is all about equal treatment under the law.

Of course, religious groups have a constitutional right to oppose gay marriage and to refuse to perform same-sex weddings. And as long as we uphold the First Amendment, that will continue to be the case.

But when religiously affiliated groups receive tax dollars to deliver social services or when wedding providers open their doors to serve the public, most Americans now believe gay couples should be treated just like everyone else.

In the battle over equal treatment for same-sex couples, it’s all over but the shouting.

Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Center of the Newseum Institute, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20001.

When in Russia …

Although Russia received heavy criticism ahead of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi about the nation’s ban on homosexual propaganda, eight states here in the U.S. have similar bans on the books, as reported last week by The Washington Post.

Utah’s residents are apparently not allowed to advocate for homosexuality, whatever that might mean, and in Texas and Alabama (bastions of progressivism as they are!) sex education teachers must make the point that homosexuality is “not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public.” Even more stunning, according to two professors who analyzed these backward laws existing in our own country:

… the Alabama and Texas statutes mandate that children be taught that “homosexual conduct is a criminal offense” even though criminalizing private, consensual homosexual conduct has been unconstitutional since 2003.

Here is a map showing the states that have these laws on the books:

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network

Thus, isn’t it kind of hypocritical for people in this country to be criticizing Russia for its anti-gay sentiments when most of the South and even other parts of the United States chafe at giving equal rights to gay and lesbian couples, which represents just another pox on a nation that began by boldly declaring “all men are created equal.”

Eight U.S. states have policies similar to Russia’s ban on gay ‘propaganda‘.

Map credit: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network

Freethought Tweets of the day: Atheism Plus edition

The WoolyBumblebee ‏@WoolyBumblebee #Atheismplus has 2044 users – 13 mods – 3 admin – 38 banned users = 1990. Of which only 831 ever made MORE than ONE post on the forums.

Atheism+ ‏@atheismplus #atheismplus inclusiveness. Everyone is welcome, just so long as you’re not foreign. Or if you are, you’d better have PERFECT English.

Atheism+ ‏@atheismplus In #atheismplus we have special words. Objections are ‘hate’. Objectors are ‘angry at outspoken women’. Dislike of us/A+ is ‘misogyny’.

Atheist Smeghead ‏@AtheistSmeghead My question about #atheismplus STILL hasn’t been answered: What do those social issues have to do with a lack of belief in any deity?

Renee Hendricks ‏@reneehendricks Really? http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=26361#p26361 … WTF is wrong with those mods on #AtheismPlus? Gigantic asshats, I swear.

The post she is referencing:

Re: Men: Are You Willing To Be Called A Potential Rapist?

Postby maiforpeace » Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:34 pm

Specimen, bonjour!I speak several languages including French, and I’m afraid you don’t possess the English language skills to communicate properly in such a serious and mindful discussion. I think you are better off just reading right now, and maybe you can get a buddy who writes English better to help you write posts so you can participate and offer your own contributions to this thread.

So I will ask you politely to desist from posting further in this thread. Thank you, Mai

A reader was asked to quit posting because they don’t speak perfect English? Wtf.

And further down in the thread:

Postby Flewellyn » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:19 am

MOD NOTE: This topic is no longer serving a useful purpose. It has been locked.

So an admin just locks a conversation whenever they subjectively feel it’s no longer serving a purpose? Stunning.

More Tweets:

Stormye Weather ‏@Nuclear_Wynter Can you imagine a room full of black men pontificating on being labeled “potential criminals” to make white people feel safe?!#atheismplus

Maria Maltseva ‏@bluharmony @Stefanelli is my hero: Q&A about Atheism Plus, White Male Privilege, Guilt by Association, Schrodinger’…http://freethoughtblogs.com/alstefanelli/2012/10/09/qanda/ … …

Za-zen ‏@Zaminuszen Next time that homeless wanker logs on to his laptop, somebody please point him to #AtheismPlus forums so we can correct his privilege.

Jamie Stanton ‏@finalcontext Just told by #atheismplus mod that treating people equally regardless of gender, race etc makes me “part of the problem” *head explodes*

Enhanced by Zemanta