When Gay Rights and Religious Rights clash

When Gay Rights and Religious Rights clash July 25, 2016

The ongoing debate.  Julia Duln over at Get Religion examines a series of articles in The Christian Science Monitor tackling a festering issue in our nation today.  This is one of those subjects you can tell the Media is not happy to cover.  The ongoing story, where an individual with religious convictions is at odds with liberal morality has been one that the mainstream,  has received muted coverage at best.  Somehow, even supporters of LGBT rights aren’t together on the idea that a person should be punished, even having his livelihood destroyed, simply because he doesn’t’ want to involve himself in a ceremony officially endorsing a morality he rejects.  Some are more than happy with retribution against the owners, others are not so sure.

Because the media isn’t giving it top puff billing, and what we hear on TV debates or in publications is often less than objective, it’s been tough finding all of the details in these cases.  Enter The Christian Science Monitor.  With a whopping seven part series on the subject, it has unpacked angles and perspectives that are all but lost in the drive through coverage the press has given subject.

The main focus of Julia Duln’s post is the uncomfortable story of Barronelle Stutzman, a florist who couldn’t bring herself to service a gay wedding, even though one of the spouses was a loyal customer.  It’s noteworthy that the plaintiff,  Robert Ingersoll, was an unwilling participant who was contacted by the AG and the ACLU.  It sheds light on a tactic of the ACLU: target small, relatively isolated communities or individuals and bring a cadre of lawyers into play that ramps up legal fees, in this case to the tune of 1 million dollars.  If Ms. Stutzman loses, those fees belong to her, and she is destroyed.

But a couple points came out that caught my eye.  One was the idea that a photographer would push back against being compelled to photograph a gay wedding on the grounds that photography is an art.  No art, after all, can be forced or interfered with by the government.  Anyone more than ten years old knows that the pure and untouchable sacredness of art in America has been a liberal staple for decades.  How that clash is resolved will be worth watching.

The other  came from Ms. Stutzman herself:

In effect, the judge said that belief is personal, but if individuals seek to express those beliefs in action, the anti-discrimination law would trump any claim for a religious exemption.

“The judge told me I could have my faith but I couldn’t practice it – keep it in the four walls of the church,” Stutzman says. “That’s like me telling Rob and Curt you can be gay, but once you leave your house you can no longer be gay.”

That is the heart and soul of the great conflict of our age.  Right now, much of liberalism is based on advancing rights not written in the Constitution, but merely understood to be in the heart of the Constitution.  Now it is coming to the point where those rights specifically written in the Constitution are at risk of being compromised to advance those rights rights not specifically written.  To tell Christians they can believe in their minds what they want, but once you step foot outside of the church, synagogue, mosque or private domicile you belong to the State, could be a step down the same sad path that too many 20th Century revolutions ended up traveling.*  Whether we insist on going that same direction, or come to the conclusion we are on the verge of selling our birthright of freedom for a bowl of gender stew, remains to be seen.

*Note the similarities between the ruling of the judge against Stutzman:

In ruling against Stutzman in 2015, the state judge drew a distinction between a citizen’s freedom to believe, which he said was absolute, and a citizen’s freedom to act in public on those beliefs, which he said can be regulated by the government.

and Article 39 of the Constitution of the USSR:

From Article 39: “Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interest of society or the state.”


Browse Our Archives