Battle Lines Drawn Over Rights, Religion
March 4, 2017 at 5:51 a.m.
By Gary [email protected]
It’s a confrontation between absolute equality and religious freedom. This is a debate that simply can’t be won.
I see it coming because U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, have publicly stated they plan to reintroduce the First Amendment Defense Act this year.
FADA “prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”
FADA was originally introduced in 2015, but it failed after critics said it would codify discrimination against LGBTQ people — and even unmarried heterosexual couples.
But the bill likely will be brought up again. President Donald Trump has said he would sign it and newly minted Attorney General Jeff Sessions was a sponsor back in 2015, so it’s unlikely there will be any resistance from the Department of Justice.
This is one of those cases where I truly can sympathize with both sides of the issue. It also is the rare case where no amount of compromise can result in a viable solution. The battle lines are drawn.
The First Amendment sets the table for the intractable conflict.
Congress is barred from “establishment of religion” and also is barred from prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion.
At the heart of the debate is what constitutes “free exercise” of religion. Is the “free exercise of religion” simply being able to attend the church of one’s choice on Sunday, or is it being able to live your faith every day in the public sphere?
Examples abound.
Most notably, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld gay marriage, certain cake bakers or photographers got in hot water with the government because they refused to take part in gay weddings.
Is that unconstitutional discrimination or religious freedom?
One side says the bakers and photographers just need to get over it, cash in their strongly held religious beliefs and serve the gay couples.
The other side says gay couples just need to get over it, deal with the discrimination and go find a suitable baker or photographer.
Whose rights win?
The right to absolute equality or the right to the free exercise of religion?
Do we uphold LGBT rights or limit them in the name of religious freedom?
Should Catholic Charities be forced to offer adoption services to gay couples?
Couldn’t that institution rightfully claim that their free exercise of religion is being prohibited by the government?
At the same time, couldn’t others argue that the rights of gay couples are being undermined?
Earlier this week National Public Radio did a story that summed up the conflict.
In it, they quoted Karen Naraski, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. She told NPR, "I can't think of a single civil rights law that doesn't have some people who are unhappy about it. But once the country has said, 'Well, we believe that people who are LGBT need to be protected from discrimination,’ then how do you make sure that happens?"
Last September, NPR?reported, the commission published a report on religious freedom vs. anti-discrimination. The chairman at the time was Martin R. Castro, who released a statement saying, “The phrases 'religious liberty' and 'religious freedom' will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance."
It was easy to see whose side the report took.
The report prompted a letter by a group of faith leaders who claimed the report "stigmatizes tens of millions of religious Americans, their communities and their faith-based institutions, and threatens the religious freedom of all our citizens."
One of the 17 is Charles Haynes, director of the Religious Freedom Center at the Newseum Institute in Washington.
He told NPR religious conservatives are entitled to make claims of conscience.
"We may not like the claim of conscience, but you know, we don't judge claims of conscience on whether we like the content of the claim. We are trying to protect the right of people to do what they feel they must do according to their God. That is a very high value."
Haynes agrees that LGBT rights and gay marriage are important, but supporters of those causes “cannot simply declare that one side wins all.
"Nondiscrimination is a great American principle — it's a core American principle — as is religious freedom. When you have two important American principles coming into tension, into conflict with one another, our goal as Americans is to sit down and try to see if we can uphold both," Haynes told NPR.
That’s a nice sentiment, but I just don’t see it happening. Neither side is going to give in. And frankly, who could blame them? Each side is standing on its respective principles.
And they happen to be bedrock, competing principles of equality and religious freedom.
I think what this debate boils down to is who gets to make the rules.
If Congress passes FADA and President Trump signs it, it becomes the law of the land. If it is challenged, it could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
If there are enough likeminded justices on the court, it will be upheld.
After that, to change it would require a Congress, president and Supreme Court compliant to the other point of view.
Unfortunately, I see this issue rife with acrimony, with little chance of it ending well.
It’s a confrontation between absolute equality and religious freedom. This is a debate that simply can’t be won.
I see it coming because U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, have publicly stated they plan to reintroduce the First Amendment Defense Act this year.
FADA “prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”
FADA was originally introduced in 2015, but it failed after critics said it would codify discrimination against LGBTQ people — and even unmarried heterosexual couples.
But the bill likely will be brought up again. President Donald Trump has said he would sign it and newly minted Attorney General Jeff Sessions was a sponsor back in 2015, so it’s unlikely there will be any resistance from the Department of Justice.
This is one of those cases where I truly can sympathize with both sides of the issue. It also is the rare case where no amount of compromise can result in a viable solution. The battle lines are drawn.
The First Amendment sets the table for the intractable conflict.
Congress is barred from “establishment of religion” and also is barred from prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion.
At the heart of the debate is what constitutes “free exercise” of religion. Is the “free exercise of religion” simply being able to attend the church of one’s choice on Sunday, or is it being able to live your faith every day in the public sphere?
Examples abound.
Most notably, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld gay marriage, certain cake bakers or photographers got in hot water with the government because they refused to take part in gay weddings.
Is that unconstitutional discrimination or religious freedom?
One side says the bakers and photographers just need to get over it, cash in their strongly held religious beliefs and serve the gay couples.
The other side says gay couples just need to get over it, deal with the discrimination and go find a suitable baker or photographer.
Whose rights win?
The right to absolute equality or the right to the free exercise of religion?
Do we uphold LGBT rights or limit them in the name of religious freedom?
Should Catholic Charities be forced to offer adoption services to gay couples?
Couldn’t that institution rightfully claim that their free exercise of religion is being prohibited by the government?
At the same time, couldn’t others argue that the rights of gay couples are being undermined?
Earlier this week National Public Radio did a story that summed up the conflict.
In it, they quoted Karen Naraski, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. She told NPR, "I can't think of a single civil rights law that doesn't have some people who are unhappy about it. But once the country has said, 'Well, we believe that people who are LGBT need to be protected from discrimination,’ then how do you make sure that happens?"
Last September, NPR?reported, the commission published a report on religious freedom vs. anti-discrimination. The chairman at the time was Martin R. Castro, who released a statement saying, “The phrases 'religious liberty' and 'religious freedom' will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance."
It was easy to see whose side the report took.
The report prompted a letter by a group of faith leaders who claimed the report "stigmatizes tens of millions of religious Americans, their communities and their faith-based institutions, and threatens the religious freedom of all our citizens."
One of the 17 is Charles Haynes, director of the Religious Freedom Center at the Newseum Institute in Washington.
He told NPR religious conservatives are entitled to make claims of conscience.
"We may not like the claim of conscience, but you know, we don't judge claims of conscience on whether we like the content of the claim. We are trying to protect the right of people to do what they feel they must do according to their God. That is a very high value."
Haynes agrees that LGBT rights and gay marriage are important, but supporters of those causes “cannot simply declare that one side wins all.
"Nondiscrimination is a great American principle — it's a core American principle — as is religious freedom. When you have two important American principles coming into tension, into conflict with one another, our goal as Americans is to sit down and try to see if we can uphold both," Haynes told NPR.
That’s a nice sentiment, but I just don’t see it happening. Neither side is going to give in. And frankly, who could blame them? Each side is standing on its respective principles.
And they happen to be bedrock, competing principles of equality and religious freedom.
I think what this debate boils down to is who gets to make the rules.
If Congress passes FADA and President Trump signs it, it becomes the law of the land. If it is challenged, it could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
If there are enough likeminded justices on the court, it will be upheld.
After that, to change it would require a Congress, president and Supreme Court compliant to the other point of view.
Unfortunately, I see this issue rife with acrimony, with little chance of it ending well.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092