Mormons as Bigots?

Posted on December 3, 2008
Filed Under Politics, Religion |

I’m not normally a fan of NRO’s The Corner but this post on Mormons and Prop-8 makes a lot of good points. The saddest thing about all this is that it will exasperate the anger and contention in other states. If anti-prop-8 activists are persecuting and protesting people who donate money to the other side don’t you really think that anti-gay marriage foes in other states might start to do the same? Do we really want political discourse to head that way? Will it spill over into other debates such as debate about health care? Do we want folks “outing” proponents of National Health Care and then have activists pressuring them to resign from jobs? Do we want people who donate to gun rights causes outed the same way?

Regardless of what one feels about the Prop-8 debate (and I can understand both sides) it seems that the tactics are really going to poison the way political debate goes in the years ahead.

Comments

51 Responses to “Mormons as Bigots?”

Note clearly I’m not saying there aren’t any Mormon homophobes or bigots. I’d be very surprised if there weren’t. Yet I don’t think bigotry explains the Mormon reaction to Prop-8 any more than it explains why so many oppose gay marriage. Given that I think a higher degree of civility - by both sides - is in order.

But how is this anything new? Boycotts have been advocated by all sides of the political spectrum for all reasons. Yes on 8 even threatened businesses who gave to No with a boycott before the election. The only thing I see that is different here is that there was information on particular people because of donor lists. The only people affected are those that work in gay-dominated fields. I’m not defending the actions that lost Eckern et al. their jobs, but the mixture of particularized information, influence by the boycotting community, and passion of the boycott created a perfect storm that isn’t likely to be replicated in very many other issues. This isn’t a new species of boycott. This is what happens when boycotts work extremely well.

I think that information on individuals is what is key though.

It really, really is scary for the political process.

And I really fear it isn’t going to be a once off event. Mark my words you’ll get extremists on the other side who will now do the same thing in other states. It is very chilling for politics and free speech.

Note that to me the issue isn’t really Prop-8 at all. I can completely understand many of the protests and think that’s entirely appropriate. It’s this extreme pressure on individuals that worries me. I suspect that all this may even lead the courts eventually to readdress the public nature of that information. Eventually something bad is going to happen and there will be a lawsuit.

Obviously it may seem self-serving now because Mormons are the victims. But what if there is a lawsuit in some other state like Virginia and some half-crazy fundamentalist assaults someone who donated money to the pro-gay side? I think we have to look to the precedence and principles that go beyond a few Mormons in the entertainment field losing their jobs.

I don’t think that assault or illegal acts can be factored into this because they can’t be legitimized as political tactics. The question you posed is whether the aftermath of Prop 8 is a new low in political tactics that is likely to spill over into other debates or other events. I don’t think so. The donor information has been available for all sorts of issues for a long time. I don’t think that information is the unique part of what happened post prop 8. The difference is that the boycott was effective due to the massive influence of passionate people on the jobs of other people. The only analog I can think of is if the manager of a Christian bookstore donated $1000 to No–I’ll take a guess and say that that person would have to resign as well. Because passionate people tend not to have a powerful influence over the jobs of people that they disagree with (anti-SSM people working in the entertainment industry are the exception, not the rule), it is unlikely that this has the ability to become a widespread political tactic.

Clark,

The thing that scares me is that the powers that be will clamp down on fundamentalist extremists (as per your hypothetical) and do next to nothing when liberal extremists do the very same thing–all in the name civil rights.

“The only analog I can think of is if the manager of a Christian bookstore donated $1000 to No–I’ll take a guess and say that that person would have to resign as well.”

Could be. But I doubt they’d be outed because of a blacklist.

Jack (6):

No? California would have a publicly available record of that person’s donation–how do you think Yes on 8 got their information?

One of the more interesting questions is whether a No on 8 donor is protected to the same extent as a Yes on 8 donor by employment law. Outside political activity is not protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, religion is. I’m not an employment law expert, but it seems plausible that a member who donated to Yes could be protected from termination by Title VII, while a person who donated to No (assuming his or her religion did not consider gay marriage a tenet of their beliefs) would not be similarly protected.

Of course, I could be wrong on this–feel free to correct me.

Nate W.,

It seems clear to me that appealing to a few corporations for an *equal* donation before the voting process is quite a different matter than blacklisting thousands of individuals after the fact.

I’m no expert either but I’d wager the person who donated to No could easily win a wrongful termination case.

I don’t think that assault or illegal acts can be factored into this because they can’t be legitimized as political tactics.

I don’t think getting someone fired can either. I can assure you that in the midst of the worst recession since WWII and with small children and medical bills given a choice between losing my job or being assaulted I’d take being assaulted every time.

But in any case that wasn’t my point. My point was the this is setting up an environment where escalation is inevitable and that everyone has an ethical responsibility to ease that environment.

Because passionate people tend not to have a powerful influence over the jobs of people that they disagree with (anti-SSM people working in the entertainment industry are the exception, not the rule), it is unlikely that this has the ability to become a widespread political tactic.

I disagree. Consider the case of the restaurant owner who had their restaurant picketed because they had merely donated. That affects their livelihood quite directly.

It is simply quite easy to hold businesses blackmail - especially small businesses on the financial edge in a recession. I think you are underestimating this.

Lets take an issue unrelated to sexuality. There is a close vote in Colorado over whether magazines over 10 rounds are to be banned. The decision is felt by some, rightly or wrongly, to hinge upon money spent on advertisements. The gun activists find out that a local garage donated $1000 to the anti-gun measures. Witnessing what happened in California they decide to make an example of people they know will be affected. So every day they picket the business yelling at customers who attempt to go in. Customers don’t want the hassle so they go down the street to a competitor. Already leveraged by the bank the owner has no choice but to declare bankruptcy.

Why do they do that? Because the next election people will be afraid to donate. It’s simply not worth the cost. And so political discourse in America is squelched.

That’s not unlikely. That’s very likely now that people know that kind of tactic works. And if people believe that what decides elections is money and not people then they know all they have to win is to intimidate those who’d spend money on the opposition in an election. (That, after all, is exactly why the anti-Prop-8 folks are going after Mormons. It helps that we are a minority who isn’t well thought of. But really it’s about money as most of the protestors themselves admit.)

The thing that scares me is that the powers that be will clamp down on fundamentalist extremists (as per your hypothetical) and do next to nothing when liberal extremists do the very same thing–all in the name civil rights.

And how do you clamp down on this? Honestly? You can’t. You can try to establish a civil place for discussion and debate. But once you lose that it’s hard to get back.

To add, please note I’m not arguing one side is better than the other. I am saying that this tactic is bad. Period. Regardless of who is using it.

And I think there is a big difference here from say Evangelicals in the 90’s talking about boycotting Disneyland and Disney products (and then not doing it) because of gay rights issues. This is targeting small individuals and not large corporations.

Clark:

You’re missing the point. An assault has a deescalation mechanism built into it–it’s against the law. Only legal forms of protest are relevant to your inquiry because what you are inquiring about is whether prop 8 has created a new norm for political tactics. I say that it doesn’t–the boycotts here were uniquely effective because of circumstances that are rare, and are really rare in this campaign as well. We have three casualties in the aftermath that come to mind. Marjorie Christofferson, who manages El Coyote in West Hollywood; Scott Eckern, the artistic director of California Musical Theater, and Richard Raddon, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival. These are three people who are either in industries or locations where gays have tremendous power.

Lets take an issue unrelated to sexuality. There is a close vote in Colorado over whether magazines over 10 rounds are to be banned. The decision is felt by some, rightly or wrongly, to hinge upon money spent on advertisements. The gun activists find out that a local garage donated $1000 to the anti-gun measures. Witnessing what happened in California they decide to make an example of people they know will be affected. So every day they picket the business yelling at customers who attempt to go in. Customers don’t want the hassle so they go down the street to a competitor. Already leveraged by the bank the owner has no choice but to declare bankruptcy.

Clark, this tactic is older than time itself–it’s called a boycott. The No on 8 people did not invent it nor did they find an effective way of doing it that other people can learn from. This is dumb luck that they found three high profile people that they had influence over. If you don’t believe that, tell me what these people are doing differently than every other picket/boycott that happens in every major city in the U.S. every day of the year? Why is PETA not effective at KFC? If it were this easy, why do most boycotts fail to initiate change? It is because KFC customers go there to eat meat. In this case, the protests/boycotts targeted business with sympathetic consumers–that’s why it worked.

Your analogy of the local garage is almost apt. What is happening here is closer to a manager of a gun store or a target range donating to an anti-gun initiative. Would there be protests and boycotts against this business? You bet. Would it be effective? Yes, because the vast majority of their clientele would agree with the protesters. It isn’t so much bullying the customer away from the store at this point as informing the customer of something the customer already cares about. The customer isn’t a bystander avoiding confrontation, she is an active participant in the protest.

Jack:

You miss my point. The only reason that Yes on 8 doesn’t have a blacklist is because they won. That story shows they had access to the data necessary to make a blacklist and were prepared to boycott “anti-traditional family” businesses. That belies your claim that ssm supporters would not “be outed because of a blacklist.” Also, under what statute would a person win a wrongful termination lawsuit? Title VII does not protect employees from being fired due to outside political activities.

I think we need to distinguish between the troubling actions that “single out” individual Mormons from actions that “single out” the church as an institution.

I too am troubled by things like what happened to Eckern. But Jonah Goldberg and others instead focus on things like the television commercial featuring missionaries. In my mind that commercial was not religious bigotry, but a totally legitimate and accurate political critique of the institutional church. We’d be better off talking about and defending the rights of *individuals* to have their beliefs, rather than whining about attacks on the church as an institution.

I think even many prop-8 opponents will be persuaded by the right arguments. How would they feel if they heard that somewhere in Texas someone lost their job or business because they supported gun control, for example? Reasonable liberals would be troubled by that. But they would probably be much less troubled by a TV add against pro-gun-control organizations.

The problem is differing standards. Anyone who asserted that a Jew ought to be fired because he or she donated to causes important to Israel would rightly be seen as anti-Semitic. The real question is why Mormons have been singled out and Catholics and evangelicals and others who are a much greater majority have not been — with a very pathetic exception of demonstrations at the Camelback Church.

Further, Clark asks the relevant questions — is this how we want our politics to be run?

wondering: “In my mind that commercial was not religious bigotry, but a totally legitimate and accurate political critique of the institutional church.”

And in my view you are blind and dangerous to religious bigotry. It is the failure to see religious bigotry when it appears in color on your TV that is most troubling to me. Yeah right, the Church forced its way into houses, forced literally millions of non-Mormons to adopt their view of what constitutes marriage and invaded their own houses to rip up their documents. The commercial was sheer misrepresentation, sheer scare tactic with emotional punch to create mobs - the kind that show up outside temples. If anyone had done a similar commercial suggesting that black people were invading their houses the TV stations would have refused to air it — but because it is Mormons it’s all OK.

Nate W. — your reasoning implies that it is OK to blacklist Jews because they don’t support the local Christian church. It is OK to blacklist blacks because they vote democratic 98% of the time. Such economic coercion is inimical to legitimate persuasion. If you don’t like my persuasive argument, just get your friends together to boycott my business. That isn’t a legitimate technique of persuasion in a democratic society — and the list of logical fallacies involved as a means of illegitimate persuasion is truly staggering. Speech must remain free to combat speech, but how to your counter economic terrorism?

You also argue that such illegitimate boycotts have a long history in our political system. Well, so did slavery until the civil war. Not a good argument.

Blake:

You misread me–here is my argument in a nutshell.

The question you posed is whether the aftermath of Prop 8 is a new low in political tactics that is likely to spill over into other debates or other events. I don’t think so.

I’m not defending these actions–I’m just saying that the actions are not in any way unique.

The only reason that Yes on 8 doesn’t have a blacklist is because they won.

I’m not convinced that’s true. Yes there were rumblings but to be frank the ones typically doing boycotts are Evangelicals and they aren’t exactly particularly good at it. So I’m pretty skeptical of this claim.

Clark, this tactic is older than time itself–it’s called a boycott.

No, it’s more than that. Yes boycotts are an old tactic. But what is different this time is how the boycotts are being conducted. I note that it is not a general boycott. (Name me the non-Mormons facing this) Rather it is targeted towards the weak who can be pushed over.

And yes, I got your point. That was why I gave my thought example. To highlight what I see as the crucial difference in how this tactic is being conducted.

Wondering, I think that ad was quite beyond the pale (replace the two missionaries with two poor blacks and tell me how it would go over). That’s not ultimately my point though. My point is the one Nate disagrees with. That there was a significant difference in how the aftermath was done tactically and that this bodes ill for the future of politics.

Rather it is targeted towards the weak who can be pushed over.

Exactly. But you fail to deal with my point that most donors to Prop 8 were not in such a precarious position that their donation would affect their jobs. Nor do I believe that most people are in such a situation on any given issue. I think the lesson to be drawn from the Prop 8 boycotts is that when your customer base is fairly homogeneous politically, you shouldn’t engage in political activities that would tick them off.

Oh, I think that’s a good point. I just don’t think it is only entertainment field people facing this. (I wish I had time to look up all the people who have faced issues over this)

[Edit] Here’s one example outside of the entertainment field.

Blake, it wouldn’t have made sense to do the missionary ad with “black people,” because “black people” are not an organization.

And the add obviously was not meant to imply that actual missionaries were ripping up actual marriage licenses. Rather institutional church (represented by missionaries) was in an organized effort to de-legitimize marriages (represented by ripping a marriage license) based on religious views. The symbolism was quite clear and direct, and accurate.

Are you saying the church should be above criticism on this issue just because it’s a church? The way I see it, if a large, powerful institution decides to enter a political battle, nobody should be surprised when it is criticized. Singling out individual Mormons is a different thing entirely.

Wondering, the point about replacing Mormons with blacks was to highlight the bigotry of the commercial. It really does play on old stereotypes of Mormons just as having two black men break into your house and ransack it plays on stereotypes. Maybe you just aren’t aware of the stereotypes? They have a long history in anti-Mormon literature and entertainment.

The issue isn’t whether it is an appropriate analogy for how some feel about the issue. The issue is the other connotations it carries. Much like Bush I’s Willie Horton ad wasn’t just about crime.

What stereotypes are you talking about?

“And how do you clamp down on this?”

By discriminating via anti-discrimination law. If that blacklist were aimed at anyone or anything else (Blacks, Jews, Gays, etc.) the hue and cry of “bigotry” would have been coming from the other side, followed by a deluge of anti-discrimination lawsuits.

There were, especially in the first half of the 20th century, stereotypes of Mormons as thieves, ruffians and so forth involved in conspiracies. They were actually still in play in the area I grew up in. (Nova Scotia) For a more scholarly treatment of the tropes in the early 20th century film industry see this article.

Jack, I disagree. I think the one problem is that by making everything electronic information is being accessed in a way much different than say it was in the 70’s and 80’s and makes this sort of stuff easier. I think the way donation information is handled has to be reviewed. For the record I don’t know the best way to handle this since we want transparency in government. I vaguely recall Volokh or an other major legal blog discussing this last month.

While it’s not an issue for most debates for debates where things are very heated (gay rights, abortion, etc.) I really fear how the information can be abused.

“stereotypes of Mormons as thieves, ruffians”

I’ve lived many years in California and other places and never encountered such a thing. I find the idea that the ad is playing on these obscure stereotypes is pretty ludicrous. Is that *really* what anybody is worried about? Seriously?

The real “stereotype”, if it can be called that, in the ad is that of intolerant (and perhaps hypocritical) religious zealots who seek to legislate their view of God’s law.

That’s a stereotype as well but not the one I found most offensive. Maybe it’s just because I did encounter the other stereotypes both growing up in Canada as well as on my mission in the South.

Jack (21):

I’m not sure what anti-discrimination law you have in mind. There are laws against assault, yes, but there are no laws against protest and boycott by customers, nor can there be because of the First Amendment. In firing by superiors, I’ve already made the point that religious conservatives have a much better claim that Title VII protects them against termination than would a person on the other side of the issue.

Nate & Clark,

What I’m saying is, in a broader sense, if any of those other groups were to loose jobs because of blacklisting or protests by radical evangelicals (or what-have-you) it would probably become a civil rights issue. The argument would be premised on the idea that these folks are being persecuted for having the temerity to vote their conscience in a legal referendum process. And as such the actions of the opponents would be interpreted as discriminatory in nature as there is no other conscionable reason to hurt these individuals who did nothing immoral or illegal.

That is an interesting argument but it bears no resemblance to existing civil rights law. Under federal law, private employers can fire employees for their outside political activities. Congress has steadfastly refused to amend Title VII to change that. If they did, it would protect both sides equally.

Like Nate I’m pretty skeptical. There may well be a political backlash. And liberals certainly tend to have a culture to be reactionary more than conservatives. (Outside of abortion, how many issues cause conservative protests?) But while I’m no lawyer I’m skeptical of legal challenges. It’d probably be like the anti-prop-8 backlash. Folks who also are no lawyer talk about legal challenges but nothing ever comes of it.

Well let’s try a hypothetical:

The gal in Arizona who had to pay almost seven thousand bucks because she refused to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony–OK. Let’s say she has an employee who refuses to shoot the ceremony instead of herself–and she fires him. The guy could do nothing about it because she’s in line with anti-discrimination law. Now let’s take it a step further: Let’s say the employee takes the order himself and goes and shoots the ceremony on his own volition–and the gal fires him because it’s against her company’s policy to shoot gay/lesbian ceremonies.

Can he sue? Let’s suppose he can, and he wins.

Now let’s take it another step: The guy is re-hired as part of the damages, but then the gal finds out that he gave five hundred dollars to the No campaign in Arizona–and she fires him again.

Can he take action again?

If so, is there really a substantial difference between the two cases with regard to anti-discrimination law? If yes, what would it really take to get the courts to cross the line and view the differences as immaterial?

And the next step…

Let’s say the employee takes the order himself and goes and shoots the ceremony on his own volition–and the gal fires him because it’s against her company’s policy to shoot gay/lesbian ceremonies.

Can he sue? Let’s suppose he can, and he wins.

Pretty big assumption since it is clearly false. He was not being fired because of his religious belief, race, ethnicity, gender, or in the case of New Mexico, orientation. He was fired for being insubordinate.

The guy is re-hired as part of the damages, but then the gal finds out that he gave five hundred dollars to the No campaign in Arizona–and she fires him again.

Can he take action again?

He does not have a cause of action since he is being fired for an outside political activity.

Blacklisting individuals for exercising their political speech is not the same as boycotting institutions for their practices. It would be fine if supporters of gay marriage decided to boycott Mormon church services. But getting a guy fired who gave $100 to a political campaign?

Nate,

Yes, I’m making an assumption–that if the courts can deem the refusal to shoot a lesbian ceremony as an infringement upon civil rights that the employee may have a case against his employer for being fired for doing what was legally required because of anti-discrimination law. (i.e. quit or obey the law.)

Maybe it’s a long shot. Maybe not–and if not, I think his being fired for donating to the No fund would be a hair’s breadth away from being interpreted along similar lines. (Well, maybe two hairs.)

There. I’ve just proved that I’m no lawyer.

I believe that while the No8 group has been vocal, it will be people with radicalized tenets that will resort to such low extremes in order to achieve their efforts.
When one looks at the Abortion Clinic efforts by anti-abortion groups, most of them do not attack individuals, have people fired, or boycott their sponsors. Yes, occasionally there is a radical that will blow up a clinic. But in 35 years of protests against abortion clinics, with the exception of a few outlier actions, overall there really has been less violence and personal endangerment than there has been in 6 months of Prop 8 persecutions by the pro-gay lobbyists.

Jack(32):

I understand now the cause of your confusion. The New Mexico law you are referring to basically states that if you offer your services to the general public, you can’t refuse to serve people because of their race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. A business that discriminates this way would be subject to penalties. However, this is not Nuremberg–an employee does not have protection from firing if he disobeys policy, even if that policy is unlawful. That is an act of insubordination. Employees don’t get to set business policy, and they do not have personal liability for following policy that violates public accommodation laws.

Rameumptom,

That’s patently false. To get you started on why, take a look here.

Yeah, abortion protests have been ugly. Things have calmed down of late but I’d hate things to get nasty again. What’s worse is I’d hate things to expand to folks donating to political votes. Ugh. Thinking of some of the crazy abortion nuts and how they protest is why I fear the anti-Prop-8 movement’s consequences. You set a precedence and folks remember. It reminds me of that line Sean Connery uses in the Untouchables about escalation.

Whoops,

I guess that was in New Mexico, not Arizona. At any rate, when the so called “division of church and state” permeates the market place as it does today (imo) it will only be a matter of time before business owners will have no right at all to establish and operate their companies on religious principles. The ethics are all pretty-much channeled by a secularist philosophy.

Perhaps it’s not quite as bad as I’m making it out to be, but that’s certainly the direction we seem to be going. I’m sure there are still a few “ma & pa” small businesses out there that start the day with a prayer, for example. But in order to do so they have to be really careful about what kind of help they take on–and in so doing they run the risk of discriminating because of religion.

I really do wonder about the future–what kinds of challenges businesses and churches will face because of civil rights. It’s scary.

Jack:

Federal law in this matter has been the same since 1964. Businesses that employ fewer than 25 employees are exempt from Title VII. And having guiding principles motivated by religious faith is a-ok, so long as that does not translate into discriminating against or creating a hostile work environment for a person who does not share that faith. In that respect, it is less about secularism and more about respecting pluralism, a principle important both in theory and in practice to members of the Church. And of course, Churches are exempt from title VII, even as to their non-religious jobs.

I really do wonder about the future–what kinds of challenges businesses and churches will face because of civil rights. It’s scary.

Well, considering that the Civil Rights Act has been on the books since 1964, Id say we have 45 years of history to guide that inquiry. Before 1978, was the Church ever required to accept a black congregant, give him the priesthood, allow him to attend the temple, perform a marriage for him, etc? No. Has the Church been forced to hire a person that does not have a temple recommend? No. Has the Church been forced to give women the priesthood? No. In states that have extended protection to sexual orientation, has the Church been required to associate with, marry, or hire gays or lesbians? No. Is there any evidence that extending the same protections federally would drastically alter the function of title VII? No. It’s good to have an active imagination, but it’s bad to base policy on that imagination.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses, Nate.

But let me ask: How long has sexual orientation been a part of the Civil Rights Act?

It doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination to figure how law may be amended or interpreted in the future.

“…having guiding principles motivated by religious faith is a-ok, so long as that does not translate into discriminating against or creating a hostile work environment for a person who does not share that faith.”

Who determines whether or not the environment is “hostile” because of religious views? I’ve heard of stories wherein employees have been offended at hearing Christmas music playing in the workplace during the holiday season–and taking it to court or some watch-dog committee.

Jack, have you ever heard of such groups winning?

No offense, but you can go to court on all sorts of stupid reasons. Typically the charges are thrown out of court with the idiots paying the court fees.

But let me ask: How long has sexual orientation been a part of the Civil Rights Act?

It isn’t.

It doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination to figure how law may be amended or interpreted in the future.

You’re right–it doesn’t. The legal principle of stare decisis dictates that the courts, absent a compelling reason to the contrary, to interpret the law according to prior precedent. So in order to see how Title VII would operate if sexual orientation were added as a protected category, we would look to the past. Expecting a court to come out another way would require leaps of imagination unknown to the legal profession.

Who determines whether or not the environment is “hostile” because of religious views?

A judge and jury.

Oh, and what Clark said.

Clark: “Jack, have you ever heard of such groups winning?”

Dunno, but the ACLU is all over that kind of stuff–especially in the public workplace.

Nate: “It isn’t.”

No it isn’t, but what we have is a lot of folks acting as if it is–including judges. It’s “precedent” run amuck.

Nate: “A judge and jury.”

That’s some comfort in a society where religious sensibilities are rendered mute in public forums.

No it isn’t, but what we have is a lot of folks acting as if it is–including judges. It’s “precedent” run amuck.

I’m a pretty patient guy, Jack, but I get frustrated when people just make stuff up. It’s cite check time. Cite ONE case in which title VII was interpreted to protect sexual orientation as such. If you can’t, well, have fun commenting from under your bridge.

I have to second Nate. I think you’re building a large construct on what you imagine what could be the case rather than what is the case. One of the wisest things we can do is to always be inquiring. Check your premises. Question your assumptions. Investigate.

Wait a minute here,

If you want to talk about premises, please explain how employers are forced to act against their religious sensibilities in order to comply with anti-discrimination law with regard to sexual orientation–and how that has NOTHing to do with the Civil Rights Acts (title VII in particular) in terms of establishing precedents. No doubt, Civil Rights has something to do with paving the way for state anti-discrimination law–and further more, some affect on judicial interpretation of the same. Even if it is not cited specifically are you going to tell me that it has had nothing to do with shaping the way we (the courts) think about “rights” in the workplace or anyplace else–and that that thought process has had no bearing at all in the formulation of gay anti-discrimination law?

It is no mere coincidence that Gay activists (and even not so activist or Gay for that matter) are rallying around the Civil Rights standard for support of their agenda–SSM in particular. For them it is a *Civil Rights* issue. And though it may not yet be on the books as such the legal machinery will inevitably come around to supporting the “ethical” question of gay anti-discrimination just as it did for race segregation.

One need not be a prophet to foresee this.

Sorry guys, I’m not a lawyer–just putting in my two cents as I see from the trenches. And sorry for frustrating you, Nate. Hopefully it’ll all be water under [my] bridge.

please explain how employers are forced to act against their religious sensibilities in order to comply with anti-discrimination law with regard to sexual orientation

Not until you provide cites. If you keep moving the goalposts, I’m gonna take my ball and go home.

I’m not moving the goal posts. I think we’re just in two different playing fields–albeit mine is minor league.

I think the best thing to do at this point is to have a chat in ten or so years and see how things are shaping up.

Sorry, Jack, that was a moment of frustration for me.

Let me see if I understand your concern correctly. You are concerned that if a person with certain religious beliefs that employs over 25 people isn’t allowed to fire people because he disapproves of who they are attracted to or because he can’t make degrading comments about gays to his employees during working hours, that this will negatively affect his religious freedom. If this is not what you are saying, then your concern has nothing to do with extending Title VII protection to sexual orientation or really any existing civil rights protections with regard to employment.

Let’s just say that I’m one of those who’s naive enough to believe that we’re in the middle of a huge culture war. It isn’t that I believe employers should have the right to treat their employees disrespectfully (I find that reprehensible). It’s that I wonder at idea that businesses would have no power to draw the line on the ethical reach of their own services (as informed by their religious convictions). i.e. being forced to render services that are wholly contrary to one’s religious sensibilities–that or take down the shingle and board up the windows.

The reason I bring Civil Rights into the argument is because it IS the back bone of anti-discrimination law in our current culture (not a bad thing–just sayin’). And as such it is a thunderous trump card when it comes to ethics in the work place and beyond. Therefore, there should be little wonder that Gay activists should view their cause as a civil rights issue. By so doing–and if it ever should be legitimized as such–they will have the upper hand in forcing certain kinds of services to reach beyond the moral scope of their proprietors–or cease to exist as the case may be.

In light of the above, I don’t see how title VII should have nothing to do with current state anti-discrimination law. It has everything to do with it! It is the quintessential precedent. The goal is to merely add “sexual orientation” to the list, so to speak–and they have succeeded in so many states to date and probably will on the federal level in a few years hence.

Now as I’ve said before, I’m no lawyer. And I really don’t stand a chance in a debate with one as well informed as you seem to be on the subject. You have the ability to get into the guts of this and see what kinds of legal levers are being pulled. If you tell me there are no instances wherein title VII was ever used to justify the legal protection of sexual orientation then I’ll take your word for it–for now ;>). But I don’t think you can convince me (at this point) that it hasn’t *informed* lawmakers in general–in terms of ethics; that it hasn’t had the salient effect of raising the societal level of consciousness toward discrimination–a good thing, though extremists are succeeding in taking it’s virtues to a terrible extreme–and that’s a bad thing.

Quotes from Marvin R. Baxter, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California:

“The [judicial] majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute…”

“…the people have every right to adopt laws changing the definition of marriage. But that didn’t happen. Instead, it was a “judicial fiat,” … “I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu.”

“Who can say that, in 10, 15, or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

I’m not the only one who has fears of precedent running amuck.

Leave a Reply