{"id":14485,"date":"2009-04-08T15:58:37","date_gmt":"2009-04-08T21:58:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/?p=14485"},"modified":"2014-11-06T07:33:51","modified_gmt":"2014-11-06T14:33:51","slug":"dealing-with-private-beliefs-and-public-services","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2009\/04\/08\/dealing-with-private-beliefs-and-public-services.html","title":{"rendered":"Dealing with private beliefs and public services"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Human Rights Campaign addresses<\/a> a new advert from the National Organization for Marriage<\/a> in which various very sad people decry the storm that is coming to sweep away their deeply held religious beliefs because of (gasp) GAY MARRIAGE.<\/p>\n

<\/object> <\/p>\n
\n

There\u2019s a storm gathering. The clouds are dark and the winds are strong. And I am afraid. Some who advocate for same-sex marriage have taken the issue far beyond same-sex couples.  They want to bring the issue into my life. My freedom will be taken away.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can\u2019t support same-sex marriage.<\/p>\n

I am a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay.<\/p>\n

But some who advocate for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish.  Those advocates want to change the way I live.<\/p>\n

I will have no choice.<\/p>\n

The storm is coming.<\/p>\n

But we have hope. A rainbow coalition of people of every creed and color are coming together in love to protect marriage.  Visit NationforMarriage.org. Join Us.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ah … freedom as a zero-sum game. For you to be free takes away from my freedom, right?<\/p>\n

Now, it’s no surprise that the people in the ad are not actually the real people affected by this, but it’s more surprising that, as HRC notes, the complaints are based on real cases:<\/p>\n

\n

The examples they cite in the ad are:<\/p>\n

(1)  A California doctor who must choose between her faith and her job<\/p>\n

(2)  A member of New Jersey church group which is punished by the state because they can\u2019t support same-sex marriage<\/p>\n

(3)  A Massachusetts parent who stands by helpless while the state teaches her son that gay marriage is okay<\/p>\n

The facts indicate that (1) refers to the Benitez decision in California, determining that a doctor cannot violate California anti-discrimination law by refusing to treat a lesbian based on religious belief, (2) refers to the Ocean Grove, New Jersey Methodist pavilion that was open to the general public for events but refused access for civil union ceremonies (and was fined by the state for doing so) and (3) refers to the Parker decision in Massachusetts, where parents unsuccessfully sought to end public school discussions of family diversity, including of same-sex couples.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

HRC note that it’s a clash between privately held beliefs and people offering or dealing with services in the public sphere. None of them really have to do with same-sex marriage per se, just with laws against discrimination against homosexuality. Indeed, the ad doesn’t rather coyly treat same-sex marriage as the least of the ills being described (“But some who advocate for same-sex marriage have not been content with same-sex couples living as they wish.  Those advocates want to change the way I live.”) before circling back around to attack same-sex marriage. This is like saying that “Some people who believe in equal rights for African Americans also mug people. That scares me! So help us defend against equal rights for African Americans.”<\/p>\n

Be that as it may, the individual cases don’t actually hold up, aside from fearmongering TEH GAYZ ARE GONNA MAKE ME MISERABLE sort of stuff.<\/p>\n

The first case, as HRC describes it:<\/p>\n

\n

The California doctor entered a profession that promises to \u201cfirst, do no harm\u201d and the law requires her to treat a patient in need \u2013 gay or straight, Christian or Muslim \u2013 regardless of her religious beliefs. The law does not, and cannot, dictate her faith \u2013 it can only insist that she follow her oath as a medical professional.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Or, put another way, would HOM say it’s acceptable for a Christian doctor who believes that Jews are Christ-killers to decline to treat one? Would they argue that their faith is being threatened? What about treating a black woman who’s suffering from pregnancy complications and has a white husband, if the doctor believes that God forbids mixing of the races? Nobody would (publicly) question that state and federal anti-discrimination laws based on race and religion should trump such religious beliefs, no matter how heartfelt. <\/p>\n

The case here is the same. The basic principle is that a public profession cannot discriminate based on protected classes. It doesn’t make any difference whether you agree or disagree on whether the class should be protected, or whether your disagreement is based on politics, religion, philosophy, or this morning’s horoscope.<\/p>\n

The second case is similar to the first.<\/p>\n

\n

The New Jersey church group runs, and profits from, a beachside pavilion that it rents out to the general public for all manner of occasions \u2013concerts, debates and even Civil War reenactments\u2014 but balks at permitting couples to hold civil union ceremonies there. The law does not challenge the church organization\u2019s beliefs about homosexuality \u2013 it merely requires that a pavilion that had been open to all for years comply with laws protecting everyone from discrimination, including gays and lesbians.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Again, it’s a public service. If the pavilion was run by the Klan, that wouldn’t give them the right to only choose white patrons. Nor because it’s run by a Christian church can they only hire it out to only Christian groups. Discrimination based on race and religion, even if religiously motivated, is not allowed. The same is true when the state includes sexual orientation in their protected classes. <\/p>\n

HRC observes on the third case:<\/p>\n

\n

The Massachusetts parent disagrees with an aspect of her son\u2019s public education, a discussion of the many different kinds of families he will likely encounter in life, including gay and lesbian couples. The law does not stop her from disagreeing, from teaching him consistently with her differing beliefs at home, or even educating her child in a setting that is more in line with her faith traditions. But it does not allow any one parent to dictate the curriculum for all students based on her family\u2019s religious traditions. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That seems very straightforward to me. The educational <\/em>curriculum is set by the state and the school district.  The parent has any number of options in how to counter it, just as they do with the teaching of evil-ution and anything else they object to.  But declaring that the classroom can’t teach anything in the curriculum that disagrees with a parent’s beliefs holds no more water than claiming that the local TV station can’t show anything on TV that disagrees with a parent’s beliefs, either. <\/p>\n

And, again, none of this has to do with gay marriage, just with general WE WANT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST TEH GAYZ BECAUSE OUR RELIGION SAYS IT’S NAUGHTY.<\/p>\n

“A storm is coming” is just how folks who didn’t agree with civil rights for minority racial and ethnic groups in the 50s and 60s reacted to changing laws. Some of those folks claimed deep-seated religious basis for their biases, too. But having a religious belief doesn’t provide license as to how we interact with the law or the public, or at least it shouldn’t. A religious belief against war doesn’t let you skip out on paying taxes. A religious belief in beating your kids doesn’t ward off Child Protective Services. <\/p>\n

People who believe that homosexuality a moral wrong have a lot of ways — protected ways — they can express that in their words and lives. Asking for a pass against discrimination laws just because their religion thinks they should discriminate isn’t one of them.<\/p>\n

And it still doesn’t have anything to do with gay marriage.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Human Rights Campaign addresses a new advert from the National Organization for Marriage in which various very sad people decry the storm that is coming to sweep away their deeply held religious beliefs because of (gasp) GAY MARRIAGE.   There\u2019s a storm gathering. The clouds are dark and the winds are strong. And I am afraid. … Continue reading “Dealing with private beliefs and public services”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[25,718,27,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gay-stuff","category-marriage-equality","category-religion","category-zt-pc"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":132691,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2017\/01\/29\/but-some-religious-beliefs-are-more-equal-than-others.html","url_meta":{"origin":14485,"position":0},"title":"But some religious beliefs are more equal than others","author":"***Dave","date":"Sun 29-Jan-17 5:39pm","format":false,"excerpt":"You can't claim that your law is just about \"protecting religious freedom\" and \"protecting religious beliefs\" when you explicitly state in it[1] what beliefs are worthy of protection:.The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:(a) Marriage is or should be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":41862,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2014\/04\/29\/religious-freedom-for-me-but-not-for-thee-north-carolina-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":14485,"position":1},"title":"Religious freedom for me, but not for thee (North Carolina Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 29-Apr-14 5:37pm","format":false,"excerpt":"I have absolutely no doubt that all of those conservatives who have been so gung-ho about religious freedom such as to call requiring a secular employer to include birth control in insurances policies religious persecution, or to consider baking a cake a personal religious act ...... will be all over\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":32527,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2013\/02\/15\/free-to-be-you-and-me.html","url_meta":{"origin":14485,"position":2},"title":"Free To Be You and Me","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 15-Feb-13 7:49am","format":false,"excerpt":"I continue to be honestly puzzled by this line of rhetorical attack. \u00a0Do these folks saying this really believe it, or are they just casting around for a political argument to use in their cause and latch onto one that seems parallel -- \"No, it's not about you being discriminated\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":136684,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2018\/06\/04\/scotus-rules-in-favor-of-the-masterpiece-baker-sort-of.html","url_meta":{"origin":14485,"position":3},"title":"SCOTUS rules in favor of the “Masterpiece” baker. Sort of.","author":"***Dave","date":"Mon 4-Jun-18 9:31am","format":false,"excerpt":"This ruling is being crowed (from the right) or denounced (from the left) as something quite a bit larger than I think it will turn out to be in the long run.\u00a0In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker in the Masterpiece bake shop case.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/p_30stk_supreme_court_1406125B15D.JPGimgmax%3D660.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/p_30stk_supreme_court_1406125B15D.JPGimgmax%3D660.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/p_30stk_supreme_court_1406125B15D.JPGimgmax%3D660.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":51633,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2015\/06\/28\/another-positive-christian-response-to-the-marriage-equality-ruling.html","url_meta":{"origin":14485,"position":4},"title":"Another positive Christian response to the marriage equality ruling","author":"***Dave","date":"Sun 28-Jun-15 10:18am","format":false,"excerpt":"Drawing the distinction between civil rights and personal religious beliefs. One of the more disquieting aspects of the discussion around marriage equality has been people (on both sides) framing it as \"gays\" vs \"Christians\". Quite a few gay people are Christian. Quite a few Christians support marriage equality. While it's\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":127888,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2015\/09\/05\/god-is-my-strength-and-my-shield-but-not-really-a-very-good-legal-defense.html","url_meta":{"origin":14485,"position":5},"title":""God is my strength and my shield, but not really a very good legal defense"","author":"***Dave","date":"Sat 5-Sep-15 12:29am","format":false,"excerpt":"Kentucky's Rowan County Clerk, Kim Davis, has issued a statement via Liberty Counsel (http:\/\/www.lc.org\/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1965) about her jailing for defying a federal court order to issue (legal) marriage licenses to same-sex couples.I have worked in the Rowan County Clerk\u2019s office for 27 years as a Deputy Clerk and was honored to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/09\/Gay_Marriage_Kentucky-0f2d95B15D.jpgimgmax%3D660.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/09\/Gay_Marriage_Kentucky-0f2d95B15D.jpgimgmax%3D660.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/09\/Gay_Marriage_Kentucky-0f2d95B15D.jpgimgmax%3D660.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14485","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14485"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14485\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":46659,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14485\/revisions\/46659"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}