Washington Post | Jacqueline L. Salmon | Apr. 10, 2009
Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.
The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:
— A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.
— A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
— Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
— A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.
“It really is all about religious liberty for us,” said Scott Hoffman, chief administrative officer of a New Jersey Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which lost a property tax exemption after it declined to allow its beachside pavilion to be used for a same-sex union ceremony. “The protection to not be forced to do something that is against deeply held religious principles.”
. . . more
God will aid these people and give them thier reward in the next life. We should stand as one, and in cases such as the Boy Scouts people who can give them facilities should do, and help them. We will be left lonely in this world and we are comming to an end, so lets stand with each other and help each other.
This is the only thing we can do, so God please be with us, we the sinners and unworthy.
God bless you
My family talked my wife into taking my children to Kid’s Church today at their Evangelical Church for Easter. I stayed home. I’ve had enough heresy in my life.
Anyway, my wife was shocked that the kid’s service began with a pledge to the Flag, a Pledge to the Christian Flag, and a pledge to the Bible. The discussion of Christ and His resurrection somehow came around to America and pride in America.
This was for seven year olds. The Evangelicals and others that prop up our current regime have got to understand the truth. The Federal Government as currently constituted is not your friend. It is your enemy. The state government that rules you locally, and the judiciary that serves it, is not your friend. It is your enemy.
The people who hide behind the flag you pledge allegiance to will send police to arrest and persecute you for having non-politically correct ideas. The police officers that conservatives talk so highly of will batter down your door and arrest you at the order of people like Obama.
This is what we have come to. Saying the Pledge, talking about how great our country is, sending our kids to put on a uniform – none of that will help our current situation. We must withdraw our support for those who are abusing us. We must not serve as agents of our own oppression.
George writes: “The police officers that conservatives talk so highly of will batter down your door and arrest you at the order of people like Obama.”
Laws are generally enacted by elected officials, not the executive body.
What sort of activities do you think would be done that might inspire Obama to issue an executive order that would mandate that law enforcement officers hired by local governments go to private citizens’ homes to arrest them and their families?
Are there any votes in Obama’s past that might lead you to believe he’d do such a thing and if so, which ones?
Keep in mind that Libertarians and even evangelicals like Chuck Baldwin have been warning us throughout the Bush administration about the creep in executive powers.
The most hopeful political sign I’ve seen in….forever is the 10th Amendment/State Sovereignty Movement.
A political movement with state legislators involved in demanding that the federal government act in a constitutional manner as agents of the states and the people.
Simple example – the Patriot Act. The legislators that voted for this had Muslim terrorists in mind. But will clever DOJ lawyers and others stick to that? Look at the abuse of RICO to prosecute all kinds of people from anti-abortion protesters to anti-war groups. The fact is that vague bits of legislation (Drug War, anyone) can be twisted and used to justify imprisoning a large swath of people. The ground work is already being laid for that. It began under Bush with his ‘enemy combatant’ nonsense, and is accelerating under Obama as he embraces all of the ‘unitary executive’ nonsense that Bush put in place.
There is a lot of talk of secession right now, especially in Texas. Suddenly right-wingers who favor States’ Rights could find themselves labeled traitors, enemy combatants, or even terrorists. A Draconian gun law could end up causing us to either go underground with our guns or surrender them. Then there is the economic crisis. If the crisis deepens and we are protesting against the Obama economic plan – then are we not disloyal and trying to make America fail? Multiple times in our history (such as the Civil War, WWI and WWII in terms of opposition to the draft) free speech has been criminalized. Eugene Debs did 10 years for opposing the draft in WWI. Suppose Obama actually brings back the draft or national service, which are things he is actively advocating. I will oppose it toot-and-nail. Am I not a traitor for doing so? If I advise young men to resist the draft as a form of slavery – am I not anti-American and in need of re-education? Am I not an enemy combatant giving aid and comfort to our enemies by encouraging men (and women) to resist involuntary servitude?
You see – this isn’t that hard. The most progressive administrations (Lincoln, Wilson, FDR) were also the most injurious to civil liberties.
Given the scarcity of votes Obama has cast on any topic, that will be a tough one. Look, the right is not the only ones concerned about Obama embracing the Bush legacy and even surpassing it. Check out some of the work done by Glen Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html
Or even a lot of work done on Counterpunch.com The fact is that leftists with a commitment to freedom and lawful government are aghast at where Obama is going. They have reason to be. But all Obama is doing is taking the state security apparatus given him by Bush, and expanding it.
Yes, and they were right. I voted Peroutka in 2004, Ron Paul in the primaries, and then Chuck Baldwin in 2008 in the general. Plenty of Libertarians and Conservatives have been talking about these issue since 2002/2003. But, the mainstream conservatives wouldn’t hear of it. “Bush is only after the Muslims! He needs these broad powers to stop the Muslims!”
We would answer back, “There is nothing stopping a future president from expanding these powers!”
Now we have a new president, and he is not interested in yielding back any of the power grabbed by Bush. He seems intent on expanding our wars overseas, and tightening control over the economy. With the massive power of a domestic Army Brigade, a Department of Homeland Security, a compliant judiciary, and a rapidly collapsing economy – do you trust Obama to not exercise his current power to shut his critics up?
Given that liberal states have so much power under the US system of elections, the only way to win against this is through secession. As long as California, and the New England states can sway elections, we’ll get more and more liberalism, open borders, attacks on Christianity, porno-culture, and “gay rights.” Its simply unavoidable unless some dramatic changes take place. People have to either fight it or give in and quit complaining.
Isn’t there a difference between losing a property tax exemption and being forced to do something that’s against deeply held religious principles?
It would seem to me that if you’re taking a stance for religious freedom, then it behooves your group not to accept a property tax exemption in the first place.
Phil #7:
(New Jersey)
Isn’t there a difference between fined $6,637 by a civil rights commission and being forced to do something that’s against deeply held religious principles? (New Mexico)
Isn’t there a difference between being fired from one’s job and being forced to do something that’s against deeply held religious principles? (Georgia)
Isn’t there a difference between being imprisoned and being forced to do something that’s against deeply held religious principles?
Isn’t there a difference between facing execution and being forced to do something that’s against deeply held religious principles?
No, Phil, nobody is being forced to do anything here. We should all be feeling better now that you have assured us that the government isn’t forcing us to do anything we don’t believe in doing, right?
Actually, D. George, I think that being fined $6,637 for refusing to take on a client, or facing execution (because you refuse to take some unspecified action) are both very good examples of being “forced to do something that’s against deeply held religious principles.” I thought the New Mexico case was a crock, and was decided wrongly.
I don’t have a lot of information about the other instances, but I’m reasonably familiar with the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting case, and I think it’s a poor example of “being forced to do something that’s against deeply held religious principles.”
I’m not rebutting the entire article; I simply contended that that particular example didn’t really support the essay’s thesis. Further, I suggest that accepting a tax exemption is a poor way to take a stance for religious freedom. Do you disagree? Or were you just interested in setting up straw men to attack?
Phil #9:
The tax exemption for churches was designed specifically to protect the churches from the government. If the churches waive property tax exemption, it opens the door for governments to manipulate tax rates on churches to punish them for teaching “incorrect” opinions.
Is such manipulation implausible? I would argue not, given the fact that today both sales and income tax codes are used to punish and encourage various behaviors. With the current pervasiveness of using taxes not just to raise money but to influence behavior, I disagree with your contention that supporting property taxation of churches is a poor way to take a stand for religious freedom.
Furthermore, rescinding OGCMA’s property tax exemption because they refused to allow their facilities to be used for a same-sex ceremony is different only in degree, but not in logic or rationale, from fining a person $6,000 for refusing to provide other services for a similar ceremony. My previous post demonstrates this clearly. In all of the examples the government uses the law (which is backed up by individuals with guns) to punish people who refuse to compromise their religious beliefs. Of course, nobody is forced. Nobody is ever forced! The Romans often told Christians that if they would just offer incense to Ceasar, they could go free. Such a simple, patriotic, and uncontroversial thing to do… Their suffering was really their own fault, don’t you see? I’m sure New Mexico’s civil rights commisars felt exactly the same way about the photographer.
OGCMA, as near as I can tell, was not involved with specific political endorsements. It qualifies as a religious organization, and as a religious organization it was unwilling to compromise its religious beliefs by facilitating same-sex marriage in any way. It should continue to receive identical tax treatment to any other religious organization. Compromise on this point would be inviting the government broad powers to determine which religious doctrines are acceptable and to enforce their dictates.
D. George,
Be that as it may, “The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association” is not a church, per se.
What’s to prevent any organization from declaring themselves a tax-exempt “religious organization,” regardless of their business dealings, if it permits them to both a) ignore the laws of the state and b) avoid paying taxes?
Is it your contention that the removal of a privilege–for example, the withdrawal of a tax-exemption–is essentially the same thing as a “punishment?”
#12 Phil:
1. Whether OGCMA is a church or just a religious organization is immaterial. I assume that the organization qualifies as a 501c3 non-profit organization. As a religious organization it should be protected from the manipulation of its taxes to punish “incorrect” opinions, which is precisely what is happening here. Also, it should receive tax treatment equal to that of other non-profit organizations.
2. The legal definition of a religious organization or a non-profit organization prevents for-profit businesses from obtaining expemptions from property or other taxes.
3. Is removal of a privilage, in this case exemption from property tax, a punishment? Clearly yes, if other organizations in the same legal category continue to receive the exemptions, and the exemptions were removed due to adherence to the particular beliefs of the organization at hand. Loss of equal treatment under the law as one’s peers, whether due to an unjust law or disregard for the law, is clearly punishment in and of itself.
Other organizations in the same legal category follow the law.
The tax exemption in this case was a form of government subsidy, which flowed through the OGCMA to the benefit of the people to whom it provided the opportunity to rent space. The OGCMA took on the role of picking and choosing categories of people who could and could not receive their subsidized rental; this was not appropriate under the OGCMA’s agreement with the state.
In effect, the OGCMA was funneling taxpayer money toward persons it found compatible with its religious beliefs, and away from persons that its religion frowned upon.
Are we in agreement that the specifics of the organization’s religious beliefs don’t matter? That is, to be logically consistent, you must be arguing that a group like the OGCMA had the right to refuse anyone the ability to rent its facility. (Essentially, I’m asking whether you’re arguing for Christian privilege or for religious freedom, which are two distinct concepts.)
# 13 Phil:
If the law says that religious organizations lose tax treatment that other religious organizations receive because they refuse to rent facilities to same-sex weddings that violate their religious beliefs, then the law is unjust. The government can provide tax exemptions for religious organizations, or not, but they should all receive equal tax treatment without interfering with or assessing particular religious beliefs.
This is a simple concept called equal protection.
D. George,
The government is engaging in unequal protection when it makes exceptions for religious beliefs. Is the government expected to have a list of “acceptable” religious beliefs in advance, or do you suggest that any law in the state can be superceded by any nonprofit group, as long as they claim that something is against their religion?
There isn’t a middle ground in this scenario: either the government prioritizes certain religious beliefs by saying that they get special consideration, or no law can stand in the face of a nonprofit with a religious bent.
Unless you’re arguing that there’s a particular religion that deserves special government treatment?
Phil, your scenario is a prime example of the impotence of the law separated from a common cultural understanding. There is, in the Constitution, an assumed hierarchy of values codified in the 1st Amendment as “Congress shall make NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion OR the FREE EXERCISE thereof.
The only religion the founders had in mind was some varient of Christianity. They also had very little desire or intent that the prohibition in the 1st Amendment would extend to the various states. The especially did not realize the use of taxes for social engineering.
The defining principal should be that no property owner should be corerced by law into using his property for anything which the property owner does not agree with.
Again, that becomes untenable in a culture that has reduced everthing to an issue of individual rights as a matter of law.
No freedom can long survive in such an environment as those in power capricously define which rights are more important than others. In this case the rather questionable ‘right’ to have your sexual proclivities endorsed by the society at large supercedes the long established and constitutional rights of freedom OF religion and the right to use your own property as you see fit.
Personally, I’d like to see churches give up their tax exemption with the understaning that they would not be subject to selective tax rates (equal protection)
The deeper issue are the questions: What is human? What is human freedom?
The U.S. Constitution was an attempt to combine two diametrically opposed understandings. 1) A poorly understood Christian paradigm and, 2) the much more fully articulated “Enlightenment” counter revolution to the Christian revelation.
So we have enshrined in the Constitution a hierarchy of values that reflects the older Christian sacral order couched in “Enligthenment” terms of individual freedom.
John Adams, for one, well understood that such a vision could only be effective as long as the Christian prinicipal of ascetic self-control of the passions predominated. It hasn’t, so the entire social order and the social contract described in the Constitution is disintegrating. Freedom has now become license and the triumph of will is realized. Every passing individual desire becomes a protected right against which no statement of general morality and principal is allowed to stand.
I wonder, if a homosexual organization that had a 501(c) 3 exemption had refused a Christian wedding on their premisis if the Christian couple would have had any recourse. I doubt it.
Phil, is not the whole idea of ‘hate crimes’ unequal protection under the law?
Note 17: Not to answer for Phil, but I believe the focus of any hate crimes legislation is not just the identity of the person attacked but the motive behind the attack. These sort of attacks are marked by the fact that the perpetrator has nothing to gain from the attack such as money or to settle a score of some sort. Sometimes it is darker simply because it is so senseless. In other instances, their crime is really not so much to victimize one person but to make a statement to a large group of people within society: “We don’t like you!”. Some would argue that such attacks are more of a threat to the social order and the stability of some communities than someone merely attacking another for their purse.
As such, a hate crime can be committed not just against gays but against blacks, whites, Jews and even Christians.
Personally, I’m not sure hates crimes legislation is very practical: motive is difficult to prove in many instances. Rather, the extent and degree of brutality of the crime should determine the severity of the punishment.
Phil #15:
Simply not true. The government may allow all nonprofit groups to claim tax exemptions, so it doesn’t have to privilage certain religious beliefs. The government could still criminalize behavior it deems to be unacceptable. After all, if a certain behavior warrants government intervention to discourage that behavior, it should be handled in the criminal code, not by removing equal tax treatment for entities of the same legal description.
Hi Michael,
A couple of responses to your points:
So, if I am understanding you correctly, you are stating that the law of the land in the United States ought to create special exceptions for the Christian faith, and ought to provide freedoms specifically for Christians?
That seems to be what you’re saying, and it is a very far cry from the notion of “religious freedom.”
“Hate crimes” legislation may be problematic for other reasons, but not because it equals unequal protection under the law. If a state chooses to increase penalties for crimes that are committed based on the actual or perceived race of the victim, that doesn’t presuppose what race the victim will be. All persons have an “actual or perceived race.” Similarly, hate crime legislation that increases penalties for perpetrators who are motivated by the actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, or religion of a victim, do not single out any class of victims for special status. All persons have an actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, or religion.
In sum: I’m not standing up for hate crimes legislation, I’m just clarifying that your reasoning is flawed when you suggest that the problem with it is “unequal protection under the law.”
D. George #19:
In this instance, the state has determined that no group may discriminate in renting public accomodations. So in that sense, all groups–whether for-profit or nonprofit–are treated the same.
Are you arguing that there should simply be no nondiscrimination laws?
It seems like religion doesn’t really enter into the picture in that case.
#20 Phil:
I have nothing to add to previous statements. If the state determines that denial of services for same-sex ceremonies is a punishable offense regardless of religious belief, it should handle that through criminal code, not tax code.
D. George:
You’re simplifying. The “offense” was not “denial of service for same-sex ceremonies,” it was “public accommodation discrimination based on civil union status.”
It is no different, in terms of state law, from discrimination based on religious status or on veteran status. In this case, the section of property which is rented to the public as a public accommodation cannot be tax-exempt if the owner chooses to discriminate in renting it. While that’s not necessarily criminal, it may cause that section of the property to be re-classified in terms of its tax status.
That’s a separate decision from the discrimination lawsuit. Are you suggesting that all states simply eliminate all tort law from the books, and render everything criminal?
Phil says:
Phil, that is neither what I said nor what I meant. One thing I meant is that it already does because the founders did not even consider some other religion other than Chrisitanity in their thoughts (albeit heretical Christianity). That speaks to the cultural condition at the time. The laws would naturally and inevitably be interpreted within that context despite that fact that the ‘Enlightenment’ thought is diametrically opposed to Christianity in all kinds of ways, they tried to stuff that in there too.
In neither case was modern concept of statist rule and egalitarian non-sense anything but remotely imagined. Ultimately the founders wanted a united country with a classically educated and free citizenry who would treat each other with honor and respect controled by neither church nor state. Addressing and solving problems together under the protection of law
What we have now is an oligarchic kackistocracy in league with the feckless that want to make faith, honor and character a crime. Statists who simply use the law as a method of achieving and maintaining power.
Genuine Christians will be persecuted in such an environment while immorality, depravity and evil will be rewarded.
In such an environment it is impossible to achieve anything even remotely approaching rule of law let alone equal protection under the law. The increasingly nit-picking laws that seek to control every aspect of our behavior are a salvo against both the ‘Enlightment’ idea of responsible individualism and the Christian paradigm of love in a community answerable to God.
Such laws are all nihlistic in character and are not even intended to be enforced except when it is convenient to further greater statist control.
We would be far better off with law the gave preference to Christian moral and ethical teaching without demanding folks become Christian. Since we won’t get that, it would be nice to simply abide by the Constitution, espeically the 10th Amendment combined with a repeal of the 17th Amendment.
The Federal government simply has no Constitutional authority to legislate in any of these matters– one of the reasons they use the tax code instead along with a bloated and insane interpretation of the commerce clause.
Unfortunately, real freedom in a constitutional system means that bad decisions will be made, even evil ones. It is tough to allow that to go on because “There ought to be a law….” Always a prescription to loss of significant freedoms.
Not to mention the strong argument to be made that the personal freedom and prosperity we know is quite impossible apart from a Christological anthropology underlying it.
#23 Phil:
There is no need to nit-pick like this. My description of the “offense” does not conflict with the legal description.
I understand what the state law is. I believe it is unjust, and leaves religious organizations whose members refuse to serve homosexuals as a matter of conscience vulnerable to reprisals or otherwise negative and unequal treatment from the state. You apparently support this. I do not.
In no way does my position suggest the elimination of all tort law. It just suggests not using the tax code to punish social behavior that homosexuals and various leftists deem to be undesirable. This is simple to understand.
You employed (intentionally or not) a rhetorical strategy with the effect of making the offense sound more unreasonable by making it sound trivial.
It’s a “divide and conquer” strategy. In truth, the same laws that caused the OGCMA to lose tax-exempt status on a portion of their property could have the same effect on a religious group who refused services to an interracial couple, or on a Muslim group who refused to rent space to women in jeans and t-shirts, or a Scientologist group who refused to rent a space for a psychiatrist’s convention.
If you’re taking a principled stand for “religious freedom,” then you also support the right of each of those religious groups to discriminate, in the same way that you support the right of the OGCMA to discriminate. But thus far, you haven’t given any indication that you really support religious freedom. In fact, you once again singled out “homosexuals and various leftists.” Your reader is left with the impression that you are in fact arguing for religious privilege.
To clarify, I ask: do you believe that all state laws which might require a religious group–not a church–to rent public accommodations without discriminating to be unjust, or are you only concerned with the laws that conflict with Christian religions?