I know, I did say I was over the subject of gays and the Church. However as an LDS member in California– a state that today legalized same-sex marriage– I’m forced to confront another issue involving these two head-butting entities. Recently a Catholic adoption service closed its doors because it didn’t want to place children in gay homes, and it knew if the issue went to court, they would lose. A wedding photographer was taken to court because he refused services to a homosexual couple on the grounds that his product is a “message-maker” and he did not believe in their message. And so it goes, the clash of two great American institutions: Freedom of religion vs. equal rights. As a pro-straight-marriage Christian, I am, of course, on the side of freedom of religion. It should stand to reason– “our club, our rules.” But the courts may not see it that way in every arena.
Take the Catholic adoption agency. Because it accepted money from the government to keep its services going, it opened itself up to being subject to government rulings. Should LDS videographers (and there are a bunch of them) be legally bound to shoot gay weddings despite their personal religious beliefs? Is that the price of being in the business they’re in? Should a denomination-sponsored youth camp that accepts the voluntary services of parents have to allow married male partners to participate even though the church’s doctrine vocally condemns homosexuality?
I think it goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that whatever goes on within the walls of a church– be it denial of gay marriage or the fervent practice of gay-bashing sermons, the Constitution still protects that church from legal confrontation. Where it gets messy is when church members who harbor their faiths’ beliefs make a living offering public services to legally married– or marrying– couples, their personal rights of religious beliefs and observance are now under fire by the courts– because, what is the difference between denying a homosexual couple a wedding reception and denying a black man service in a restaurant?
As the church can say “our club, our rules,” the gay couple can say because the marriage-related business owner offers services to the public, they are obligated to serve any legally-recognized spouse, couple, what-have-you. It’s either that, or get out of the business.
Letting a gay couple enforce their right to use a good Baptist’s reception hall may not bother you. You might even support such “forward” thinking. The idea of it doesn’t bother me much, either, tell you the truth. What concerns me is how far the line of equal rights will plow over the rights of an individual’s religious beliefs. I’ve already heard about a few random incidents. I’m just bracing for whatever’s next.
17 responses so far ↓
1 Steven B // Jun 17, 2008 at 4:10 am
What I see happening is a lot of conflating same-sex marriage with other civil rights for gay people. In the case of the Catholic Charities, for example, the decision to cease all adoptions was not directly related to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, but rather to anti-discrimination legislation that had been in place for a decade. The legalization of same-sex marriage in that state merely brought it to the attention of the bishops involved.
As I look over your list of examples where religion butts heads with civil rights, it appears that many of them become an issue whether or not a state extends marriage to same-sex couples.
So the real issue is how do we live with people whom we consider sinners?
If we are kind to gays are we somehow complicit in their waywardness? Are we supporting their sin? Is our tolerance taken as tacit approval?
If we cease being tolerant will gays all just go away? Will they stop forming relationships? If we shun gays will they go back into the closet?
If we cannot tolerate homosexuality, what’s to become of gay people? What should their place be in society? Do we send them to death camps? Do we quarantine gays lest they infect the rest of society? Can we allow gays to partner and live their lives with dignity?
So many questions and no answers. But perhaps these are questions we ought to think about.
2 SilverRain // Jun 17, 2008 at 11:04 am
It just goes to show that it’s hard to give rights and privileges without also taking them away from someone else.
3 Nick Literski // Jun 17, 2008 at 4:22 pm
SilverRain, I don’t really understand the basis of your comment. How does it take away from your civil rights and privileges (or even those of “others”), if homosexuals have the same civil rights and privileges as heterosexuals do?
Does affording homosexuals equal rights somehow deprive you of your right to worship as your conscience directs? Are you afraid that a gay couple might get in line for a marriage license at the county clerk’s office in front of a straight couple, thus “denying” the straight couple’s “right” to not have to wait behind someone else in line?
When I a person make this kind of argument, they generally seem to be claiming some sort of “right” to have civil legislation (and all of society, for that matter) governed according to the dictates of that one person’s religion. How is it your “right” to have non-LDS citizens of the United States governed according to the teachings of your faith? How is it your “right” to have all of society live by your understanding of religiously-based morality?
You’ve made this assertion, and I’d really like to see you explain these “rights and privileges” you feel are being “taken away” from you.
4 Nick Literski // Jun 17, 2008 at 4:26 pm
If we are kind to gays are we somehow complicit in their waywardness?
Steven B, I thought being “kind to gays” was one of the teachings of your faith. Indeed, I thought it wasn’t even a teaching unique to LDS-ism, but rather to all of christianity.
Please elaborate for us. Are homosexuals the only “sinners” whom you hesitate to be “kind” to, on the basis of your faith? After all, can’t you ask the same questions about being “kind” to people who disregard any of the other myriad commandments of your faith?
5 Clean Cut // Jun 17, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I appreciate the thought-provoking post.
Nick, Steven B.’s comment was not saying we shouldn’t be kind to gays–he was saying that we should–but questioning whether being kind makes us complicit in their behavior. (I think not. We obviously are all sinners and yet ought to be kind to each other). I appreciate Stephen’s thought provoking comment as well.
6 David // Jun 17, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Being kind to and tolerant of gays was never my concern. My concern is enforcing religious entities and/or individuals to provide access and/or service to legally married same-sex couples (in situations like adoption agencies, reception halls, etc.) even though it’s against their beliefs. I don’t believe most couples would try to take the issue to enforcement, but there will be some that will. I realize we’re only talking about a couple of states right now, but I suspect that more will follow soon.
7 Nick Literski // Jun 18, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Clean Cut, I understood Steven B’s comment in the same way you did. The point remains that his question (in order to be consistent) applies to every other behavior that LDS members consider to be sinful, as well.
For example:
“If we are kind to smokers are we somehow complicit in their waywardness? Are we supporting their sin? Is our tolerance taken as tacit approval?”
or…
“If we are kind to theives are we somehow complicit in their waywardness? Are we supporting their sin? Is our tolerance taken as tacit approval?”
Now, if you’re like most people, you’ll think both of my example questions are ludicrous! Everyone knows that the clear answer is that we should be kind to everyone, without regard to whether we consider them a “sinner,” right? The teachings and example of Jesus of Nazareth certainly convey this principle.
For some reason though, it is common among conservative “christians” to think homosexuality is an exception to this principle. Among “born again” evangelicals, it’s okay that everyone is a sinner, because Jesus will forgive them—unless they happen to be gay. That one sin somehow throws aside even their “no repentance necessary, just believe in Jesus” theology.
While LDS teachings are considerably more demanding in terms of repentance, Steven B’s question demonstrates that despite Gordon Hinckley’s admonitions on the subject, some LDS hesitate to apply “Jesus said love everyone” to homosexuals. I agree with you that Steven B didn’t advocate being unkind to homosexuals, but he did imply that it might be wrong to be kind to homosexuals, if it somehow makes one “complicit in their waywardness,” “supports their sin,” or is “taken as tacit approval.”
8 Steven B // Jun 18, 2008 at 5:58 pm
We are talking about organizations and individuals who serve the public. This is not about churches supposedly being forced by the state to provide equal access to services.
So, let’s just consider if such organizations or individuals were obligated to provide equal access to their services. (Oh, the horror.) Is there a “right” to not be offended as a business owner or employee? Is there a gay exception which makes it OK to say “we don’t serve your kind here?”
There I go, posing questions again. For give me, but I just don’t comprehend the mind-set of business, who offer services to the public, but don’t want to be “offended” by having to serve those who may outwardly live by a different set of moral values.
How is the business or employee harmed?
In the case of Catholic Charities there was certainly a conflict because their adoption operation required a license from the state, which obligated them that they not discriminate against tax paying citizens. They also received some funding from the state. So it would clearly be unethical to discriminate. Thus they got out of the adoption business. And that was a tragedy for children in need of adoption.
Do we blame the gays or the Catholic Church?
This issue, of course, is not the only conflict in the culture wars. If I may pose another question, is it worth denying civil rights, and dignity to gays and lesbians merely to avoid these conflicts of conscience?
9 Steven B // Jun 18, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Note, although my comment above sequentially follows Nick’s excellent comment, it was in response to David’s point of focus towards the marriage/faith conflict.
10 David // Jun 18, 2008 at 9:13 pm
How is the business or employee harmed?
I guess that depends on the kind of business or service. I admit, my concern would actually morally affect a very small niche, including the Catholic Charities example. Let’s take someone who provides an inocuous service like making wedding cakes: They are very popular in their tight-knit Christian community and renowned for making incredible cakes for all occasions. Because they find same-sex marriage reprehensible and believe making a wedding cake with two grooms or two brides would hurt business, they decline an order from a gay couple. Is this more than a conflict of conscience? Does the couple have a case? Does the cake maker?
Do we blame the gays or the Catholic Church?
Sorry, for just a moment I wanted to break out into a verse of “Blame Canada”… I say blame the government. I actually applaud the Catholic Church’s decision not to be forced to give in. And as a supporter of religious rights I think that, despite the church’s acceptance of state money, as they are the sponsors of the adoption agency they shouldn’t have to be compelled to comply with something against their doctrine. Or maybe that’s just the spiritual polygamist in me talking.
Is it worth denying civil rights, and dignity to gays and lesbians merely to avoid these conflicts of conscience?
I think it’s simplifying the dilemma, calling it merely a conflict of conscience. The objection goes a little deeper than, say, “seeing” a panhandler.
11 Steven B // Jun 19, 2008 at 6:49 am
OK, let’s rephrase the question. Should society withhold civil rights from 3-5% of the population (in this case an oppressed minority) out of fear that John Drake the Cake Maker “might” have his business hurt for showing tolerance for gays? Or better yet, should government treat tax paying gays and lesbians as second class citizens because Catholic doctrine proclaims them “intrinsically disordered” and who’s Catholic businesses would suffer unless they be permitted to discriminate?
Who is trampling on who’s rights? Does freedom of religion trump the civil rights of others? Who’s rights should be given precedence?
In my opinion, the right to believe is protected by the U.S. constitution. So the government cannot force any of us to stop believing in a tenet of our faith. Where the federal government draws the line is in the “actions” of the believer.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Reynolds v. United States made a distinction between religious belief and actions that flow from that belief. Drawing upon the words of Thomas Jefferson it concluded that the former “lies solely between man and his God,” therefore “the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions.” The court argued essentially that if any action was permitted out of respect to religious belief, this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
That opinion was argued back in 1878 and times have certainly changed. But I think the principle still stands that men are free to believe what they will, but their actions must remain within the bounds of law.
You wonder, “how far the line of equal rights will plow over the rights of an individual’s religious beliefs.” If I had to wager a guess, I would say, based on Reynolds, that individual religious beliefs will remain unfettered, but the “actions” of those wishing to discriminate will certainly be encroached upon.
“How far” is hard to predict. In light of the same-sex marriage ruling in California, recent news articles have discussed the conflict between gay rights and the freedom to exercise religious beliefs. One reporter observed that in the recent law suits involving church organizations and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples, “so far, the religious groups are loosing.”
12 xoxoxoxo // Jun 20, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Several things to consider-
As LDS members, we are admonished to honor the laws of our land, whether we agree with them or not. We are also admonished to be kind to everyone, whether we agree with their lifestyles or not.
In my opinion, this means that LDS business owners should honor the laws that apply where they live and treat gay customers in the exact same way they treat any other customers. I think most businesses can easily avoid a problem with just a couple of creative solutions and a little tolerance.
For example, a professional baker has no reason to ask ANY customer about their personal life, especially their sex life. Many bakeries don’t carry cake toppers at all, or only have a few that don’t depict couples of any kind-so if they want to remain in business and be truly non-discriminatory, they simply advise ALL customers that want a personalized cake topper that they will have to obtain one and add it later.
BUT-I also think that independent business owners have rights too, and that they should be able to specialize or provide services to a specific target market if they wish to. For example, I see nothing wrong with a photographer who only photographs Jewish weddings, or gay weddings, or LDS weddings. If that is made clear on their advertising or websites etc, I think it would be a breach of the photographer’s rights to specialize for ANY couple to take them to court for refusing to take pictures at their wedding if it doesn’t fit within their niche.
If a company, business, service is open to the general public then it should not be allowed to discriminate against general public it professes to serve. If a company, business or service offers a specialized product or service, the general public should not be allowed to discriminate against the business simply because it does not serve their specific need.
It would be beyond ludicrous to legislate that ANY business or company that doesn’t produce a product or service that applies equally to every single citizen cannot remain in business.
13 David // Jun 20, 2008 at 7:48 pm
See? I told my friend that if she called her business Patty’s Straight Christian Wedding Cakes she’d avoid any unneccesary hassles!
14 xoxoxoxo // Jun 21, 2008 at 2:23 am
Oh I am just SURE that would do the trick David…not. LOL
15 xoxoxoxo // Jun 26, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Ok…I could be completely wrong, so I thought I’d run it past y’all. Do you see any reason why the following comment would be blocked on another “LDS” blog currently discussing whether the accusations from outsiders that the Church is being hypocritical on its stand against same-sex marriage hold any validity or not???
(the comment was a reply to one of the author’s own within the thread)
“Hypocrisy is defined as claiming to believe in something when our actions indicate the opposite, or refusing to apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others. Since the LDS Church has never published anything that endorsed or encouraged same sex unions, what they publish now does not fit the definition of even mild hypocrisy, let alone blatant.
I do not doubt that some LDS members are ignorant or obtuse in their beliefs and actions, but in all honesty, most of the LDS folks I know that oppose same sex unions do so because they understand and accept God’s definition of marriage and its role in His eternal plan as revealed to both ancient and modern prophets. They also know that the teachings of God’s living prophet apply even more specifically to them, and that while they are defending truth and condemning sin they are also expected to be loving and kind to their brothers and sisters who believe differently.”
16 David // Jun 26, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Skippy, you really need to submit your responses there from the library or an Internet cafe. They’ve got your IP address on the list, darlin’.
But after reading the ad nauseum thread myself, I’d have to say the author felt you weren’t really addressing the question fully enough. Is the Church– as an institution with a history of ploygamy– hypocritical in its stand against same-sex marriage? It begs a reply explaining why embracing one issue and forbidding another is. or is not, hypocritical. Your reply looks like it started to go in that direction, but then took a detour that reeded background music, say, “O How Lovely Was the Morning?”
That said, I think the author trimmed the responses to keep the eye on the ball and was perhaps a tad prejudicial in their removal of yours.
Do you have the same affect on your auxiliary leaders, bedroom partners and adult nieces?
17 xoxoxoxo // Jun 27, 2008 at 12:32 am
Oh this is so peculiar. An hour after posting this here, the comment was suddenly posted there. Your power and influence never ceases to amaze me Obiwan.
One must have an IP address to be on a list right? *eg*
The Church is only hypocritical IF same sex marriage and polygamy are the exact same thing. If they are, polygamists have much to gain by a change in legislation. As far as I know, the Lord has never commanded same sex marriages and then later halted the practice.
The second part of my comment was directed at the one he made prior about most lds folks getting their attitudes about gays from Leviticus.
I only have this effect on people who deny, ignore, and twist the truth and attempt to get others to follow suit. What did the Supreme Court call it yesterday…”evolving standards of decency”??? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Leave a Comment