Maybe when I pass a math test, I will make the time to tell you all about how we are living on our own now (!), or how Emily has a job, or why Cameron doesn't, or all about the closet-studio, or about these great books that I'm reading (Sorry Moby Dick, someday I'll catch you), or about why family history is so inspiring, or why our families are wonderful, or about excellent podcasts, websites, betas, and strange/funny/heartrending fan translations of Japanese gaming staples, but until I pass a math test, none of that will happen. Maybe Emily, as the picturemaster, will throw up some pics. For now you get some interesting stats.
When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty
NPR
In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited rights.
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch" organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
Adoption services: Catholic Charities in Massachusetts refused to place children with same-sex couples as required by Massachusetts law. After a legislative struggle — during which the Senate president said he could not support a bill "condoning discrimination" — Catholic Charities pulled out of the adoption business in 2006.
Housing: In New York City, Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, a school under Orthodox Jewish auspices, banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory. New York does not recognize same-sex marriage, but in 2001, the state's highest court ruled Yeshiva violated New York City's ban on sexual orientation discrimination. Yeshiva now allows all couples in the dorm.
Parochial schools: California Lutheran High School, a Protestant school in Wildomar, holds that homosexuality is a sin. After the school suspended two girls who were allegedly in a lesbian relationship, the girls' parents sued, saying the school was violating the state's civil rights act protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. The case is before a state judge.
Medical services: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.
Psychological services: A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company.
Civil servants: A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
Adoption services: A same-sex couple in California applied to Adoption Profiles, an Internet service in Arizona that matches adoptive parents with newborns. The couple's application was denied based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners. The couple sued in federal district court in San Francisco. The two sides settled after the adoption company said it will no longer do business in California.
Wedding services: A same sex couple in Albuquerque asked a photographer, Elaine Huguenin, to shoot their commitment ceremony. The photographer declined, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. The couple sued, and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission found the photographer guilty of discrimination. It ordered her to pay the lesbian couple's legal fees ($6,600). The photographer is appealing.
Wedding facilities: Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of New Jersey, a Methodist organization, refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. The couple filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division ruled that the boardwalk property was open for public use, therefore the Methodist group could not discriminate against gay couples using it. In the interim, the state's Department of Environmental Protection revoked a portion of the association's tax benefits. The case is ongoing.
Youth groups: The city of Berkeley, Calif., requested that the Sea Scouts (affiliated with the Boy Scouts) formally agree to not discriminate against gay men in exchange for free use of berths in the city's marina. The Sea Scouts sued, claiming this violated their beliefs and First Amendment right to the freedom to associate with other like-minded people. In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled against the youth group. In San Diego, the Boy Scouts lost access to the city-owned aquatic center for the same reason. While these cases do not directly involve same-sex unions, they presage future conflicts about whether religiously oriented or parachurch organizations may prohibit, for example, gay couples from teaching at summer camp. In June 2008, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to review the Boy Scouts' leases. Meanwhile, the mayor's office in Philadelphia revoked the Boy Scouts' $1-a-year lease for a city building.
2 comments:
Half of the examples could be considered religious organizations… although I don’t know enough about the courts rulings in these cases to know if it constitutes forcing religions to teach anything other than what they believe.
The other half were businesses breaking non-discrimination laws by enforcing their religion in an official capacity as a business owner or general service provider.
Now, gay Californians already have the right to marry someone of the same sex, but we have to take that away from them for fear of them taking something away from others? That seems rather, um, hypocritical.
But, yes, religious beliefs (personal, or organizational) clash with anything that the religion doesn’t want to accept. That is to be expected.
----------------
Tanyahalette
promoter
Point understood. Not all are religious organization, but are examples of religious people in secular organizations.
Many things in this life are not fair, and do seem- or in fact are- hypocritical. But not all things are right, correct, or good. One may say that religion has no place in politics. What does that mean? Who is that creates the morals of a society? As a theist, I would say that in the ultimate, that is God. Another might see it as coming from the church ("church" in the collective), a culture, or some form of faction-thought. Either way, those beliefs are distilled through individual lives. Who decides murder is "bad"? (Don't "we" restrict/infringe/take away that person's rights so that they do not take away someone else's rights?) Who decides accounting fraud is "bad"? (Don't "we" decide that the fraud-er should be jailed to prevent future damage or damage that was once purported to be?) Who decides infringing another's copyright is "bad"? Who decides consensual sex between one over- and one under- age is wrong? Who decides anything is wrong? Is it not the people, at least (again,) in the ultimate? I have no problem with a society governing itself and setting its own moral code of conduct. I don't even have a problem with four judges who did what they think is right. I do have a problem with those who do not believe that the others cannot or should not be allowed, as a majority, to set, raise, or lower a standard. An issue is only unconstitutional until the constitution says otherwise.
Who are others to say that a redefinition of marriage will not affect a young, white, heterosexual, married man like myself? It will directly affect me when I tell others that I am married and am confronted with a question of who/what I am married to. It will directly affect my children (who will affect me), and the social climate they will be exposed to. It will affect my wife (who will affect me), who is a schoolteacher. It will affect the the country I live in (which will affect me) to think that adult autonomy is above all else. It will affect my country when gay marriage is no longer prohibited, no longer simply permitted, but is something endorsed by my government. If the premise is non-discrimination in marriage, then the burden of proof is upon gay activists to find that there is not wisdom and stability in an institution that has stood for hundreds of years.
As I served a mission, I learned early to not disrespect the deeply held religious beliefs of others, even if they were, as I may have felt, ludicrous. I find no basis that individuals, even individuals acting in groups- even large groups- cannot harness their beliefs to change law.
Post a Comment