The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Faith groups increasingly lose gay rights fights

Faith groups increasingly lose gay rights fights

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.

Full article

I think the questions raised on both sides are very valid. As a gay man, I don't want to patronize a company that is run by a fundie who thinks I'm a wicked sinner. And if it is their company, why shouldn't they have that choice to deny me, especially as I would not mind reserving the same right to deny them service? For example, if I ran a catering company and refused to cater an Islamic fundie wedding based on moral grounds, shouldn't I have that right? I'd like to think so, just as a fundie photographer should have the option not to photograph my gay wedding.

But as Jennifer Pizer is quoted in the article, "We are not required to pay the price for other people's religious views about us." That is true I suppose, and a very valid point. What if a gay man wearing a t-shirt that reads "Gay Rights Now" winds up in the emergency room after a car accident, and the doctor on call refuses to treat him because homosexuality is against his religious views? Certainly that is not right.

These are difficult questions that don't deal with just sexuality or religion, but rights, responsibilities, and private property rights as well. But I guess the bottom line for me is that we cannot allow religion to be used as a persistent and justifiable means to excuse a person from the rules, regulations, common sense, and obligations which govern us all in a society that is based on reciprocity, cooperation, and shared resources and services.

Tags: bisexual, christian, civil-right, discrimination, fundie, gay, homosexual, lesbian, marriage-equality, rights

0 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Jim DePaulo on April 12, 2009 at 5:13pm: I guess I missed the part of the Hippocratic that says "unless the patient is gay"

Comment by unholyroller on April 12, 2009 at 1:34am: ANY healthcare worker who denies treatment to anyone based on the sexual orientation of the person seeking help should have his/her license yanked for life.

Comment by Ariel on April 11, 2009 at 10:07pm: The first two examples I think are of people exercising legitimate rights. The photographer may be an asshole, but with the psychiatrist, it was probably for the best. If you're having relationship problems, would you want to go to someone who thought your relationship should end.

With doctors, on the other hand, society and the courts have recognized a different class of expectations. You become a doctor knowing that you may have patients that you wouldn't invite home for dinner. Similarly, pharmacists shouldn't be allowed to decide what prescriptions they feel like filling.

A university can choose to deny official standing to any group, and I think this was a very good choice. I

Comment by Buffy on April 11, 2009 at 9:19pm: A doctor is supposed to treat patients, not practice religion. If s/he feels incapable of treating patients because his/her religious bigotries get in the way there's a serious problem.

Imagine the backlash if a photographer said, "Sorry, I don't do Christian events". Yet they claim it's not bigotry if they refuse services to us? How about some boycotts and bad publicity instead? They'll cry "persecution" but that's just how business works when you're a bigot.

And the "Christian group" at the law school wasn't denied solely because they are against same-sex marriage. They were denied because they also refuse membership to anybody who isn't a Christian or otherwise opposes their beliefs. But you can't expect the RRRWers to tell the truth, can you?

Why these people think they should be able to refuse services to LGBT people and claim their "faith" or "deeply held religious beliefs" as a legitimate excuse is beyond me. Are they demanding the right to refuse services to divorced people, liars, adulterers and other people who violate Biblical tenets? Do they refuse services to people of other faiths or the non-religious? No, they're expressly singling out LGBT people (and sometimes women seeking reproductive health services) as offensive to their religious sensibilities.

It has nothing to do with "religious freedoms". It has everything to do with personal bigotries and the desire to force everyone to live by their religious dogma.