Religious Rights
There’s a case that was heard by the Supreme Court last week that concerns “religious liberty”. I put that phrase in quotes because I think it’s mostly a bullshit euphemism used to discriminate without being labeled a bigot. The case, 303 Creative v. Elenis, centers on whether or not a person has to provide services for something they feel violates their religion. Specifically, a woman named Lisa Smith (that’s the 303 Creative part) is a website designer who lives in Colorado. She wants to start making websites for weddings but hates gay people and doesn’t want to make websites for their weddings. Mind you, she currently doesn’t make wedding websites. This is a preemptive lawsuit against Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. No injuries have yet to happen.
It seems as though the court might grant her the ability to discriminate against gay folks under the guise of religious liberty. Smith’s attorneys, who previously represented a bigot baker, have come up with a novel approach to legal discrimination. They are claiming that by the government forcing her to create websites for gay people (which she hates, remember) they are compelling her to speech, a violation of the 1st Amendment. Namely, the government can’t make you say things against your will. For instance, they can’t tell a newspaper to print something positive about a policy or face being shut down.
Are these things really the same? I don’t think so. In one case, no one is forcing Lisa Smith to say she’s OK with gay marriages. She can continue to be a bigot. In America, we’ve decided that if you are going to serve the public you have to serve ALL of the public. No more denying Black folks a spot at the lunch counter. You don’t have to be NICE to them but you have to serve them. Lisa Smith is well within her rights to say upfront that she hates gay people and thinks they’re all going to Hell but she still has to make their website. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that a warning like that would dissuade enough people that the unlikely event of gay people using her services is pretty moot.
Why is this bad, you might be wondering? I mean, so one web designer doesn’t make gay websites. Who cares? Well, for starters, everyone should care. Just because the sun shines on you right now doesn’t mean it always will. It’s very easy for people who aren’t discriminated against to think discrimination isn’t a big deal. There are many religions that have bigotry and discrimination baked into their dogma. For example, there are some sects of Christianity that believe Black folks are the descendants of Cain (of Cain and Able lore) and thus children of evil. So maybe they wouldn’t have to allow Black folks in. There are probably Muslim businesses that would love to stop serving Jewish people and vice versa. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
(Quick side rant: I doubt very much that the “first” people God created were white. I mean, they would be some sunburned MFers. Maybe the Mark of Cain isn’t Blackness, but whiteness. It would certainly explain a few things!)
Look at this crazy white lady crying on the floor of Congress. By the way, that’s her gay nephew who posted that clip. He said she’s a bigot. Crazy how the people who want to “preserve” religious “liberty” are really just hatemongers using Christ as a cloak. But let’s take her at her word. What is the “true meaning of marriage”? Are we basing it on what the Bible says? The book that’s totally cool with CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS 8 being married off to men? The book that’s totally cool with polygamy? Or are we talking about the book that never mentions rape or slavery being a sin? Oh ok. Sure. Let’s take lessons from that.
Jesus Christ.
Why do they always go right to dog-fucking? Do they really not see a difference between two consenting adults entering into a legal partnership and a person abusing an animal? Honestly, I feel like they’re telling on themselves when they say stuff like this. My guy Rep. Good has definitely seen a horse running in a field and got a boner. They live in a delusional world where they’ve either never read the Bible or stopped after Leviticus. I mean, I don’t blame them. The Bible is suuuuuper boring in most parts.
None of this matters though, since this is American and not a Taliban-like Christian Theocracy. It’s all well and good that you think there’s a man in the sky who grants wishes and gives children cancer but a lot of us don’t cotton such ideas. Good thing we have our own Constitutional protections, ironically, also the 1st Amendment. Let’s see what it actually says about religion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
That’s it. That’s the whole thing. Talk about leaving a lot up to discretion. The first part is what godless heathens like myself rely upon for our ability to shut down taxpayer-funded manger scenes and kids singing Christmas songs in schools. In essence, it says the government can’t favor one religion over another and that it cannot give the appearance or suggestion that there is a sanctioned religion. For a public school to have Bible lessons in class would be establishing a religion within a government institution. I’m sure there would be lots of angry Christian parents if kids had to bow to Mecca during the day and recite Islamic prayers.
It’s the second part that the “religious liberty” people have sunk their teeth into. What, exactly, does it mean to exercise your religion freely? Is it standing on a street corner shouting about the end of days? Is it nodding and counting beads in an airport? Is it going door to door dressed like cult members and telling people about the “good news”? Yes, to all of these. But what else does it cover? Going to church, certainly, would fall under exercise. Being able to pray? Yup. At what point do your rights to exercise religion stop and my rights to live my life begin? That’s really the crux of the argument, even if the lawyers are trying for a compelled speech case.
Make no mistake, conservatives want this country to be Christian, ruled by Biblical laws. And just like with abortion rights, they have been slowly making headway on this over the past several decades. By stripping away protections for non-Christians a little at a time, we are now at a point where true religious freedom could become a thing of the past. If people are allowed to discriminate based on their religion, the can of worms that would open will be tough to seal back up.
Personally, I would like to live in a country where people can practice whatever faith they want. As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone or interfere with others doing the same. To say that your ability to exercise your religion to the point where it strips people of equal rights and protections under the Constitution seems a bridge too far for me. I fear, however, that we know where this is heading. The same place it’s been going for decades.
An American Taliban.