Davison's Doodle

Religious Freedom v Freedom to Discriminate Based on Religion

I am not one that is moved by the argument that religious freedom is under attack in the United States.  Translate ‘religious freedom’ as Christian fundamentalist and some self identified evangelicals.’  I don’t know of one State or Federal agency that has outlawed Graham, Falwell Jr, Robertson, Osteen, Dobson, Perkins, and the prosperity gospel hucksters from the ability to gather for worship, for study, or their mission to extract money from people in the name of God.  They also want to create a Christian state and their rhetoric supports another world war in the name of God.  These guys, and those that follow their form of Christian witness, equate overt discrimination with religious freedom.  Similar arguments were made during the Civil Rights movement around discrimination and race.  I’m pretty sure anyone that wants to picket Planned Parenthood on religious grounds, (a topic of inconsistent theology for another day), may arrive to pester those seeking healthcare at Planned Parenthood that has nothing to do with abortion.

Though I’m not a member of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, I do support much of their work. Here is their reporting, biased as it may be, about the Washington State Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling against a ‘religious liberty’ case in which a florist refused to sell flowers to a gay couple based on her religious beliefs.  Is there a sign in her store window that reads, “Only My Kind of Christians Welcome Here?”  Does she sell to atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, closeted LGBTQ persons, Protestant and Catholic Christians?  Is this what America is coming to? How is this ‘religious freedom’ perspective definition, from a theological, sociological, or nationalist perspective, different from a version of the Taliban and other fundamentalists within Islam that want to impose their scriptural interpretation of God’s plan (may peace be upon God) on an entire society.  America is not a theocracy and would become a failed experiment in democracy were it to become more a ‘Christian-centric’ republic than it already is.

Washington Supreme Court Says There’s No Constitutional Right To Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples
Feb 16, 2017 by Andrew Nellis in Wall of Separation

The Washington Supreme Court has now vindicated AU’s argument. In a lengthy, 9-0 decision, the court first confirms that Stutzman did indeed violate the Washington Law Against Discrimination; it then goes on to reject her claims that the Constitution gives her a right to break the law.

Stutzman’s main argument was that her flower arrangements were “expressive conduct” – speech, in First Amendment terms – and that she shouldn’t have to communicate a message with her flowers that she doesn’t believe in. But the court rightly rejected this argument, ruling that providing “flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding.”

And from a HuffingtonPost article:

Unanimous Ruling In Washington State Supreme Court Against Arlene’s Flowers Owner
Sara Toce, Contributor

The opinion concluded, “The plain language of RCW 49.60.215 prohibits Stutzman’s refusal to provide same-sex wedding services to Ingersoll; such refusal constitutes discrimination on the basis of ‘sexual orientation,’ in violation of RCW 49.60.215. The same analysis applies to her corporation…In sum, Stutzman’s refusal to provide custom floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding violated the WLAD’s prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations.’”

And from the group that defended Ms Stutzman in court:

Washington Supreme Court Punishes Barronelle Stutzman. What Now?
Jim Campbell

Barronelle’s story demonstrates a troubling trend—governmental agencies and officials that have grown increasingly hostile to religious freedom, particularly the freedom of people who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. These widespread efforts to suppress freedom are rooted in a disdain for this particular religious belief—a belief that, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, is “decent and honorable” and held “in good faith by reasonable and sincere people.”