Creating Longer Tables, Instead of Slamming Doors

A couple of things happened last month that I wanted to write about, but the holidays (along with a serious bout of depression) got in the way. The first was a case that went before the United States Supreme Court, where a Christian web site designer refused to make custom web sites for same-sex weddings. The second was news of a restaurant in Richmond, Virginia that refused to honor the reservation of a conservative Christian organization that, among other things, opposes same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

This confluence of events got me thinking, again, about the delineation between which rights we have as citizens, and why we have them. Religion is regarded as sacrosanct, and we need look no further than the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to see that it protects us from the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Indeed, many of the state and federal level laws that have codified same-sex marriage have allowed for a loophole applicable to religious institutions. Back when my home state of Illinois legalized same-sex marriage - and included a religious exemption - roughly a decade ago, I was okay with the inclusion. I was just desperate at the time for the legal recognition.

A lot can change in ten years, and so when Congress recently passed the Respect for Marriage Act, with similar religious exemptions we've seen when such laws were created at the state level, I was, to put it mildly, dubious. Of course, having been involved with local government for some time, I understand the often delicate balancing act of bringing forth, and attaining passage of, potentially controversial legislation. I am heartened to see this worked at the federal level, and with some Republicans joining in. That may sound like I'm setting a low bar, however, given where our national politics are at these days, it comes close to being remarkable.

Yet, the religious exemptions kind of rankles me. So often, when we're confronted with people who do not wish to provide a service they in business for, to someone in the LGBT community, their (literal) get-out-of-jail-free card seems to be based on their religious beliefs. It's like a free pass for bigotry. Are there folks whose sincere interpretation of religious texts leads them to refuse assistance for certain people? Sure. That's one point. But, call me cynical, I also think there are some out there who are just prejudiced, and use religion as a shield. After all, we've witnessed plenty of examples throughout human history where religious or spiritual beliefs actually prompt certain folks to cast a wider, more loving net. They are compelled to love more people, not turn them away. To allow discrimination based on divinity would seem to diminish religiosity, not strengthen it.

This all leads me to wonder: What protections - if any - do people who provide services to the public have if they are like the aforementioned restaurant in Virginia, and want to decline to wait on certain people because of their (the restaurant owners') beliefs being affronted? Are secular beliefs considered less valid? Because they aren't rooted in some form of nebulous belief? Because they are malleable? So, to, are religious beliefs. That is why some people lose their faith over time, or go from having no spiritually in their lives to becoming regular churchgoers. Or perhaps their religiousness changes throughout the years, where they go from a conservative interpretation of scripture to a more liberal one (and vice-versa).

I would argue that secular beliefs -- whether they be forged from research, science, knowledge, or life experience - should be considered just as valid as religious ones, and carry the same legal weight. If the Supreme Court determines that, yes, a web site designer can turn away LGBT people by wrapping themselves in Biblical interpretive analysis then so, too, should someone working at a bookstore be able to refuse to serve someone who wants to buy a book where the clerk disagrees with its content. Dozens of examples can be proffered, but you get the idea.

We could argue a lot of different ways - secular and religious - where someone could validly be allowed not to provide services for people. The question is, is that what's best for our society? Your mileage may vary on the answer to that.