• Home
  • News
  • Christians Who Refuse to Provide Services for Gays Losing Legal Battles

Civil Rights

Christians Who Refuse to Provide Services for Gays Losing Legal Battles

Posted Apr 10, 2009 12:12 PM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Religious exemptions don’t always protect individuals and businesses that run afoul of state and local laws barring discrimination against gays.

Twenty states and more than 180 local entities bar discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Washington Post reports. Such laws often carry an exemption for religious groups making hiring decisions, but they don’t grant an exemption allowing businesses to deny services to gays based on religious views, the story says. Some faith-based groups hope to expand the exemption to cover denial-of-services cases.

Some recent cases illustrate the clash between religious rights and gay rights. The newspaper lists these:

• The New Mexico Civil Rights Commission ordered a Christian photographer to pay more than $6,600 in attorney fees for refusing to photograph a gay commitment ceremony.

• The California Supreme Court ruled that a state anti-bias law bars fertility doctors from refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient, despite the physicians’ religious objections.

• The online dating service eHarmony agreed to launch an online matchmaking option for gays to settle a complaint that it violated New Jersey anti-discrimination laws.

• The University of California at Hastings law school refused to recognize a Christian student group because it denies membership to anyone engaging in "unrepentant homosexual conduct," according to a San Francisco Chronicle story. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco upheld the school’s policy last month, saying it was content-neutral.

Comments

1.

J.D.
Apr 10, 2009 1:01 PM CST

Gosh, wait until the muslims hear about this.

Why do I feel that the Left wouldn’t be so animated about forcing a muslim dating site to create a gay muslim dating site? Or just allow jews into it’s site?

And are these liberal judges ready to force a muslim photographer to work a wedding for a couple of gay jewish boys? Ha, that’d never happen.

Very one-sided these efforts seem to be.

The fact that a government board can force a private company into taking a job it doesn’t want it absolutely frightening, all politics aside. This is soviet-nazi style governance.

Flag this comment

2.

Enough
Apr 10, 2009 1:17 PM CST

You mean a “private company,” say a restaurant, “taking a job it doesn’t want,” say a black paying customer, is “absolutely frightening to you”?  I’m not surprised.

Flag this comment

3.

JD
Apr 10, 2009 1:24 PM CST

Amazing that one group of people must sacrifice they freedom of expression and faith and are not allowed to act on their conviction while another groups convictions, expressions and faith needs must be met.

Another form of the hypocrisy of the judicial system.  Abortion is illegal as it is not a human and therefore not protected by the constitution, but then man like Scott Peterson are charged with killing their unborn “baby”.  Shall we go on?

The fact is, we have left the constitution and legislators and judges are ignorant of our American history. Everything is situational law. Russia’s Constitution says they too have “freedom of religion”, etc.  Ha, I bet most people, privately for fear of the wrath of the government, would beg to differ. 

The United States is quickly abandoning what made us great, in exchange for the control and tyranny of our once adversaries.

http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm

Flag this comment

4.

JD
Apr 10, 2009 1:42 PM CST

Oh, is it Constitutional to “force” a person to distribute abortion drugs if it goes against their conscious?  Amazingly this is up for debate. 

Trying to build utopia in which all people will do accept everyone is ridiculous.  We live in a selfish, humanistic society and that will never change. And because of this, crime, discrimination, hate will always be around.  Using “control” and abandoning faith shows that it does not work.  It didn’t work for Stalin, Hitler, Chavez, Hussien, and others.  But yet, this is the direction we are following.  What is next, a bar tender against their conscious refuses to serve a person who is completely drunk and the bar tender then faces a lawsuit because their conscious told them, “he has had enough to drink”. 

Today, Americans in all aspects of law, from students to black robes on the Supreme Court are ignorant to the Constitution and our history.The First Amendment has the Free Exercise Clause the prohibits the federal government from interfering with the people’s public religious expressions and acknowledgments. So it should not even be up for debate.  But yet, most people look at the Constitution (which made us the greatest country on earth),  to viewing the Constitution as an archaic road map.

“[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education… reason and experience both forbid us to expect the national morality can prevail in EXCLUSION of religious principle.” (George Washington)

Flag this comment

5.

JD
Apr 10, 2009 1:52 PM CST

By the way, can you see Debra Cassens Weiss writes with a slant?  There are also many cases in which Religious groups of all faiths have won against discrimination and protecting their rights. 

Thanks Debra Cassens Weiss for showing, I mean sharing your “discrimination” of “Christians”.

Flag this comment

6.

JD
Apr 10, 2009 1:58 PM CST

Debra Cassens Weiss writes often on the Homosexual Agenda and is very critical of those who stand against it.  Just Google her.  Nice journalism ABA!  (rolling eyes).

Flag this comment

7.

JME
Apr 10, 2009 3:04 PM CST

The photog should simply have been too busy to take the job.  then there is no discrimination to file suit against.  Case sitting on my desk I don’t want, I told the client I don’t have the wherewithal to handle it satisfactorily and she needs to find another attorney.

Flag this comment

8.

J.D.
Apr 10, 2009 3:15 PM CST

in response to #2, you’re mixing apples and oranges. And you’re screaming RAAACIST as a way to avoid debate; it’s getting old.

I would NEVER want a gay dating service forced to create a NEW service to match up straights—that’s not what their company is about. That’s fine! And for a judge to force a straight dating site to open a new gay dating site is ridiculous. If there’s a market, someone will open it. And in fact, plenty of orgs already have. To me, the e-harmony lawsuit was judge-directed robbery.

Flag this comment

9.

Friend
Apr 10, 2009 4:31 PM CST

I second #2’s comment wholeheartedly. 

Any time a group in power starts to lose their power and the advantages and preferences they have built into the system are eroded, there’s bound to be some hard feelings by some members of that group formerly in power, as they feel the loss of something they previously had and no doubt earnestly believed they were entitled to.

And on a narrower note, if I were J.D. I think I’d be spending more time studying for the bar exam as opposed to posting so voluminously here.  And I’d also take the time to look up the difference between “its” and “it’s”—spelling and grammar count on the bar exam.

Flag this comment

10.

B. McLeod
Apr 10, 2009 7:29 PM CST

And next?  Next the government will be wanting to take that part out of the Bible where Jesus specifically said not to do any business with gays.  Oh, wait. . .

Flag this comment

11.

DR
Apr 11, 2009 12:19 PM CST

Thanks B. McLeod!  That was rich.  :)

Flag this comment

12.

Marcus
Apr 11, 2009 1:44 PM CST

Actually #2 what this says is that a company like eHarmony doesn’t have the freedom to specialize in matching straight couples without catering to the gays too.  It’s one thing to ask a private party to serve a gay customer the same way he would serve a straight one.  Last I checked, gays didn’t eat or tip differently.  It’s another thing to force a business to change it’s plan to cater to a minority group.  Should the restaurant owner have to buy Kosher food?  Not if he doesn’t care about Jewish business he shouldn’t.  EHarmony isn’t interested in matching up gays.  Perhaps the owners as Christians don’t have any experience with gay culture or perhaps they’re just homophobic, but to say that they can’t operate a business for matching straight people without doing it for gays is asinine.

Flag this comment

13.

J.D.
Apr 12, 2009 10:24 AM CST

^ I guess we won’t have anything to worry about soon enough; the Left is working on destroying the notion of “private companies” anyhow. Pretty soon the gov’t will run everything… and it will run everything into the ground.

You see, Gov’t is the Left’s god.

Flag this comment

14.

S.S
Apr 13, 2009 9:55 AM CST

I am gay and I disagree with these actions. Forcing any group that does not agree with my lifestyle choices is no different then the religous right forcing thier views about Gay Marriage on myself. How can I ask for the right to get married becuase no one has the right to enforce their “moral” or religion on me and then turn arpound and sue a church that refused to marry gays becuase it goes against thier beliefs. I, effectively, am now forcing my beliefs down thier throats. There are tons of churches and other authorized people who are more then happy to perform same sex ceremonies, and I am POSITIVE that the people suing the photographer could have found someone else to capture thier ceremony. Its absurd.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.