Editor's note - From time to time whenever the opportunity presents itself, I like to repost pieces I published. In light of the discussion regarding those who feel that discrimination against lgbts should be allowed on the grounds of "religious liberty," I am resposting this piece from 2011:
Those who are my friends know that I am a serious fan of the 1970s detective drama
Columbo.
The thing I really love about this show is how police detective Columbo
never considers a murder case completely simple. He never buys into the
idea of an "open-and-shut" case if he has a nagging feeling, no matter
how insignificant it is.
That nagging feeling is what I get when I hear about marriage clerks,
hotel owners, Catholic adoption agencies, and, recently, cake bakers
who refuse to serve gay couples. No doubt you have heard about them and
will probably hear a lot more as religious right groups trying to hinder
marriage equality canonize these folks as "saints and martyrs" besieged
by so-called radical gay activists supposedly trying to force them to
choose between their livelihood and religious freedom.
In fact, they have a term for this sort of thing. They call it "religious liberty."
There is a certain simplicity to these cases, which garners them a
degree of support. Some of these folks (excluding Catholic charities,
who have no right to taxpayer money if they discriminate, and marriage
clerks, who should put the needs of constituents over their own desires)
seems to have a right to serve whomever they wish. And one could even
make the case that they are in fact forced to choose between their
livelihoods and their "religious liberty."
But then there goes that nagging feeling again. These cases aren't as
simple as they are made out to be. What about the rights of couples
refused service? No matter how you attempt to soften the blow, the idea
that someone will not serve you because of how they inaccurately view
you still hurts. It's dehumanizing, it's cruel, and it's embarrassing.
In a recent situation in Iowa, a cake baker scheduled an appointment
with a lesbian couple who desired her services, only to use that time to
not only tell them "no" but also criticize their sexual orientation.
Then that same cake baker made several news appearances to complain
about how she was a victim, backed by several religious right groups
spinning the same talking points.
And I haven't even talked about what a message of "I will not serve
you" would send to a child in a same-sex family who may be present at
the time. Nor have I mentioned the unnecessary inconvenience same-sex
couples will have to endure if they live in an area where the so-called
religious martyr is the only one who can address their needs.
Then you have to consider just how gay couples will tell who will or
won't serve them. How would they be able to tell without the courtesy of
signs saying, "We don't serve gays." Of course, if such signs did
exist, I'm sure those who put them up wouldn't think that they were
being cruel -- just like folks who put up "No Irish Need Apply" signs
didn't think they were being cruel.
And then you have to ask yourself just how far the argument of
"religious liberty" will go. Today it's hotels and cake shops. Tomorrow
it may be restaurants or apartment rentals.
So I almost understand the "religious liberty" argument, but then
comes that nagging feeling in the back of my mind that just won't go
away, the feeling that "religious liberty" is just another way of saying
"allowed discrimination," and that some folks will use the phrase
"religious liberty" to deflect attention from the victims of this
"allowed discrimination."
Lastly, the thing that bothers me the most is the sad fact that the
phrase "religious liberty" has less to do with religion or liberty and
more to do with telling gay couples that they are inferior.