Do religious freedom laws protect liberty or bigotry?

  • By Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk Tribune News Service
  • Friday, April 8, 2016 3:49pm
  • OpinionCommentary

The debate over religious liberty versus gay rights has flared up again. North Carolina recently passed a bill telling cities they can’t pass non-discrimination ordinances protecting gay and lesbian residents, while Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed a bill that let faith-based organizations deny services and jobs to LGBT individuals. Mississippi passed a similar bill Tuesday. Missouri’s Legislature is debating legislation and other states may soon be considering them as well.

Do such bills protect religious folks from acting against their beliefs? Or do they permit discrimination against gays and lesbians? Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk debate the issue.

Religious freedom is not the right to be right

The funny thing about the Georgia bill? How completely unnecessary it was.

One prime aim of the bill: To make sure that government could never, ever tell Catholic priests — or clergy of any other religion — to perform a gay wedding.

Guess what? That was never, ever going to happen. America’s long history of religious liberty would never allow it, even if politicians were suicidal enough to pass such a law: It would never be enforced by a Supreme Court that just recently said that Hobby Lobby’s owners don’t have to pay for birth control because of their religious objections.

In America, religious freedom often trumps everything else.

So why all the fire and angst to pass the Georgia bill? Our best clue comes from North Carolina, where a separate bill — different in substance, if the same in discriminatory intent — passed last week.

First: The bill was introduced, passed and signed into law in less than 12 hours. That’s extraordinary speed, and it was evidently meant to allow the law’s passage without allowing the public time to scrutinize or muster any meaningful opposition. The process was simply, and deliberately, undemocratic.

Second: The North Carolina bill declares that municipalities — such as Charlotte — cannot pass their own antidiscrimination ordinances. So even if local communities wish to protect gays and lesbians in their midst, they won’t be allowed to do so.

All of this suggests that current religious liberty efforts are nothing more than a political power play.

See: There are many Americans who legitimately believe their religion calls them to oppose gay marriage. But many folks are mostly angry that American culture no longer shares their views. The religious freedom they seek is the right to be, well, right — to be vindicated by law and society, to be in the majority, to not have to worry that one’s opinions are seen by others as bigotry.

But no American has a right to such vindication.

Some legitimate religious liberty concerns might arise as gay rights take root. That wasn’t the case in North Carolina or Georgia. The battle for LGBT freedom still isn’t over.

— Joel Mathis

Protections for religious liberty are not secure

Critics of Georgia’s religious liberty bill seem to want to have it both ways. The bill is totally unnecessary. The bill would give state sanction to bigotry and discrimination. Well, which is it?

The answer, of course, is neither claim is true. The Georgia bill was a necessary, if modest corrective, to a very bad trend. It was, in fact, an anti-bigotry and antidiscrimination measure.

The bill would have protected clergy and churches from secular coercion. Nobody would have been prevented from getting married. It would have protected religious organizations’ property rights, as well as their right to hire and fire people whose views are consistent with their mission and beliefs. Simple really.

Gov. Deal might have said as much, if he had the courage and the wit. Instead, he tied himself into knots trying to explain why knuckling under to big business and left-wing propagandists was really a victory for social tolerance and small government.

Deal claimed the controversy over whether or not the bill would encourage discrimination really just showed why the question was “best left to the broad protections of the First Amendment” — and, presumably, to the wisdom of the courts.

But as University of Notre Dame law professor Gerard V. Bradley points out, those “protections” are “neither broad nor deep, especially when they run up against the demands of the LGBT community.”

Fact is, America’s long history of religious freedom has depended greatly on favorable public opinion and the outlook of judges.

If enough elected officials feel enough public pressure, the laws that provide churches and religious institutions with certain protections and benefits — tax-exempt status, for instance — will go away. So will the First Amendment, if that’s what the people want.

But what’s to prevent some future government bureaucracy from ordering a church or a minister to marry a same-sex couple or face fines and imprisonment? A judge may find a “compelling state interest” to do so. And a Supreme Court with more justices inclined to think like Elena Kagan or Ruth Bader Ginsburg rather than Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas may very well agree.

So never say “never.” The question is far from settled. In truth, it may be the most important question facing the country right now.

­— Ben Boychuk

Ben Boychuk is associate editor of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. Joel Mathis is associate editor for Philadelphia Magazine.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Interior of Tulalip Indian School with students demonstrating learning procedures.  Possibly taken May 13, 1914 for a photo exhibit shown at the Panama Exposition. (J.A. Juleen / Everett Public Library's Northwest History Room)
Editorial: Getting to the truth of Tulalip boarding school

As with other Indian boarding schools in the U.S., a local school left an equally disturbing legacy.

Editorial cartoons for Sunday, Sept. 26

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Pamela Propeck works on an assignment at the Advanced Manufacturing Training & Education Center Wednesday morning at Everett Community College on June 3, 2020. (Kevin Clark / The Herald)
Editorial: Students, economy need boost of free college

EvCC canceled students’ debt, showing what free community college can deliver to students and employers.

The 214-foot tall cranes work to unload their first cargo shipments at South Terminal at the Port of Everett on Thursday, April 8, 2021 in Everett, Wa. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Murphy can bring more transparency to port board

Voters will choose between two strong candidates for Everett’s port board, each with years of service.

A houseboat rests in a cove at Lake Powell Friday, July 30, 2021, near Page, Ariz. This summer, the water levels hit a historic low amid a climate change-fueled megadrought engulfing the U.S. West. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)
Editorial: Summer of extremes calls for climate change action

The significant investments now considered by Congress are our best chance to limit climate change.

Interior Secretary Deb Haaland moves to speak during a ceremony at the U.S. Army's Carlisle Barracks, in Carlisle, Pa., Wednesday, July 14, 2021. The disinterred remains of nine Native American children who died more than a century ago while attending a government-run school in Pennsylvania were headed home to Rosebud Sioux tribal lands in South Dakota on Wednesday after a ceremony returning them to relatives. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)
Viewpoints: Reckoning with history of Indian boarding schools

A system that separated families to destroy culture and take land demands accountability, not pity.

Comment: County farmland holds signs of devastating tsunami

Sometime between 800 and 980 A.D., a massive tsunami swept Puget Sound. We should prepare for another.

Cities in region aren’t protecting livability for residents

Residents from cities north of Seattle are feeling the pressure to expand.… Continue reading

Most Read