Five Judges Have Stopped All Further Progress on Gay Civil Rights Legislation
[The three women on the Court dissented] |
In Burwell v. Hobby
Lobby, decided by the United States Supreme Court a few months ago, the
Court’s five conservative—and Republican—justices (over the vigorous dissent of
the four liberals) decided that a corporation like Hobby Lobby (the stock of which
is owned by a very religious family) is protected by the First Amendment’s
freedom of religion clause and thus could use religious beliefs to object to
funding family-planning coverage for its employees. Corporations are now “people” too and religious
corporations can go to church just like other U.S. citizens! This was a natural
enough extension of the Court’s infamous decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which declared that corporations
were “persons,” thus entitling them to the full protection of the U.S.
Constitution (with freedom of speech permitting them to spend as much money as
they like: influencing elections, flooding us with billions of dollars to promote
campaigns and drowning out the speech of ordinary individuals). Whew!
The swing vote, of course, in both decisions was that of
the most powerful judge in the world, Justice Anthony Kennedy (second from the right in the picture above), who sometimes
votes with the liberals and sometimes with the conservatives, allowing him to
decide all the important controversial cases.
He’s been terrific on gay issues while on the bench and authored last
year’s groundbreaking Windsor
decision which forbade the federal government from discriminating against gay
people when it came to the recognition of their marriages. That case said nothing about whether the states are required by the constitution
to recognize the rights of gays to marry, an issue the Court will have to
decide by the end of next June. I’ve
predicted in the past (and stand by the prediction) that the Court will come
out in favor of gay marriages nationwide, a wonderful result and a big moment
in gay history. [See “Gays Will Be Able To Marry in All States By July of 2016
(and Maybe 2015),” February 14, 2014, http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2014/02/gays-will-be-able-to-marry-in-all.html
]
It would doubtless surprise Justice Kennedy and, indeed,
all of the four other conservative Justices who joined in the Hobby Lobby majority that one probably
unintended result of the decision is that no
more gay rights legislation protecting the LGBT community from discrimination
in employment, housing, or public accommodations is ever likely to pass in the
future.
As I’ve also noted before it’s perfectly legal in many
states to discriminate against gays.
[See “Is It Legal To
Discriminate Against Gay People?” March 17, 2014; http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2014/03/is-it-legal-to-discriminate-against-gay.html
]. Recently in Pennsylvania, where
it has recently become legal for gays to marry, lesbian couples have been
turned away from a bakery that refused to make them a wedding cake and a bridal
shop that refused to sell them gowns in both cases based on the owner’s
religious beliefs that serving gays would cause the owners to be denied entry
into heaven; see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/pennsylvania-cake-pros-gay-wedding-_n_5678410.html
Those
actions are perfectly legal because Pennsylvania has no state law granting
civil rights protection to gays from such discrimination (some of the cities in
the state have enacted such protection as municipal ordinances).
Ah, but you might ask, with the mood of the country now
heavily favoring the rights of gays isn’t Pennsylvania and many other states likely
to enact such protection? No, they aren’t,
as I’ll explain in a moment. Nor is the
federal government likely to change existing civil rights laws to add
protection for gays. Those happy days
are over, and as an old gay activist this depresses me. We worked so hard in Columbus to get a civil
rights ordinance on point and swore that the State of Ohio would someday follow,
but that latter part is wrong. [See “The History of Gay Rights in Columbus,”
June 4, 2012, http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2012/06/history-of-gay-rights-in-columbus.html
] Here’s why:
The current federal Civil Rights Act prohibits (among
other things) discrimination in hiring based on various characteristics such as
gender, race, religion, etc. Since 1974
there’ve been efforts in Congress to amend the Civil Rights Act to add sexual
orientation and gender identity to the list.
The current version of the proposed legislation is called the “Employment
Non-Discrimination Act” [ENDA] and, surprisingly, it passed the Senate last
fall with bipartisan support, but has no chance of passage in the current
Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
No matter, because many LGBT and liberal organizations [The
American Civil Liberties Union, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders,
Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Transgender Law
Center, but, notably, not the Human Rights Campaign] have withdrawn their support
of the current version of ENDA because the Hobby
Lobby decision sparked the addition of an amendment that would exempt
organizations who discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. That’s right: any employer who claimed a
religious aversion to homosexuality could post signs saying “No Homos Need
Apply.” We all know that a version of
ENDA that exempts religious decisions to hire or fire gays would be a toothless
tiger, and that’s led liberal groups to strip away their endorsement of ENDA.
The hope is that future versions of ENDA at both the
federal and state level will exclude such an exemption (except as to hiring by
religious organizations, say a church, themselves), but you might as well kiss
that vain wish goodbye. Every time some
version of ENDA is proposed hereafter there will be an immediate amendment
offered to adopt a “religious beliefs” exception, and what politician, federal
or state, ever hoping to be reelected will be willing to vote against religious
beliefs?
So I’ll say it here: attempted gay rights legislation at
all levels is dead unless it gives religions a pass and allows them to hire or
fire gays at will, forbid them housing, or deny them the right to buy wedding
cakes (“public accommodations”). Indeed in
the near future there might be major pushes to add religious exemptions to existing
statutes and ordinances protecting gays from just such miserable treatment.
The Hobby Lobby
decision has opened the door to the argument that people (including corporate
people) have a right to discriminate against anything or anyone that violates
their religious beliefs. I’m no
constitutional law scholar (my field is commercial law), but it will be
interesting to see if the Court now says, for example, that a Muslim-run
organizations may refuse to hire Jews since the Quran entombs hatred of the
Jews as a basic tenet. Surely the Court
won’t go that far, but how do we tell the Court’s Hobby Lobby blessing of a religious objection to abortion (a
constitutional right since Roe v. Wade)
from a religious objection to dealing with groups who are sinners in the texts
of various sacred books. [See “Does the
Bible Really Condemn Homosexuality?” June 29, 2014; http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2014/06/does-bible-condemn-homosexuality-and.html
]
When the five conservative
Republicans (all Catholics, by the way) sided with Hobby Lobby’s refusal to obtain
insurance to protect their employees’ family planning needs, didn’t the Court
see that this can of worms includes some very destructive snakes? One of those serpents— damn it!—will devour
the hopes of gays for protection they so dearly need.
A Religious Business Belief To Pray For |
-------------------------------------------
Related
Posts:
"Gay Marriage, The 6th Circuit, Jeffrey Sutton, and the Supreme Court," November 13, 2014
"Alan Turing: Torturing a Gay Genius to Death," November 26, 2014
“A Gay Hoosier Lawyer Looks at Indiana’s RFRA: The Religious Bigot Protection Act,” March 30, 2015; http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-gay-hoosier-lawyer-looks-at-indianas.html
"Gay Marriage, The 6th Circuit, Jeffrey Sutton, and the Supreme Court," November 13, 2014
"Alan Turing: Torturing a Gay Genius to Death," November 26, 2014
“A Gay Hoosier Lawyer Looks at Indiana’s RFRA: The Religious Bigot Protection Act,” March 30, 2015; http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-gay-hoosier-lawyer-looks-at-indianas.html
“A Guide to the Best of My Blog,” April 29, 2013
Comments
Post a Comment