Friday, November 22, 2024
HomeHealthThe Coming Threat to Gay Rights - The Atlantic

The Coming Threat to Gay Rights – The Atlantic

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide a case this term that, once again, pits religious freedom against the rights of the LGBTQ community. Earlier this month, Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurrence written on behalf of himself and Justice Samuel Alito, attacked Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision that established a constitutional right to LGBTQ marriage. His criticism revolved around its cost to religious opponents: If gay couples have a constitutional right to marriage, the thinking goes, those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds may be compelled to assist such marriages despite their sincerely held religious convictions to the contrary. This, in turn, makes it “increasingly difficult to participate in society.” Thomas expressed his wish that when there is a clash, religious freedom should outweigh LGBTQ rights.

Thomas may well have his wish granted this upcoming term, especially now that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has joined him on the bench. It is precisely the collision of LGBTQ rights and religious freedom that is at issue in a case scheduled for argument in front of the Court next week. In the case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a Catholic adoption agency challenges the city of Philadelphia for refusing to contract with it after the agency made it known that it would not work with gay couples.

The agency argues that the city’s refusal to contract with it constitutes discrimination against religion. It contends that despite Philadelphia’s anti-discrimination laws, the city itself considers various factors—including religious, economic, and racial considerations—when determining the placement for a child. If the city may take these factors into consideration in service of the “best interests” of the child, the agency opines, then prohibiting a Catholic adoption agency from considering the sexual orientation of potential adopting couples in the name of “religious belief” should be unconstitutional. According to the agency, if Philadelphia provides any exceptions to its general anti-discrimination policy, it must provide exceptions to that rule to religious adoption agencies as well. To not do so, the agency argues, constitutes religious discrimination, which is a violation of religious freedom as guaranteed by the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment.

This argument is not new. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, a case decided in the summer of 2018, plaintiffs argued that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (a state government agency tasked with, among other things, conducting hearings regarding illegal discriminatory practices) applied the state’s anti-discrimination law discriminatorily against religion because it allowed cake artists to refuse requests to make cakes expressing opposition to same-sex marriage but not to decline requests for cakes in support of it. The Masterpiece plaintiffs reasoned that “a one-sided application” of the statute “defie[d] the requirements of neutrality and general applicability.” Put differently, treating refusals to design cakes that convey opposition to same-sex marriage the same as refusals that convey support is discrimination against religion.

This argument prevailed. Most commentators on the case have focused on the Court’s “animus” analysis—that “derogatory” comments against religion made by certain commissioners were an “indication of hostility [in] the difference in treatment between Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers who objected to a requested cake on the basis of conscience and prevailed before the Commission.”

But Justice Anthony Kennedy’s reasoning went beyond that. Writing for the majority, he agreed with the plaintiffs that the commission discriminated against religious cake artists by not applying Colorado’s anti-discrimination policy evenly. In short, the Court accepted wholesale the plaintiffs’ argument that the commission acted non-neutrally when it allowed cake artists to refuse requests to make cakes expressing opposition to same-sex marriage but not to decline requests in support of it. A key difference between the two types of “discrimination,” of course, is that there was no law in Colorado against rejecting a request to design a cake expressing opposition to same-sex marriage, while there was a law against refusing to service an individual based on his sexual orientation. But be that as it may, Kennedy, perhaps without quite realizing it, accepted the plaintiffs’ expansive definition of religious discrimination and ran with it.

The potential power of this interpretation of religious discrimination rests on the fact that arguments premised on protection from discrimination are based on the principle of equality rather than liberty. Religious liberty may be no match for the ascendant equality rights in the LGBTQ and contraception contexts.

But religious discrimination, on the other hand, may prove a stronger principle yet. The argument in Fulton is that not only is religion special under the Constitution, but also, irrespective of that specialness, religion must at least be treated equally to secular activities. If secular interests are extended accommodations, religion must be as well. Once the demand for religious accommodations is couched in equality, it is an “equal” match—legally speaking—to LGBTQ-equality rights.

The outcome of Fulton and whether the Court will explicitly adopt an expansive definition of religious equality will have far-reaching implications for the future of free-exercise jurisprudence and how it interplays with LGBTQ rights. For example, the Court’s recent decision in Bostock v. Clayton County purported to change the future of anti-discrimination employment law for LGBTQ employees by extending them protections under Title VII. But if the Court greatly enlarges the concept of religious equality in Fulton, the anti-discrimination protections provided by Bostock could eventually be swallowed up too.

After all, employers’ objections to having LGBTQ employees within their ranks are often connected to religious beliefs. And Title VII already has several exceptions, including the exception for employment decisions that are tied to a “business necessity.” If the Court in Fulton determines that any exception for a secular interest also necessitates, under the free-exercise clause, exceptions for all religious interests, then that ruling would presumably apply to Title VII just as it applies to Philadelphia’s anti-discrimination policy. If it does, it paves the way for the potential collapse of most laws protecting LGBTQ people when they are opposed on religious grounds—which is to say, when they are most often relevant.

RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular

Recent Comments

pacomonkey007 on
nickrod32 on
Kate on
Gabriel Jimenez on
Boris Dorofeev on
AlexanderCostan on
Gouki249 on
Michael Schaper on
Supertomiman on
Robert Johns on
heyayup on
J.N Turner on
Cassandra Sainvilus on
mistermiah21 on
AL T on
Stjepan Vončina on
Alesandros356 on
Μαριος Κοσκολος on
Kikoushinzen on
Chanti Allen on
askvir2 on
PR3DA7EUR on
mikkita88 on
Shanoriya Robinson on
hightune21 on
s0medudeonline on
Ryan Wright on
Imcia Rens on
Garchomp Pit on
Kai Laa on
king vapor on
king vapor on
barosan jupan on
camaflauge on
Omar Doleymi on
JawNas1 on
Ibraheem Mansour on
SuperAceone on
James Darwin on
toomuchdingding on
lanciauxrayz on
curioussebastian on
Iman Farahin on
Samhain entertainment on
longsweep1 on
SuperCaffeinelover on
Rin Lee on
Samhain entertainment on
banglawaz0 on
banglawaz0 on
Chope89 on
nikos sicks on
ForZaSLaN1905 on
Kieran Murphy on
Brian Sirovey on
Enrico Baratelli on
Kenn Zesky on
Synthiotics on
ROGAN on
DJVM95 on
Corie Jacobs on
久登 寺島 on
Jakob Vlietstra on
shook one on
shook one on
Zeracan on
jarjarbinx79 on
keefkeef chiefchief on
WolfgangSenske on
Pieceofshit19 on
numbstateofennui on
The Real Witches on
Tribble Booth on
Greg Blackman on
Emily Fravel on
Daniel Baker on
Ahimsa Porter Sumchai MD on
Eden Brown on
johnboysssss on
CeeJayDee94 on
TheGoodNews01 on
jpalberthoward9 on
lakecrab on
jpalberthoward9 on
lakecrab on
jpalberthoward9 on
jpalberthoward9 on
jpalberthoward9 on
liffeybeat on
Chad Premo on
Michael E. O'Donnell on
徹 田中 on
Izzat Zainal on
InfliiKted on
angelo leslie on
Regena Daunicht on
Eddie The Liar on
DrNepal on
DrNepal on
TheGrimriftstalker on
Tatts Thompson on
Frederico Miranda Brandão Alves on
Jerry Bender on
uncle mike on
Dluv021 on
杏 唯 on
blu jonce on
lakecrab on
justin gingell on
anand- jivano on
kree8r on
Antonio Amaral on
Issam Bensoltane on
David Klonowski on
joe man on
chris badtrekkie on
Iktisam shahriar on
Hilaire Dufresne on
timthepainter1 on
immrnoidall on
Merle McDane on
Royalhighlander on
J Edge on
Mike J on
Mike J on
EarthEats Moon on
equn on
Lozial on
Grey Umopepisdn on
Adski92 on
ninjia1O1 on
murkyslough18 on
Robert Rickner on
okaminess on
stkcarm5 on
Kim Kelly on
funkymcbean on
ojibajo on
mzwickedlette88 on
neotek79 on
1ofmeNlotsofU on
aeroldoth on
TheThorne13 on
QueenLucyThe2nd on
James Gambino on