Be careful what you wish for

The Salt Lake Tribune reports on Utah's HB109, "Religious Liberty Recognition and Protection Act" and how it may have unintended consequences:


[LaVar] Christensen has introduced HB109, the “Religious Liberty Recognition and Protection Act,” which says that religious liberty is a “valid defense to claims of discrimination by others.”

Christensen had been a speaker at an event hosted by the conservative think tank, the Sutherland Institute, which called on the Legislature to expand an exemption from nondiscrimination ordinances to include not just religious organizations but also religious adherents.

Gay and lesbian organizations believe Christensen’s bill will allow landlords and employers to discriminate against gays on religious grounds. But it could also open the door for discrimination against Mormons on religious grounds.


The Greenfield Daily Reporter cites the American Civil Liberties Union:
Marina Lowe, the legislative and policy counsel for The American Civil Liberties Union, said the bill is so broad it could permit many types of discrimination.

"The possibilities are limitless," Lowe said.

For example, a landlord could refuse to rent to a gay couple or a doctor could refuse to treat a woman who is pregnant out of wedlock.

Lowe said the proposal lacks a prohibition on the government sponsorship of religion, so the exemptions could also extend to government agencies.

Civil rights attorney Brian Barnard said the law could provide a defense for the violation of a variety of laws in the name of faith.

"Polygamy is the one that comes to mind, but there are other religious practices," Barnard said. "Peyote, for example, and the other one is churches, like the Episcopal church, that give wine to minors during the sacrament."


Posted by Ann Fontaine on February 8, 2011 2:10 PM | |
Comments (2)

I was not aware that it was illegal anywhere to give wine to minors as part of the Eucharist. I suspect that would be news to the Roman Catholics as well....

Posted by Paige Baker [TypeKey Profile Page] | February 8, 2011 2:39 PM

Giving wine to anyone is not essential to the Eucharist. One's communion is valid when made in one kind. One may receive just the bread or just the wine. Children admitted to Communion here, at a very early age, and before confirmation often receive only the host on their parents request. The practice of communion in one kind is also the norm for most Roman Catholic Communicants as well--the offer to receive in both kinds notwithstanding. Increasingly communicants of all ages are opting to receive only bread, especially because the practice of "intinction" has been revealed as being far less sanitary that drinking from the common cup. Intinction is now banned in our parish and others in our diocese based on the best available information from public health. Besides, comparing the offer of wine to minors to a systemic sexist practice like polygamy is absurd. When people refer to polygamy,they almost always mean not polygamy but poly-gyne --that is one husband with lots of wives--not one wife lots of husbands.

Posted by Rod Gillis [TypeKey Profile Page] | February 8, 2011 4:21 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space