Support the Café

Search our Site

Sorry. Not buying it.

Sorry. Not buying it.

By protecting people who would discriminate anyway, Bishop Gene Robinson says that any proposal to build in a ‘religious exemption’ to civil rights legislation for GLBT persons is nothing more than “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Writing in the Huffington Post:

For a moment, let’s contemplate the embarrassing spectacle of religious people and groups advocating for their right to discriminate. Couched in so-called “religious liberty” language, let’s call these efforts what they really are: a license to discriminate. The Mormons’ support for anti-discrimination is laudable, until you get to the part that begins with “except.” It would be unlawful to discriminate, their support says, unless that discrimination comes from one’s religious beliefs. Presumably, a restaurant waiter need not serve two men or two women who are quietly holding hands at their table, if the waiter objects to their “lifestyle.” Also, presumably, one need not serve an African-American couple at that same restaurant if one’s religion says that black people are an inferior race and should not mingle with whites. Or a Jewish couple who is not served by a waiter whose religion teaches her that Jews are not only eternally damned, but are “Christ-killers” to boot!

For a moment, let’s pretend to be sympathetic to the notion that religious people should not be compelled to offer public accommodation to those who engage in behavior considered sinful according to the religious beliefs of the owner/proprietor. I think one could support such a notion if indeed it were applied consistently to everyone. Let’s not offer services to anyone who does not contribute the Biblical tithe (10%) of one’s income to God’s work in the Church and elsewhere. (Yes, there are people who follow this Biblical guideline – principal among them, Mormons!) Prior to offering a room at a hotel or taking a lunch order, patrons would be asked for proof that they indeed have contributed that 10% of their income to charity. Jesus is silent on the issue of homosexuality, but speaks often, and vigorously, about greed, possessions and the corrupting influence of money. Why serve anyone wearing expensive clothes or seeking to dine at an outrageously expensive restaurant, without proof that they are contributing financially to the eradication of poverty, as the Bible prescribes? Why serve food to someone grossly overweight who obviously hasn’t gotten the message about the sin of gluttony? Why not check patrons for spousal abuse, foul and profane language, or number of speeding tickets before offering service?

No, the Mormons and other religious people who object to LGBT anti-discrimination laws aren’t really looking to discriminate against sin and those who voluntarily participate in it. Why? Because they would be unable to offer public services and accommodation to anyone, given that we are all sinners. Such anti-discrimination legislation now supported by the Mormon Church is concerned with one “sin” and one sin only, as a basis for the denial of services. I see no evidence in Scripture that the “sin” of homosexual behavior is greater or more serious than all the other sins and those who practice it are to be shunned above all others. This exception to following anti-discrimination laws doesn’t even make sense on its own religious terms!

Posted by Andrew Gerns

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

12 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Karen Pearson`

I have no problem with any church refusing to marry a couple. I have a large problem with any church refusing to allow the state to issue that couple a marriage license or to perform a civil ceremony.

Paul Powers

At this point, there’s nothing to “buy.” The LDS has expressed its willingness, in principle, to support–or at least not oppose–laws prohibiting anti-LGBT discrimination, as long as there’s a religious exemption.

The time to buy is when there’s an actual statute or ordinance being considered. Its proponents will then have to decide whether to include a religious exemption to get the LDS to support it or to leave it out and try to get it passed without LDS support.

Bro David

If there is a religious exemption, where is the inti-discrimination?

Mark Kozielec

Well, Nick, as you do, too…

Nick Porter

I know. 🙂

Nick Porter

Well, as always, he has a right to his opinion.

JC Fisher

…and as usual, +Gene’s opinion makes a lot of sense.

Nick Porter

He should clarify what he means. Has he actually stated himself that he doesn’t mean that churches should be forced to hire people who live contrary to their teachings? I think that before writing an opinion of this nature, he should have waited until a piece of legislation came up to see what the LDS leadership thought about it, you know, before jumping to conclusions. That’s fair,right?

JC Fisher

“Should the RCC be forced to have people on their staff that live against their teachings?”

No, Gene is NOT talking about “RCC…staff”, or any other religious organization. They’re already exempt.

This—what the Mormon leader wants—is about FOR-PROFIT businesses being able to discriminate, in hiring or customers. Nick, is this disagreement really as simple as you’re laboring under a mistaken impression?

Nick Porter

Absolutely. What he’s implying is that all religious exemptions are bad. Should the RCC be forced to have people on their staff that live against their teachings? It sounds like he is saying yes. What I said is true though, people who supported him will tend to agree with his opinions.

JC Fisher

Not “of course it makes sense”, but what he’s saying HERE. A “religious exemption” to a civil rights law would eviscerate the law beyond meaning.

Instead of implied ad hominem, do you actually have reasons to disagree w/ what Robinson said about this issue?

Nick Porter

Perhaps to you and others who support him and his many statements about various subjects, of course it would make sense.

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café