Huge distinction – discriminated against vs. freedom to discriminate

There has been a concerted effort with Religious Freedom Acts to allow people to discriminate because of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Today, I saw a reference to the Supreme Court Ruling against Abercrombie and Fitch because the company denied employment to a woman who wore Hijab, (a head covering) per her religious beliefs. The reference tries to equate the two issues – if this person can get a ruling for her religion, the government is discriminating against another religion by requiring its members to serve someone who is doing something against the member’s beliefs.

This effort to allow discrimination has gone one step further in some states like North Carolina, which have passed bills to allow magistrates to opt out of marrying same-sex couples, if they had sincerely held religious beliefs against such marriages. In North Carolina, this law was vetoed by the Governor, but the Senate has overturned his veto and the House is considering it. Other states are further down the path on this issue and have passed laws to permit such unfair discrimination.

People who are making this argument are missing a very important point. Per the Supreme Court ruling which upheld our constitutional rights, no one should be discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Yet, it is not OK to discriminate against someone to honor your freedom of religion or any belief for that matter. When your freedom infringes in a discriminatory way on another person’s rights and freedoms, then that is not just. Giving you the freedom to unfairly discriminate is not in keeping with the constitution. This is a key basis for why the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, as African-Americans were getting unfairly discriminated against by white business owners and government officials.

This last part is key as the efforts to tell magistrates they can choose to not uphold a law is unconstitutional. A simple exercise can demonstrate this. During the height of the Jim Crow era, there were some ministers who used the bible to placate their parishioners, saying it was OK to treat African-Americans differently. These parishioners also had sincerely held religious beliefs, as their minister said it was OK. Even after the 1964 Civil Rights Act which gave equal rights to African-Americans, white officials in some southern cities imposed a rigorous test on African-Americans to earn the right to vote, a test whites did not have to take. This selective testing was deemed unconstitutional by the Voting Right Act, which was passed a year later.

Every state that is considering passing a bill or law like the North Carolina one or has already done so, needs to accrue about $1 million for legal fees. Why? Any law which memorializes unfair discrimination will be taken to court and it will be overturned as unconstitutional. So, that is my strong advice to our legislators and similarly minded folks in other states  – don’t waste taxpayer money fighting an unjust bill – just don’t pass it.

Our forefathers got it right when they separated church and state. Our forefathers and their parents left countries where religious persecution occurred. And, for some that do not believe this assertion feeling our nation was ordained by God, they may find of interest that several of our forefathers were Deists in faith. The main thesis of a Deist is God created the world, wound up the clock and let us live out our lives. That belief is inconsistent with God ordaining our nation. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Huge distinction – discriminated against vs. freedom to discriminate

  1. Note to Readers: In an encouraging sign, take a peek at this article of a gay man who is meeting with evangelical ministers and leaders to discuss a softening of the bible’s view on gays and lesbians. The fact that conversation is occurring is a good sign. On the flip side, Franklin Graham is taking on Wells Fargo for its commercial where two lesbian mothers are adopting a hearing impaired child. The commercial is very well done and Wells Fargo deserves kudos, although they will not be coming from Reverend Graham.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/some-evangelicals-take-new-look-at-bible%e2%80%99s-stance-on-gays/ar-BBkP8Cl?ocid=DELLDHP

  2. This is a perfect example of the double standard. When I do it it isn’t discrimination; when you do the very same thing it is. Unfortunately, as you know as well as I (better?) this sort of thing is commonplace.

    • Hugh, I agree this double standard is commonplace. Plus, it is OK for me to get favors, but when you get them it is wrong. The email Barney sent out on where your $50K paycheck goes in taxes was telling – mostly to corporate subsidies and much less to people in need, or even defense. Thanks for your comment, BTG

    • Thanks. It is more subtle a point than it needs to be. Maybe it is our pseudo-news efforts that cry foul without understanding the subtlety, which is not uncommon south of our border with Canada. Thanks for commenting, BTG

  3. Bill Mahr just did a piece on the mindset in this country that Christians are somehow being persecuted. He continuously asks “by who?” with no answers. The constant idea that we are all being threatened by anyone who is different then ourselves is why we have this ongoing ridiculous behavior of people who once knew better. Tying up courtrooms and eating tax payer money is not changing a damn thing.

    • Lisa, he is right in this. With legislators placating a self-perceived persecuted group with laws like the magistrate one, they fail to see the discrimination they are creating. They also fail to see the slippery slope. Catholicism frowns on divorce – so what if a good Catholic magistrate refuses to marry someone who has not had their wedding annulled by the church? What if a magistrate does not want marry interracial couples or interfaith couples? Thanks for your comments. BTG

    • Linda, thanks. Writing these at least keeps my sanity giving me a place to vent. What I send in emails is related to our less than judicious NC General Assembly, who enacts some of the darnedest things. I send the emails to different groupings plus all members of the body, senators, representative and governor, as well. Candidates for the email tend to be based on what plays better on the blog. I have some I thought would do well and they did not, so I have tended not to use those. I have paraded out some old ones on occasion which did very well, at least by my small readership. Thanks for asking, reading and commenting. BTG

  4. Note to Readers: The North Carolina House completed the override of the governor’s veto to permit an unconstitutional law to be passed. The article is below. The law will likely be challenged and overturned, costing taxpayers money. Two of the laws passed by this General Assembly have been judged unconstitutional with a third pending this summer on Voter ID. A new lawsuit would be the fourth one. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/north-carolina-lawmakers-allow-opt-out-over-same-sex-marriage/ar-BBkY3A3?ocid=DELLDHP

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s