"It's My Life (and I'll Do What I Want)"
Behold, a SWAM's take on religious folks discriminating against gay folks based on freedom of religion and/or freedom of speech (NOTE: SWAM = straight white American male)
OK, dammit. I’m gonna make this one short. I promise. I swear. It’s really gonna happen this time. Because it’s 7:07 p.m. and I have a ton of other stuff to do before I shut it down for the day, so…I’m shooting for, like, 999 words or less/9-minute read-time. Lez goooooo.
And also, this’ll be my last entry until after the New Year. I’m in hot-n-heavy job-hunt mode (if you know anyone who needs a writer/editor with disturbingly thorough knowledge of the ‘80s hair metal movement, send them to dean@syeti.com!), and there’s a fast-approaching sold-out Christmas concert I’m the music director for (I can’t believe it either!)…so I have to concentrate on that stuff and start fresh in CeeGees ‘23.
Anyway, so, an evangelical Christian author named Gretchen Reilly wrote a book a few years ago about why God loves us all, but ultimately disowns homosexuals. The book examines 75 Bible entries the author insists prove homosexuality is morally wrong according to the Gospel. The book also attempts to disprove 25 Bible passages often held up by LGBTQIA+ Christians as proof that God accepts all people, including gay people, into His flock.
Reilly planned to self-publish, so she needed to hire an independent publicist. She learned that a favorite self-published cookbook author of hers used a publicist named Laura Thomas. The author found Thomas’s website and contact info, emailed her an excerpt from the book, and asked if Thomas was taking new clients.
Thomas wrote back thanking Reilly for thinking of her, but that she is a happily married lesbian and could not in good conscience promote Reilly’s book. Thomas included a list of recommended colleagues she knew had worked on successful faith-based promo campaigns, apologized that she couldn’t be of further assistance, and wished Reilly luck with the book rollout.
As alluded to in past posts, I am a member of the world’s most viciously and unfairly persecuted demographic: the straight, white, American male. Yes, I am a SWAM. I grew up in the Midwest, lived on the West Coast for 12 years, and now live in the north of the South (Nashville, Tennessee). I’m usually liberal-minded (I’m a Bernie guy), but the conservative values I grew up with still remain.
[NOTE: For new readers, that “most-persecuted demographic” statement was in jest. At last official count, SWAMs actually checked in as the world’s 1,792nd-most persecuted demographic (but who’s counting?)…]
Regardless, the above exchange between Reilly and Thomas doesn’t really offend my sensibilities, to be honest. I mean, it’s a free country. Reilly should be able to express her theological views, and Thomas should be able to politely decline work promoting an ideology she obviously wouldn’t be interested in getting behind.
The way one might think things would have worked in this instance is: After learning Thomas was gay, Reilly naturally would’ve taken her search elsewhere. She’d take Thomas’s recommendations and just move along. Nothing to see here, right?
[Orrrrrr…I guess someone like Reilly might think that if people heard she’s using a gay publicist it’d help her cause by suggesting she doesn’t hate the gay community? Or maybe the argument would be that if Thomas is the best publicist, and Reilly wants the best publicist, why wouldn’t Reilly want Thomas, regardless of sexual orientation? It’s just business…]
Likewise, who would want to force Thomas to create a promotional plan and implement a months-long campaign for a book that essentially suggests she and her wife are going to Hell? No amount of cash would be worth enduring that, I wouldn’t think.
[Orrrrrr…I guess if Thomas and her wife were atheists and really needed the money, or she looked at it as just another job and isn’t a particularly philosophical or political person…maybe then she’d take the gig anyway?]
Well, what if I told you that, in reality, Reilly became so offended Thomas wouldn’t work with her that she is suing to compel Thomas to take the job? And further, would you believe the case made it all the way to the gol-dang Supreme Court??
Well, don’t believe it, because I made up the whole Reilly v. Thomas scenario.
However, SCOTUS did hear the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis on Monday, and it’s similar. The difference is, 303 Creative is the one-woman company of Lorie Smith, a Colorado graphic artist and website designer who’s suing her state for making her design wedding websites for gay couples.
Colorado hasn’t actually made her do anything yet, mind you. Smith is preemptively suing in the event that a gay couple might someday come to her for a wedding website. Smith is a devout Christian, and asserts that having to accommodate a gay couple with a wedding site would violate her right to free speech.
As Smith explains to the Catholic News Agency, “I serve everyone, including those who identify as LGBT. I love to custom-create and will work with anyone. There are simply some messages I can’t create, regardless of who asks me.”
So, as I understand her, she’s saying she’ll help a gay guy design a website for his new surfboard company, but when he gets engaged she wants to be able to decline to build him a wedding site because it offends her religious beliefs.
As she goes on to tell CNA:
“I want the LGBT graphic designer to be free to create consistent with her beliefs, and the Democrat speechwriter, and the atheist photographer. A win in my case is truly a win for all Americans.”
Red Flag #1 with all this: Just wait until the only mechanic in a tiny Colorado mountain town refuses to fix a gay guy’s car because gay guys offend his religious beliefs. No doubt he will cite the 303 Creative case and make the argument that simply serving a gay customer is a form of “speech” in his tight-knit, conservative community (the offending messaging being, I guess, that he might be OK with gay stuff).
The heart of Smith’s argument, though, centers around that key “messaging” distinction. The idea is that her work doesn’t simply provide a common service like auto repair; it tells a story that requires creativity and artistic buy-in.
Either way, I still keep coming back to: Why would a gay couple ever want to work with someone on a wedding website who doesn’t think you should be allowed to get married in the first place?
No, you shouldn’t discriminate against anyone because they’re gay, no matter what. But is it worth it to try and pry the prejudice out of these people’s souls and force them, by law, to pretend to be cool with queer folks? It’s a similar prospect to liberals trying to persuade not only independents and traditional (i.e. sane) conservatives to vote with them, but far-right MAGAns, as well. It won’t be worth the effort.
Red Flag #2: Smith is preemptively suing over this, and she and her lawyers (plural) have taken it all the way to the Supreme Court. That changes everything for me. It strongly suggests this is more of a Christian crusade than an attempt at establishing fair business practices.
“Less government.” A conservative hallmark—until a political or cultural issue pops up that the conservative wants to govern. In this case, the plaintiff is suing for something that hasn’t even happened yet. Smith has never once had to explain to a gay couple that she would rather not design their wedding site because of her Christian beliefs.
And if Smith did have to endure such a confrontation, I just feel like there aren’t a ton of gay couples who would be like, “Oh YEAH? Well we want you to do the site anyway! And if you don’t? WE’LL SEE YOU IN COURT!”
Would that really be worth it for the couple? Wouldn’t they rather just say, “Huh. Well, that lady was certainly a dick, wasn’t she? OK, who’s next on our list?” (This is a serious question to my gay friends out there!)
ALL THAT SAID.
When I first heard about this case, it made me think of two other common instances where service providers are pretty much allowed to outright discriminate. How is the Smith case different (my SWAMmy brain reasoned) from bars and restaurants being allowed to say ‘We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?’ Or from when doormen at über-exclusive nightclubs get away with letting a gaggle of hot girls stumble from their Lyft directly into the club when all us peasants have been waiting behind the velvet rope all night?
The answer I’ve come to is the same one I’ve come to for most of the conundrums we’ve touched on so far on CeeGees: It’s friggin’ complicated.
Yeah, those clubs are definitely getting away with a form of discrimination. But the intent behind such discrimination is hard to prove. And not enough people have decided that cutting in line at a club is a big enough injustice to sue over, or protest over.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the 2018 Supreme Court case that pre-dated that of 303 Creative’s, a gay couple did decide that being denied service by a Christian baker was worth suing over. And they won in the local courts, but then lost when the bakery took the argument to D.C.
The ruling wasn’t even close, either. Only Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. Justices Kagan and Breyer joined all the conservative justices in overturning the ruling in favor of the bakery.
However, the ruling came by way of technicality. The State of Colorado had been overly hostile toward the baker’s right to freedom of religion in court, inferring his decision not to bake a cake for a gay couple was right up there with slavery and the Holocaust as far as human atrocities go. Which neutered whatever part of the plaintiffs’ case was legit.
Which is why we have 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. (Aubrey Elenis is the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, by the way.) The larger question of whether someone like Smith should be able to refuse service based on their religious beliefs was never settled in the 2018 case.
[SIDE NOTE: Is this boring? I hope it’s not too boring. The question of who’s allowed to discriminate and who’s not in America has been on my mind ever since that bakery case went national, back in pre-pandemic times. So I’m kinda working out my thoughts and feelings as I’m writing, here. So…thanks for indulging me.]
LBJ’s Civil Rights Act of 1964 safeguards the following “protected classes.” A U.S. citizen cannot be discriminated against based on:
Sex
Religion / Religious Beliefs
Race / Color
Age
National Origin / Status of Citizenship
Veteran Status
Disability (under the Americans with Disabilities Act)
So to close this final CeeGees of 2022, I’m just gonna rattle off some ideas that I think I think about this issue, along with a few further questions:
Please note that sexual orientation is not on the above list.
Sexual orientation should be added to the above list, pronto.
Religion is on the above list.
At some point soon, sexual orientation is going to be added to the above list. Congress just voted to officially protect same-sex marriage rights, with even 39 House Republicans and 12 Senate Republicans voting in favor! So it’s only a matter of time...
Should religion be taken off the list? I don’t think even many atheists would say yes—let people worship how they want to worship. (After all, the right to freedom of religion was one of the big reasons this country was founded in the first place.)
But if we agree both religion and sexual orientation should be protected, I just wonder if there isn’t some kind of compromise that would be appropriate to consider implementing for a situation like this.
As hurtful as I’m sure it is for gay couples to be denied service because of religious beliefs that delegitimize their love for one another (scratch that—that try to delegitimize their love for one another), it would also have to be painful for someone who’s devoutly religious to do work they think God condemns.I don’t know what the compromise is.
I know, I know, I brought it up, so I should at least attempt to offer a solution. OK, fine. How about an official distinction that must be prominently displayed in the street-facing windows of stores and on the website home pages of those vendors who intend to turn away customers based on their religion? It’d be like how restaurants in California get letter grades from the health department and have to display them. If they get an ‘A,’ they gain business. Get a ‘C,’ and you lose business.
Except this would be a single posted icon confirming, ‘We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who falls into conflict with our Christian beliefs.’
Devout Christian consumers who don’t think God digs gay marriage would see it as a badge of honor, while those offended someone would discriminate based on sexual orientation—which is a big contingent that’s growing all the time—would see it as an outrage and would know not to give that company their business.
Before long, depending on where you live in the country, discriminating against gay folks will be a bad enough business decision that most companies will relent and do the right thing. At the same time, the ones who don’t wish to relent are being allowed to live their values (as misguided as I, personally, feel those values are).
ADDENDUM (8a): You’d also have to establish some form of a legal proceeding and/or licensing process that would decide whether businesses’ petitions to discriminate on religious grounds are legitimate.
How? Not sure. But it should be damn hard to get the license—hard enough to ensure that not just any a-hole can print out a badge that’s a license to be a dick to gay people. (Incidentally, the same approach should be applied to high-powered gun ownership: if you own an AR-15, it’s because you reeeeeeally wanted one, and you completed special training and earned a special license…like they do in Australia.)
ADDENDUM (8b): Essential services must also be prohibited from applying any kind of discrimination, regardless whether the services are offered by private companies. Like, cabbies and Lyft drivers—or the only mechanic in a tiny, tight-knit, conservative Colorado mountain town—simply can’t discriminate, period. That’s a business that, sorry, but it can’t have the same discriminatory privileges that a one-woman web designer can. Or, some bigoted billionaire can’t start a new health insurance company and say “No one with HIV is allowed to sign up” or something.
Like I said…it’s friggin’ complicated. One of the parties is going to win when SCOTUS rules on the 303 Creative case next summer. The safe bet is that the conservative-dominated court will rule in favor of Smith.
But if they do, they’d better be ready for the can of discrimination worms they’ll be opening up.
Yours,
~Dean
P.S. The Music Box will return!
P.P.S. HAPPY HOLIDAZE!!!!!!!
P.P.P.S. It’s 4:25 a.m.