Religion v. Civil Rights

Right now in the news there are a number of articles about how marriage equality is affecting the rights of people to practice their religion. They claim that they are being forced by government to accept marriage equality. There was a series of articles and editorials in the Rainbow Times about the topic and also in the Time magazine online.

Gay Marriage: The Coming Clash of Civil and Religious Liberties
Time
By Michael A. Lindenberger
Saturday, July 02, 2011

…"A significantly larger percentage of the country now lives in states with marriage equality for gays and lesbians," constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine law school, told TIME. "That is important on so many levels. It shows that the trend continues in this direction and that it is just a matter of time before it is throughout the country. It will help fuel the on-going shift in public opinion."
[…]
Gay marriage isn't the first issue to do so, but it's likely to be the most fought over. No one is arguing that the Catholic Church, or any church, must marry a gay couple — and the protections written into law in New York saying so were probably redundant. But the New York law went further than merely restating the constitutionally obvious. It also wrote into law the right for all religious institutions — hospitals, adoption services — and so-called benevolent organizations to refuse to not just marry gay couples but the right to refuse accommodating their weddings, too. For gay couples in New York, good luck finding a Knight of Columbus hall to rent, for instance.

The New York law goes farther than the Connecticut marriage law. In Connecticut, I believe, the only covers religious institutions and not religious institutions that are open to serve the public like hospitals and adoption services. I believe that the New York law goes too far, it protects institutions that are receiving public funds. If an organization is receiving public support it should be open to ALL people and they should not be allowed to discriminate.

The article goes on to say,

"The 'guy who runs the tuxedo shop' is trying to live his life in accordance with his most deeply held ideals, which is just what gay couples are trying to do," Koppleman [John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University] says. "The fairly mild religious accommodations in New York law will somewhat ease conflicts of that sort, in a way that is unlikely to significantly injure any gay people."
[…]
"The language is ambiguous enough to mean that it may take a court to determine when the religious liberty interests prevail against the right of gay couples to arrange their weddings," says Leonard [New York Law School professor]…

I do not think that individuals or businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, if they are open to serve the public then they should have to serve all the public, not just those they chose to serve.

I heard the same argument when the Judiciary Committee was voting on the gender inclusive non-discrimination bill; Rep. González (D) said that they came to us back in the ‘90s to get protection for the gays, they came for marriage and now they come for protection for the “transgendered” and that she see her religious rights being eroded.

The problem with that argument is that we all have heard it before. In 1845 the Southern Baptist Convention split from the northern Baptists over slavery… we have the religious right to believe in slavery, we have a religious right to not hire Jews, we have the right not to serve blacks. Religion has been used since the dawn of history to justify discrimination. Can you imagine white supremacists who wants a religion exemption to not employ blacks, what a public outcry that would product, but because it is an exemption from serving LGBT people everyone goes along with the exemption.

Paul P. Jesep wrote an opinion piece on religious freedom in the Rainbow Times,

Marriage equality passed in New York despite strong and sometimes fierce religious opposition. Of course there were many in the religious community who also supported it. Although religious opponents failed to convince the governor and most state legislators of their inane positions, I’m still troubled that they were not challenged on one of the loudest arguments - religious freedom is threatened.
[…]
But for discussion purposes let’s assume that religious freedom is actually at stake. I hear no one, or perhaps I miss it, talk about the religious freedom of LGBT and Searching persons of faith. Aren’t these religious rights denied by prohibiting marriage equality? In addition, if stopping same-sex marriage protected religious freedom as understood by the Catholic leadership, why is it at the same time a denial of religious freedom for, as one example, the United Church of Christ (UCC)? In 2005, the UCC passed a resolution titled Equal Marriage Rights for All. As has often been the case the UCC has been a leader on social justice for literally centuries.

Religious freedom does not mean that you can do anything in the name of religion, the courts have drawn a line that religions cannot cross. You cannot have animal sacrifices that are cruel, you cannot have human sacrifices, you cannot use illegal drugs and that you cannot use religion to discriminate in employment, housing, public accommodation or with credit.