As longtime customers of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts
in Richland, Washington, Ingersoll and Freed had mistakenly assumed that shop
owner Barronelle Stutzman would be happy to provide the service.
But also imagine the pain Stutzman felt at having to
turn down a friend and neighbor. Here’s how she described the awkward scene to
KEPR-TV:
“I grabbed his hand and said ‘I am sorry.’ I can’t
do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.’ We hugged each
other and he left, and I assumed it was the end of the story.”
As it turns out, the story was only just beginning.
On April 9th, the state’s attorney general filed a
consumer protection lawsuit against the florist and the ACLU, representing the
gay couple, is now asking for Stutzman to apologize and agree to serve gay
weddings in the future.
This painful dispute confronts the courts – and all
of us – with a cruel choice between two compelling values central to the
American commitment to liberty:
The right of citizens to be free from discrimination
in places of public accommodation is pitted against the right of religious
business owners to follow their conscience in matters of faith.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. A
small, but growing number of conflicts have already broken out in other states
where bakers and photographers have balked at providing services to same-sex
weddings. Dressmakers are probably next.
Stutzman argues that she is not discriminating
against gay people. She points out that she has hired openly gay people and has
many gay customers. In an interview with the Seattle Times, her lawyer framed
Stutzman’s views this way:
“This is about gay marriage, it’s not about a person
being gay. She has a conscientious objection to homosexual marriage, not
homosexuality. It violates her conscience.”
But gay couples seeking wedding services see this
argument as a distinction without a difference. When they enter a business that
serves the public, they expect to be treated like every other couple –
particularly in states like Washington where gay marriage is now legal.
Although it upsets some gay rights advocates whenever
they hear it, the First Amendment requires us to protect liberty of conscience
as far as possible. That’s why, for example, many people on all sides support
“conscience clauses” for houses of worship and religiously affiliated
organizations in states that recognize gay marriage.
Catholic charities, to cite a controversial example,
should be not forced to provide adoption services to same-sex couples in
violation of Catholic teaching, as long as those couples have ready access to
other providers.
But any business serving the public is obligated not
to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation. And no
matter how gay-friendly Stutzman claims to be, refusing to treat Ingersoll and
Freed like other couples is treating them like second-class citizens because
they are gay.
If business owners were exempted from
non-discrimination laws on religious grounds, where would the line be drawn?
What about religious objections to inter-racial marriage – commonplace at one
time and still held by some? If Stutzman wins her case, why can’t another
religious florist refuse to serve a mixed race couple?
I strongly support finding ways to protect religious
claims of conscience whenever possible. But when it comes to places of public
accommodation, our commitment to non-discrimination should trump religious
claims for exemption from civil rights laws.
Ingersoll and Freed, of course, can find another
florist. But they shouldn’t have to suffer the humiliation of asking florists,
bakers, photographers, or other providers if they’re willing to provide
services for gay weddings.
Business owners have a right to their religious
convictions. But when they open their doors to the public, they have a civic
and legal responsibility to uphold the civil rights of every customer.
Arlene’s Flower and Gift Shop will likely lose this
case – and gay couples will take another step toward equal treatment under the
law.
But the personal pain on both sides will linger for
years to come, a tragic reminder that culture wars always exact a heavy price.
About the author: Charles C. Haynes is director of
the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum, 555 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001. Web: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/.
E-mail: chaynes[at]freedomforum.org.
This article was published by the First Amendment
Center.
No comments:
Post a Comment