Davison's Doodle

Discrimination Legislation

Here is the email I sent to one of my State legislators this morning addressing a piece of legislation that he authored which would permit discrimination by individuals and businesses “if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs or conscience of the individual regarding marriage, lifestyle or behavior:”

 

To: State Senator Joseph Silk

Sen. Joseph Silk, silk@oksenate.gov, 405-521-5614

 

Sir,

We do not know one another.  I will presume you to be an honorable person.  I do not email today to comment on your character.  I email to express my strong objection to your authorship of SB 197.

Given the fiscal issues of our State it is irresponsible for you and your colleagues to be focusing on anything other addressing the budget shortfall, the lack of resources for a quality public education, clean water, affordable quality health care, and regulation of the energy industry causing our earthquakes.  And yes, we also need the State to pass the RealID law so our State’s citizens can use our drivers license to board airplanes in these United States.

Spending time attempting to legislate discrimination into our State’s laws demonstrates your misunderstanding of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”   By your logic, a business owner or neighborhood association, could determine that religious beliefs or conscious holds that left handed people are evil, no matter what the sciences say, and thus could choose not to serve all left handed persons nor allow left handed persons to own or rent in a neighborhood.  It would also allow for a business to discriminate against all bald people. I direct your attention to a teacher who demonstrated the danger of this kind of discrimination, in our personal, communal, and legislative lives, back in April 1968.

Your assertion that this law protects everyone is farcical.  It blesses discrimination and removes the State from the responsibility of ensuring an equal society for all our State’s breathing citizens.  Though you have not explicitly named an effort to create a ‘christian’ State, it is purposed legislation like yours, and similar legislation it by your colleagues, that suggest you prefer Oklahoma become an outpost for evangelical Christians awaiting the second coming walled off from the rest of our Nation and the world.  This kind of legislation demonstrates your misunderstanding of the Constitution of these United States, the balance required to maintain healthy community, and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.  If you were the minority race or religion in this State would you not object to this kind of legislation that you have authored?  It is legislation like this that makes me think of militant fundamentalists of other religions that are labeled ‘extremists.’

I admonish you to pull SB197 from consideration.  Please spend your time on issues that actually matter for the benefit of all our citizens, equally, instead of legislation that is clearly unconstitutional.

I thank your staff for reading this email.

Religious Freedom v Freedom to Discriminate Based on Religion

I am not one that is moved by the argument that religious freedom is under attack in the United States.  Translate ‘religious freedom’ as Christian fundamentalist and some self identified evangelicals.’  I don’t know of one State or Federal agency that has outlawed Graham, Falwell Jr, Robertson, Osteen, Dobson, Perkins, and the prosperity gospel hucksters from the ability to gather for worship, for study, or their mission to extract money from people in the name of God.  They also want to create a Christian state and their rhetoric supports another world war in the name of God.  These guys, and those that follow their form of Christian witness, equate overt discrimination with religious freedom.  Similar arguments were made during the Civil Rights movement around discrimination and race.  I’m pretty sure anyone that wants to picket Planned Parenthood on religious grounds, (a topic of inconsistent theology for another day), may arrive to pester those seeking healthcare at Planned Parenthood that has nothing to do with abortion.

Though I’m not a member of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, I do support much of their work. Here is their reporting, biased as it may be, about the Washington State Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling against a ‘religious liberty’ case in which a florist refused to sell flowers to a gay couple based on her religious beliefs.  Is there a sign in her store window that reads, “Only My Kind of Christians Welcome Here?”  Does she sell to atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, closeted LGBTQ persons, Protestant and Catholic Christians?  Is this what America is coming to? How is this ‘religious freedom’ perspective definition, from a theological, sociological, or nationalist perspective, different from a version of the Taliban and other fundamentalists within Islam that want to impose their scriptural interpretation of God’s plan (may peace be upon God) on an entire society.  America is not a theocracy and would become a failed experiment in democracy were it to become more a ‘Christian-centric’ republic than it already is.

Washington Supreme Court Says There’s No Constitutional Right To Discriminate Against Same-Sex Couples
Feb 16, 2017 by Andrew Nellis in Wall of Separation

The Washington Supreme Court has now vindicated AU’s argument. In a lengthy, 9-0 decision, the court first confirms that Stutzman did indeed violate the Washington Law Against Discrimination; it then goes on to reject her claims that the Constitution gives her a right to break the law.

Stutzman’s main argument was that her flower arrangements were “expressive conduct” – speech, in First Amendment terms – and that she shouldn’t have to communicate a message with her flowers that she doesn’t believe in. But the court rightly rejected this argument, ruling that providing “flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding.”

 

And from a HuffingtonPost article:

Unanimous Ruling In Washington State Supreme Court Against Arlene’s Flowers Owner
Sara Toce, Contributor

The opinion concluded, “The plain language of RCW 49.60.215 prohibits Stutzman’s refusal to provide same-sex wedding services to Ingersoll; such refusal constitutes discrimination on the basis of ‘sexual orientation,’ in violation of RCW 49.60.215. The same analysis applies to her corporation…In sum, Stutzman’s refusal to provide custom floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding violated the WLAD’s prohibition on discrimination in public accommodations.’”

 

And from the group that defended Ms Stutzman in court:

Washington Supreme Court Punishes Barronelle Stutzman. What Now?
Jim Campbell

Barronelle’s story demonstrates a troubling trend—governmental agencies and officials that have grown increasingly hostile to religious freedom, particularly the freedom of people who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. These widespread efforts to suppress freedom are rooted in a disdain for this particular religious belief—a belief that, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, is “decent and honorable” and held “in good faith by reasonable and sincere people.”