Below is my column as printed in today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune.
On Monday, the Supreme Court denied a petition from Kim Davis, the county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, insisting that it was her religious liberty which enabled her to make that choice. While the Supreme Court declined to hear the Davis’s case (which means the rejection of her claims of qualified immunity by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit stands), two justices used the case to take aim at the Obergefell v. Hodges decision which brought marriage equality to our nation.
In the opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas (and joined by Justice Samuel Alito), Thomas claimed that Obergefell was an unconstitutional bypass of the democratic process. Thomas insisted that Davis was a “devout Christian” and “one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion its Obergefell decision.” He continued, “Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy.”
As a Christian priest and as an American citizen, I am distraught to see two justices on the highest court in the land making such a spurious argument. Marriage equality does not force anyone to alter their religious beliefs, it simply says you cannot inflict your religious beliefs on others.
During the oral arguments for Obergefell, Justice Antonin Scalia asked the counsel for the LGBTQ couples whether conservative churches would be forced to celebrate same-sex marriages. She was explicit that the Free Exercise Clause would always protect churches from that kind of interference. Both Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor agreed and no one objected to this consensus. That understanding was reiterated by Justice Kennedy when he wrote the opinion in Obergefell.
What Obergefell did do was remove the ability of the government to exclude same-sex couples from the rights and privileges of legal marriage. And, since Obergefell, courts have generally (though not consistently) agreed that non-religious business cannot discriminate against same-sex couples. Even when the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had showed anti-religious bias in their sanctions of a baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple, they did not rule on the larger question of whether a business is allowed to invoke religious objections and refuse service to LGBTQ persons.
Baking a cake for a couple doesn’t mean you personally support their marriage. It just means you are providing a service to the general public, which means you cannot discriminate and refuse service on the grounds of race, color, national origin, disability or—in many states—sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. To be refused service for who you are or who you love is a dehumanizing and demeaning action. I sincerely doubt that any baker does a moral inventory of a straight couple’s marriage before deciding to work with them.
The history of religious exemptions from civil rights laws is an embarrassing one cor Christianity. Christian business leaders have claimed that they should be able to pay women less because men are the head of the household. Christian business leaders refused service to people living with HIV because they believed they were sinful. Christian business leaders insisted they had the right to segregate service between black and white Americans. Thankfully, the courts have rejected these claims.
Three years ago, our current President signed an executive order encouraging federal agencies to amend their regulations to allow for religious objections to women’s healthcare needs. His administration continues to trumpet the idea of religious liberty being the freedom of religious people to tell other people how to live their life. And, without Justice Ginsburg on the court, and with a nominee like Amy Coney Barrett, the future of marriage equality and LGBTQ rights is on the line. Barrett has criticized the Obergefell decision. She has suggested Title IX should not project transgender students. She has even intentionally misgendered them in her language, a rhetorically violent act against a transgender person.
I am deeply concerned for the religious freedoms of the LGBTQ members of my own parish, St. John’s Episcopal Church. I am concerned the court might not only take away their right to be married, but will also embolden conservative Christians to discriminate against them in housing, restaurants, and commerce. As a priest in a church that believes LGBTQ Christians and their marriages have enriched our common life, and as an American who believes no one should be able to use their religion to discriminate against someone, I hope that Barrett’s nomination will not be confirmed. And if she is confirmed, I hope that Americans who believe in real religious liberty will raise up and demand equality for our LGBTQ siblings.
The Rev. Dr. Jared C. Cramer, Tribune community columnist, serves as rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven. Information about his parish can be found at www.sjegh.com.
