NOM To Steadman: We Resemble That Remark

9 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

The National Organization of Marriage on Thursday accused the author of a civil unions bill of being contemptuous of religion after the Colorado lawmaker said Christian donвЂ™t have the right to discriminate against gay and lesbian individuals.

вЂњDonвЂ™t claim religion as a reason the law should discriminate,вЂќ state Sen. Pat Steadman (D) said earlier this month. вЂњWe have laws against discrimination. Discrimination is banned in employment, and housing, and public accommodations, and so bakeries that serve the public arenвЂ™t supposed to look down their noses at one particular class of persons and say вЂwe donвЂ™t sell cakes to you.вЂ™ ItвЂ™s troubling, this discrimination. And itвЂ™s already illegal.вЂќ

вЂњSo, what to say to those who claim that religion requires them to discriminate?вЂќ the Colorado lawmaker continued. вЂњIвЂ™ll tell you what IвЂ™d say: вЂGet thee to a nunnery!вЂ™ And live there then. Go live a monastic life away from modern society, away from people you canвЂ™t see as equals to yourself. Away from the stream of commerce where you may have to serve them or employ them or rent banquet halls to them.вЂќ

вЂњGo some place and be as judgmental as you like. Go inside your church, establish separate water fountains in there if you want, but donвЂ™t claim that free exercise of religion requires the state of Colorado to establish separate water fountains for her citizens. ThatвЂ™s not what weвЂ™re doing here.вЂќ

The National Organization for Marriage responds:

State Senator Pat Steadman (D-Denver), co-sponsor of the Colorado same-sex civil union bill SB11, went to the floor of the Colorado Senate this week and lashed out at people of faith, claiming they want to “establish separate water fountains” for gay people and straight people in their churches and believe “My religion says I can’t help [gays]. God told me to hate [gays].”

At another point he says people of faith “don’t want gay people sitting on the bus next to them, they’d rather the gays stayed far to the back of the bus, far far away.”

Steadman also argues that any person of faith with pro-marriage views should be forced to violate their conscience if they choose to continue operating their business (flower shops, bakeries, restaurants, photographers, banquet halls, etc) after the passage of same-sex civil unions…

The debate here concerns an exemption for religious organizations and businesses to allow them to refuse services to gay and lesbian couples in a civil union. In hope of placating Republicans in previous years, versions of the Colorado Civil Unions Act contained such an exemption. This year, with even fewer Republicans in support than in previous years, what proponents always felt was a “discrimination exemption” was discarded as unnecessary. NOM forgets to note, of course, that they opposed the bill with this exemption in previous years.

In short, the National Organization for Marriage is taking offense at being likened to historic forms of discrimination, then revealing without any sense of irony why that comparison is deserved.

9 thoughts on “NOM To Steadman: We Resemble That Remark”

DaftPunk says:

February 22, 2013 at 11:27 am

This is all part and parcel of "living your faith" in your work, as the libertarian absolutist segregationists (see Rand Paul on private property rights justifying descrimination in private businesses) would argue as supported by outfits like the Alliance Defense Fund. It's a smiliar argument used to justify the lawsuits attempting to exempt private employers from the contraceptive mandate of PPACA. Freedom of religion is the "first freedom", and people can't be asked to violate their religious beliefs by government edict in the interest of the common good.

Furthermore, Supreme Court Justice Scalia has raised the argument that a protected class (in this case gays) cannot be identified by their common behavior, but must be share some intrinsic quality. Of course, this only makes sense if you think homosexuality is a choice.

The same Justice Scalia wrote in Employment Division v. Smith:

"Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

Id. at 166-167.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a

valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

This will be a tough needle to thread as these cases make their way through the courts, and confront the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which states that any law that burdens religious exercise must do so in the least restrictive way possible.

The fundamental question is: Is running a bakery, hobby store or HVAC service a religious exercise? Bigots like NOM and ADF say yes.

Log in to Reply
DavidThi808 says:

February 22, 2013 at 12:21 pm

I love what Steadman said!!!! It is brilliant in its emotion. Absolutely awesome.

Log in to Reply
davebarnes says:

February 22, 2013 at 12:31 pm

Why is this bill even being debated?
Aren't there enough votes in the Senate to pass it?
If yes, then why talk about it? Just pass it?
If no, then that is why we have smoked-filled rooms.

Log in to Reply
1. allyncooper says:
  
  February 22, 2013 at 12:58 pm
  
  Because Dave, that's what a legislative body does, particuarly the Senate. They debate, and there are rules to ensure there is debate. Those who oppose a measure have a right to be heard even if the majority are clearly in favor. A safeguard against what Madison called "the tyranny of the majority".
  
  It's Civics 101. Maybe you should sit in the gallery some afternoon and see how it works.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Aristotle says:
    
    February 22, 2013 at 1:18 pm
    
    To be fair, it's more like Civics 102, or possibly even 201.
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. davebarnes says:
    
    February 22, 2013 at 1:55 pm
    
    Ooh. Trolling works.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. bullshit! says:
      
      February 23, 2013 at 9:40 am
      
      Sometimes that's why I troll too. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
      
      Log in to Reply
Canines says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:35 pm

“I’ll tell you what I’d say: ‘Get thee to a nunnery.'"

*

Re the Shakespeare quote: of course, in Shakespearean times, a "nunnery" could simply refer to a nunnery — or it could alternately refer to a brothel.

Log in to Reply
yameniye says:

February 23, 2013 at 5:39 pm

Love and strength for Pat.

Log in to Reply