American United explains the basics of the case:
In spring 2002, Akridge became a full-time chaplain at Ohio’s Madison Correctional Institution. Not long after arriving at the post, Akridge was approached by an inmate who wanted to play music during Protestant services. Akridge told the inmate he did not mind the group playing music at the services, as long as the inmates did not play “pagan music.”
The prisoner then accused Akridge of acting with hostility toward him because he is gay. According to court documents, the chaplain responded, “I didn’t know you are gay. But since you tell me you are gay, then that is reason enough for you not to…lead the band.”
A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court has rejected Akridge’s lawsuit, ruling that workplace policies forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation were legitimate and that a sincere religious bias against gays does not outweigh such policies.
Akridge ... interpreted scriptures to say he would be punished if he complied. “The leaders that the chaplain selects implicitly implies an endorsement and approval of the lifestyle of the selected leaders,” Akridge explained. He added that a gay choir director “would violate my conscience and make me guilty in the sight of God.” ...
He accused state officials of trampling his constitutional rights as a Christian minister and pointed out that his job description as a Protestant prison chaplain put him in charge of the religious services. In court papers, Akridge said he believes “homosexual behavior is immoral, sinful, perverse and contrary to the teachings of the Bible and the Christian faith.” [The Plain Dealer]
It apparently never occurred to Akridge to take a job where he wouldn’t have to treat everyone equally. If he led a private congregation, he could discriminate against gays, immigrants, women, blacks... anyone he wanted, and with little to no need to be concerned about what the government or others think. Once he accepted a job with the government, though, he also accepted restrictions on exactly what he could do.
Just because he has a religious belief that this or that minority is inferior and unworthy of equal treatment doesn’t mean that he can act on that belief while fulfilling his official duties. He can’t even necessarily express that belief, depending upon the circumstances, but he definitely can’t put that belief into action and make it a reality. The government has a positive obligation to treat people equally and it can’t abandon or ignore that responsibility when government employees disagree, even if they disagree for sincere, deeply-held religious reasons.
Siding with the prison officials, the appeals court noted that they acted properly to enforce a policy aimed at preventing discrimination. “Although it may be that Akridge could have disbanded the choir and/or praise band entirely, the facts appear to be that he did not do so; rather he openly and intentionally excluded an inmate from such groups,” the appeals court said. “Even if the ODRC [Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction] had no interest in the existence of the band, this would not vitiate its interest in preventing discrimination and its consequences.”
There are a lot of people who think that Christians have a First Amendment right to discriminate against gays, even when explicit anti-discrimination policies forbid it. Akridge got such people involved in his case and this case marks a setback for their cause.
Akridge then got the Alliance Defense Fund—ardent champions of homophobes and the right-wing “politically-incorrect”—to jump right in to make the matter a federal case, claiming due process and First Amendment violations. Their main argument was that as a chaplain Akridge had a protected First Amendment right to refuse to allow an openly-gay man to play a leadership role in a religious service because this was contrary to his religious beliefs. Also, because gay rights was a contentious subject of public debate, Akridge was privileged to take a position about it without suffering adverse employment consequences, the lawsuit argued. [Gay City News]
This is what the Christian Right wants a legal right to do: discriminate against people who violate their religious rules, but without social, legal, or political consequences. In the long term, they want this to be much more than a private right: they want it to be official policy. There was a time when official discrimination against gays, atheists, and others was the norm; the shift away from privileging some Christians' ideology and towards equality is regarded by the Christian Right as one of the foundations for all that is wrong with America. The first step towards reversing things is to enable people to discriminate privately. The ultimate goal is to transform private discrimination into official, public policy.
The Baptist Press News isn't happy with the ruling, describing it as a case where the court "favors homosexuality over chaplain's rights." Notice first the implicit denial that a gay inmate has any right not to be discriminated against on account of his orientation and, second, the explicit claim that a court ruling against anti-gay discrimination is the same as favoring homosexuality itself. This means that a court ruling against a refusal to let Nazis print a magazine would be the same as ruling which favors Nazism — utter nonsense, of course, but that's the twisted corrupt logic employed by these people.
Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, and Religion:
- Does Equality for Gays Threaten Religious Liberty?
- Does Religious Liberty Protect a Right to Treat Gays as Unequal?
- Is Religiously Motivated Discrimination Against Gays OK?
- Equal Rights vs. Special Rights
Other Resources on Gay Rights & Gay Marriage:
Wow, Austin, the thing that surprises me most as a Christian is how the non-Christian community harshly criticizes us over our methods and then employs the same sort of rhetoric to defend their own views.
I know the arguments well because I was once an atheist. Not all conservative Christians are as harsh as you seem to believe Austin as our Savior is a loving Savior. Thanks for the challenging and stimulating article.