Gay Marriage
Photo: Rob Melnychuk /
Photodisc / Getty
If you manage a large hotel, you can't refuse to rent rooms to a gay couple and you can't refuse equal access to your facilities to gay couples, like if they want to host a reception for a marriage or civil union. Shouldn't the same legal standards apply to smaller operations, like a bed & breakfast? Well, some Christians don't think so and now a couple of bed & breakfasts are being sued in Illinois.
The Beall Mansion in Alton told the Wathens via email that it "will just be doing traditional weddings." The owner of the Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast in Paxton wrote in an email to the couple: "We will never host same-sex civil unions. We will never host same-sex weddings even if they become legal in Illinois. We believe homosexuality is wrong and unnatural based on what the Bible says about it. If that is discrimination, I guess we unfortunately discriminate." ...
The couple filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights, which investigated and found "substantial evidence" that a civil rights violation had been committed.
The August finding allows the Wathens 90 days to file a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission or take civil action in Circuit Court. The Wathens' attorney, Betty Tsamis of Chicago, told the Tribune that her clients have chosen the latter path and will file lawsuits against both businesses as early as next week.
Source: Chicago Tribune
I doubt it took very long for the Illinois Department of Human Rights to reach their conclusions. I will admit that the case involving the Beall Mansion is a bit less clear-cut -- especially since they have since evaluated the legal situation and decided against hosting civil unions generally. In principle that applies to heterosexual civil unions as well, though in practice it will only end up applying to gay couples. Adopting a policy that is superficially fair but which everyone knows will have a discriminatory effect isn't legitimate, though.
But at least the owners of the Beall Mansion had the sense to frame their position in a neutral manner, even at the start. The owner of the Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast responded with an egregiously self-incriminating statement. Imagine if the same response had been written about interracial unions or interfaith unions -- does anyone doubt that they'd be guilty of violating the law?
But some Christians just don't care -- they are convinced hat no matter what the law might require, if they have a religious objection to treating certain people like fully equal citizens then they should be allowed to discriminate.
Steven Amjad, an attorney representing Timber Creek, said the state constitution guarantees religious freedoms. "These are business owners that have strong religious convictions. The Legislature has created this (conflict), and the courts will have to sort this out," he said. ...
Illinois attorney Jason Craddock, a member of the Alliance Defense Fund, a national Christian legal organization that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, also is representing Timber Creek. Craddock said cases such as this one involving the Wathens are critical for people of faith who believe their First Amendment freedom of religion is inviolable.
"I believe strongly that liberty of conscience, particularly religious liberty of conscience, is what our nation was built on and is something that goes deep to our souls," Craddock said. "Increasingly it's being pitted against the asserted rights of homosexuals. Now it's going beyond just asking for tolerance. Now we're getting into a situation where government is telling people of faith, 'You can't live out your faith if it happens to disagree with this particular group.'"
Jason Craddock isn't being entirely honest here -- but he's a lawyer and his livelihood depends upon misleading others, doesn't it? Key to all this is the manner in which Christian lawyers are trying to frame this as if it were a new development. The fact that it's not, that it's old standards and regulations being applied to new situations, is what these lawyers would rather use ignore or forget.
Do you think Jason Craddock would defend a Christian who wanted to discriminate against an interracial couple for religious reasons? Do you think he'd defend a Christian who wanted to discriminate against an interfaith couple for religious reasons? He should if he really believed his own rhetoric because those cases wouldn't be different in terms of basic legal principles. Of course, the courts would never allow it -- just as they shouldn't allow discrimination in this case, either.
But I'm sure that Jason Craddock and the Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast would prefer that the public not think about these obvious parallels. It makes them look bad by reminding people that homophobic bigots aren't really any different from racist bigots or religious bigots. They don't want the public to realize that putting a religious gloss on your bigotry doesn't sanctify either the bigotry or your discrimination. So long as the debate around faith-based discrimination is limited gays, it will appear "reasonable." As soon as it's applied to something like race, though, the injustice and immorality of it becomes unavoidable.
Be sure to watch how lawyers like Jason Craddock and other apologists for faith-based discrimination will emphasize the language of "belief" and "conscience" without ever mentioning action and behavior. This is because there is a strong tradition of protecting religious beliefs, but Craddock and others are trying to argue for a freedom of action which is quite different and which has never received the same level of protection.
Your right to believe anything might be inviolable, but your right to act on all your beliefs is not. It never has been, and never will be. Acting like freedom of belief and freedom of action are equivalent is dishonest -- and deliberately so. Acting like the first requires the second is also dishonest -- and, again, also deliberately so. That, however, is the sum total of arguments offered by people like Jason Craddock. It's all they have so they play it for all it's worth, which isn't much unless the audience isn't paying close attention.
What matters here is that the bed-and-breakfast is a secular institution, not a religious one. That’s why they can’t discriminate based on religion. A church (or temple) is surely allowed to bar interfaith marriages within its doors if those kinds of marrages violate their doctrines.
You can buy the bible in supermarkets. They call it Charmin there.
Back ON topic
My partner and I had a hell of a time at the Ritz Carlton in Buckhead Georgia, a few years back. He was on a business trip and I joined him. They were upset that two men were staying in the same room. Guess they thought we both worked for EF Hutton. Breakfast never arrived, Reservations for dinner were ‘lost’ we were told ‘the lounge also serves food’. They finally sent up a free bottle of Champagne when we raised a stink the next day.
The kicker is that easily 3/4 of the staff were gay.
I absolutely LOVE the joke about Charmin! That made my day and I’m planning on quoting it often! Thanks for that!
Austin!
“faith-based discrimination” I like that phrase. It has lots of applications! Faith-based prejudice,” faith based deceit, faith-based dishonesty (remember Saint Paul: to paraphrase, “It should be OK to lie for ‘God’s’ sake.” Faith-based hate–no one can deny there has certainly been a lot of “faith based cruelty and murder.” The Holy Bible is crammed full of it. “Faith-based” has many more applications than George W. ever imagined.
Grandpa
Why don’t the sodomites go somewhere else? Somewhere they are accepted.
Sodomites in America want an affirmation of what many call perversion and an abomination.
The Bed and Breakfast is a private business.
You weren’t born a sodomite, you chose it.
Grow up and take your business elsewhere.
The same has been said about Jews and blacks. Funny, but it’s also crass, immoral bigots saying such things.
Bigots also want an affirmation of what everyone else regards as hate.
So? They can’t refuse to serve blacks and Jews.
You weren’t borna bigot, you chose it.
Grow up and leave the hate behind.
So Tim just when did you choose to be a heterosexual? Have you ever thought of choosing homosexuality and if so how frequently? Seriously you don’t choose your sexual orientation, deal with it along with the fact that you are a bigot plain and simple.
“You weren’t born a sodomite, you chose it.”
How tedious it is to hear this same hate filled statement from Christians like you Tim over and over again. This idea has been debunked so many times and you still keep on bleating the same line.
The motive of course is to deflect any blame from your god as being responsible for what you see as an abomination and lay it squarely at the feet of the filthy sodemite who has used his “free will” to be what he is. Your god somehow escapes responsibility for making the badly wired brain that makes this bad decision it seems. What about a person born with ambiguous physical genitailia. That’s a tricky one isn’t it? Where is your gods responsibility in this case?
The pain and damage done by homophobes like you is tragic Tim. I know, and have known, a number of gay guys and have heard their painfull stories. One threw himself in front of a train when quite young – he had a homophobic father.
With the way they are treated, why in the world would anyone “choose” to be homosexual?! I read a while back that scientists have found a genetic component to homosexuality. Need to research it a bit more. If a gene is identified as responsible for homosexuality, the conflict between science and religion would be worse than with evolution! I would absolutely love it!
Joan,
You stated in your comment, “With the way they are treated, why in the world would anyone “choose” to be homosexual?!”
Some of the people who make the statement that a homosexual chooses to be a homosexual are not entirely being 100% dishonest. They are drawing from their own personal experiences. They DID choose to be a heterosexual because mom, dad, brother, sister, and the whole tribe were “good” Christians, and so was the preacher, too. They chose the lesser of two evils, in their minds, and their wives get less than an honest human beings for husbands. And, their homosexual genes are kept in the gene pool all set and ready for replication.
Perhaps this sheds some light on why the leaders of the Church are so forgiving of promiscuous priests who go astray. Church leaders look upon religion from a somewhat different perspective than that of the laity.
Google Charles Ulz. The pieces of the puzzle may quickly fall into place.
Grandpa
I lost my father’s respect, when he learned I was an atheist. A wall went up that I was never able to tear down. I know a wee bit of how the young man felt when he jumped onto the tracks. Evidently, not as much so.
I think you may be confusing the issue a little here Grandpa. One does not choose to be a homosexual, but having been born one may choose to suppress their true sexuality.
I have friends who have masqueraded as heterosexual for a good part of their lives because of the social pressures, but eventually could not suppress there true sexual orientation any longer and came out. I have listened to their stories and it is heart wrenching stuff.
As a very strongly heterosexual man I feel revolted by the thought of having a sexual encounter with another man, and I have wondered if a homosexual man would feel the same revulsion about having sex with a woman. For some I think it would be, which would make pretending to be hetero impossible.
The world of sexuality is not black and white, however, as anyone who has had an unsheltered experience of life, and done a little reading will know. So we do have some homosexuals who have enough hetero leaning to be able to carry out the masquerade.
I find it quite fascinating that we have this huge spectrum of sexual orientations that add color to our society. It is not in the least bit threatening to me, as it seems to be to the homophobes, that appear to be in endemic numbers among the fundies. As I have written before, there is good reason to suspect that some of these guys, are insecure in their own sexuality, and are afraid of being infected.
Homosexuality is sin. This a case of government being out of step with God’s law. Homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God because it is a perversion of true marriage (between a man and a woman), and involves a perversion of sex. Some of our politicians have lost their minds, and have created an environment that is helping to destroy the morals of this nation; hell is going to be a lot hotter for them and all who support homosexual marriages.
So, you want to live in a theocracy where civil law is the same as what you think your god’s law is?
Why do you hate democracy and liberty?
Austin Cline says:
“So, you want to live in a theocracy where civil law is the same as what you think your god’s law is?”
We already live in a corporate fascist theocracy, where the god MONEY defines what is illegal and immoral. ANything that appelas to an objective, transcendant standard (Like the Bible), is declared cursed by those who bow the knee before their god(s).
Austin further says:
“Why do you hate democracy and liberty?”
Because what you and your polytheistic automatons are trying to sell us is neither. Every culture that embraces open sodomy has fallen to the righteous judgment of a holy and just God.
Getting a little pleasure imagining the suffering in Hell (should have a capital H if it is a real place name) of your opponents are we Gerald.
@Gerald Carter. You say homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of god. Please tell me who god is……without using any biblical text.
It’s absolutely rediculous to defend a book by quoting it. Give me your “off the top of your head” rendition of who you think god is.
To Gerald Carter,
Your ideas are an abomination in my eyes. And, they have no effect on “true” marriage, if you mean like your mom and dad.
It’s the 21st century, for “god’s sake.”
Get out of the Dark Ages.
Grandpa
Gerald
Everything you said is your opinion, and an opinion that is no way based upon fact. And, remember, we have separation of church and state in this country. Our government does not govern on the basis of delusional fairy tales.
This should be compulsory viewing for all homophobic fundies. They should be strapped to a chair with your eyes taped open and forced to watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQSx3OCrXQ&feature=related
Perhaps then we will see an end to those tiresome “they choose to be homosexual” comments.
@Gerald: Oh, Gerald. There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE. Your Bronze Age belief system needs to be outlawed.
Gerald says : “This a case of government being out of step with God’s law.”
Thank Christ for that is my response.
“Your right to believe anything might be inviolable, but your right to act on all your beliefs is not. It never has been, and never will be. Acting like freedom of belief and freedom of action are equivalent is dishonest — and deliberately so. Acting like the first requires the second is also dishonest — and, again, also deliberately so. That, however, is the sum total of arguments offered by people like Jason Craddock. It’s all they have so they play it for all it’s worth, which isn’t much unless the audience isn’t paying close attention. ”
I was going to reply, but, I’ll let Austin have the final word!
As to the nature/nurture debate, I might refer you to something I wrote on the Lesbian Life forum http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=30&nav=display&webtag=ab-lesbianlife&tid=15313