Southern Baptists Convention: How We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage

The Ethics & Religious Liberties Commission of the Southern Baptists Convention has issued the below slick five-minute video detailing all the ways that they are fighting against same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and the alleged persecution of Christians. Two weeks ago the group filed a SCOTUS brief in support of Utah's ban on gay marriage.

NEW YORK: Upstate Wedding Venue Fined For Refusing Same-Sex Ceremony

Via Gay City News:

The New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) has found that a rural wedding venue that denied a lesbian couple use of its facility violated the state’s Human Rights Law. In the August 8 ruling –– first reported in the Albany Times Union –– Acting Commissioner Helen Diane Foster formally adopted a recommendation by Migdalia Pares, an administrative law judge, that the two women receive $1,500 each in compensatory damages and the venue, Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, located between Albany and Saratoga Springs, pay the state a fine of $10,000.

In 2012, seeking a rustic setting for their marriage, the couple, Melisa and Jennifer McCarthy, contacted Liberty Ridge, which advertises online as a wedding venue. In a telephone conversation, Cynthia Gifford, a co-owner, initially encouraged Melissa to visit the facility. According to the DHR ruling, however, when Melissa referred to her fiancé, who was listening in on to the call as well, as “she,” Gifford told her there was “a little bit of a problem” because “we do not hold same-sex marriages here at the barn.”

When Melissa challenged the legality of Liberty Ridge’s policy, Gifford responded, “We are a private business.” Pressed to explain why the venue had the policy, Gifford responded, “It’s a decision that my husband and I have made that that’s not what we wanted to have on the farm.” Answering the couple’s discrimination claim, the Giffords contended they have a “specific religious belief regarding marriage.”

The attorney for Liberty Ridge says that he was surprised that the venue did not get an exemption from state law under Hobby Lobby. An appeal is being considered.

Headline Of The Day

Details.

Roy Zimmerman - SCROTUS

Satirist songwriter Roy Zimmerman is back with a take on the Hobby Lobby ruling. Longtime JMG readers might fondly recall Zimmerman's Ted Haggard Is Completely Heterosexual and Defenders Of Marriage.

LCR: We Still Back ENDA

"Nothing has changed at Log Cabin Republicans regarding our calculus. We continue to support ENDA as it is now, as we always have. A lot of these organizations on the left withdrawing their support are ignorant of the political reality in Washington that led to bi-partisan support of ENDA in the Senate in the first place. It’s puzzling, really — it’s like we scored the touchdown with the Senate passage of ENDA, and right as we’re about to kick the field goal in the House the left decides to move the goal posts. Histrionics about the Hobby Lobby decision didn’t help, and a misinformation campaign about the religious exemption in ENDA hasn’t either. ENDA isn’t perfect, but no one ever said it was the end-game, and in politics you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. From a lobbying standpoint, I think this could potentially help ENDA in the House, because it underscores what has long been a lobbying strategy we have employed: this bill is going to pass sooner or later, and Republicans who care about religious liberty and equality would do well to prioritize its passage in this congress." Gregory T. Angelo, head of the Log Cabin Republicans, speaking to MetroWeekly.

Editorial Of The Day

From the editorial board of the New York TImes:

President Obama should resist a pressure campaign by some religious groups to weaken a promised executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against gay men, lesbians and transgender people in their hiring practices.

Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s addlebrained Hobby Lobby decision, several groups wrote to Mr. Obama on July 1 asking him to allow federal contractors to fire or refuse to hire workers based on their religious objections to a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

This is not a question of religious freedom. It is a question of whether to allow religion to be used as an excuse to discriminate in employment against a particular group of people. Many states already have laws protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender workers. There is no such federal law, so the presidential order (promised but not yet produced) would extend those rules to companies that receive federal contracts in states without those kinds of anti-bias laws, protecting millions more people.

Mr. Obama’s resolve is being tested. There is no good reason to give religious employers a special privilege to inflict undeserved pain by, for example, refusing to hire someone to work on a government-backed project just because she happens to be a lesbian, or firing a capable employee who marries someone of the same sex.

(Tipped by JMG reader Win)

Make Your Own Hobby Lobby IUD

"And now we can decorate it!"

(Tipped by JMG reader Brian)

Quote Of The Day - Matt Foreman

"Hobby Lobby dramatically escalates the harm that will be caused if President Obama succumbs to growing pressure from religious and anti-gay forces and (with implicit or explicit approval from HRC) puts an ENDA-like religious exemption in the promised Executive Order (EO) to prohibit anti-LGBT discrimination by federal contractors. While largely under the radar, this is, in fact, a crisis situation.

"Such an exemption would have been bad enough before Hobby Lobby, but the decision makes it even more deadly. The Hobby Lobby majority said the decision shouldn't be read to undermine employment nondiscrimination laws. BUT if the EO contains the ENDA exemption, there's nothing to stop the reasoning in Hobby Lobby from having full force and effect in justifying anti-LGBT discrimination by federal contractors - pushing the door even more widely open for discrimination against our people for essentially any reason whatsoever.

"The only acceptable religious exemption is the one long-contained in Title VII. Anything else can spell disaster for years to come, including profoundly weakening the impact of future federal nondiscrimination laws and our hopes to secure meaningful civil rights protections in the 29 states that still lack them. There is no moral or political justification for President Obama to cave and endorse LGBT people having less protections from discrimination than other Americans. This issue is not a side show; it is core to our equality." - Former National Gay & Lesbian Task Force executive director Matt Foreman, via email.

In Today's New York Times

The Freedom From Religion Foundation published the above message in a full-page New York Times ad today. Full-screen version here.

Hobby Lobby Fallout: Religious Groups Demand Exemptions From Obama's Coming Executive Order On Employment

We all saw THIS coming. Via the Atlantic:

A group of faith leaders is urging the Obama administration to include a religious exemption in a forthcoming LGBT anti-discrimination action. Their call, in a letter sent to the White House Tuesday, attempts to capitalize on the Supreme Court case by arguing that it shows the administration must show more deference to the prerogatives of religion. "We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need," the letter states.

The Hobby Lobby decision has been welcomed by religious-right groups who accuse Obama of waging a war on religion. But Tuesday's letter is different: It comes from as group of faith leaders who are generally friendly to the administration, many of whom have closely advised the White House on issues like immigration reform. The letter was organized by Michael Wear, who worked in the Obama White House and directed faith outreach for the president's 2012 campaign. Signers include two members of Catholics for Obama and three former members of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

"This is not an antagonistic letter by any means," Wear told me. But in the wake of Hobby Lobby, he said, "the administration does have a decision to make whether they want to recalibrate their approach to some of these issues." [snip] To these religious leaders, Hobby Lobby ought to prompt the White House to reexamine the way it weights religious rights against other priorities. Liberals opposed to the decision, on the other hand, argue it creates a slippery slope to more and more carve-outs from important legislation for claims based on faith. This executive order could be the next battleground for those competing points of view.

We still don't even know the actual wording of the executive order. By the way, among those "general friendly" faith leaders that signed the letter are Father Larry Snyder, the CEO of Catholic Charities, and Stephen Schneck, the head of the Institute for Religion & Democracy, which in March viciously denounced the United Methodists for refusing to ostracize clergy that conducted same-sex marriages.  Just a couple of weeks ago Schneck's group declared that the Presbyterian Church had sealed its doom by allowing pastors to conduct gay marriages. These guys are "generally friendly"?

We cannot allow another ENDA-sized loophole in this executive order or it will be useless.

Read the full letter.

George Takei: Boycott Hobby Lobby

"In this case, the owners happen to be deeply Christian; one wonders whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees. As many have pointed out, Hobby Lobby is the same company that invests in Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals, makers of abortion inducing-drugs and the morning after pill. It also buys most of its inventory from China, where forced abortions are common. The hypocrisy is galling.

"Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that. Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on 'sincerely held religious beliefs' there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.

"While we work to overturn this decision by legislation, people of good conscious should BOYCOTT any for-profit business, including Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees. The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts–in their pocketbooks. I won’t be shopping there, and women everywhere should exercise their right of protest and refuse to shop there as well." - George Takei, writing on his personal blog.

Betty Bowers On Hobby Lobby

The Ginsburg Hobby Lobby Dissent Song

Via Mediaite:

Here’s something you don’t see every day: a Supreme Court justice’s dissent on a major ruling was turned into a weird, lyrically awkward ballad. Well, songwriter Jonathan Mann, who’s been writing a song a day for hundreds of days now, took Ginsburg’s words and set them to music. Ginsburg issued a dissent railing against the “decision of startling breadth”, writing, “The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention.” Obviously ripe for a song.

I've featured Mann's songs several times here in the past. You might recall his touching tribute to late JMG reader Beeblemeyer.

Jindal Jabs Obama Over Hobby Lobby

Abortion Foes Celebrate SCOTUS Ruling

Civil Rights & LGBT Groups Denounce Hobby Lobby Ruling By Supreme Court

The Center For Inquiry

Today the Court made clear it does not view Americans’ access to medically necessary health care as a compelling government interest, and announced loud and clear that the religious preferences of employers take preference over the health needs of workers. In making its decision, the Supreme Court also made a determination that will cause significant confusion in church-state litigation for years to come. The majority held that small, closely held, for-profit private corporations have standing to sue under RFRA – in other words, that such corporations have the religious beliefs of their owners, and the same right to free exercise as their owners. “The potential effects of this decision are absolutely chilling, setting a precedent that is sure to reverberate far beyond the issue of contraceptive coverage,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, President and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. “This is not a decision that advances religious freedom – it is a decision that enshrines religious privilege over and above employee well-being,” added Lindsay. “This decision defies common sense, lacks compassion, and has the potential to harm us all.”

Human Rights Campaign

“Religious groups have a long-established first amendment ability to operate according to their own beliefs,” said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Legal Director Sarah Warbelow. “Instead of protecting religious liberty, this ruling gives license for businesses to use their personal beliefs as a reason to deny people access to basic, yet crucial medical services.” HRC remains hopeful that the Court’s limitation in this case will be extended to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. We will remain vigilant in the event business owners attempt to use this decision to justify other forms of discrimination, including against LGBT people. In the immediate aftermath, some members of the LGBT community will feel the effects of this decision; countless lesbian and bisexual women as well as some transgender men rely on contraception. HRC will continue to work closely with our partners in the women’s and reproductive health movements, as well as other LGBT groups, as this issue continues to be debated.

National Gay & Lesbian Task Force

This is a dangerous precedent from the Court -- which could leave women in limbo for their basic health care. Under the ruling, some corporations will be treated like religious institutions and these so-called 'religious corporations' will not have to pay for health care that they disagree with. So what happens if a woman needs birth control and their employers won't pay? What happens if a trans woman needs hormones and their bosses won't pay? What happens if a couple needs fertility treatments and the 'religious corporation' they work for won't pay? Yet again, another barrier put in the way of vital and affordable health care.

NARAL Pro-Choice America

Today's decision from five male justices is a direct attack on women and our fundamental rights. This ruling goes out of its way to declare that discrimination against women isn't discrimination.

 Allowing bosses this much control over the health-care decisions of their employees is a slippery slope with no end. Every American could potentially be affected by this far-reaching and shocking decision that allows bosses to reach beyond the boardroom and into their employees' bedrooms. The majority claims that its ruling is limited, but that logic doesn't hold up. Today it's birth control; tomorrow it could be any personal medical decision, from starting a family to getting life-saving vaccinations or blood transfusions. 

Ninety-nine percent of women use birth control at some point in our lives, and none of those stories made it into the arguments. It's outrageous that these five male justices chose to single out birth control for special discrimination.

 NARAL’s message has always been clear: bosses who want control over their employees' personal medical decisions are offensive, out of touch, and out of bounds, and so is this ruling. We call upon Congress to right this wrong, and we will work tirelessly with our allies and member activists to make sure that the people who would stand between a woman and her doctor are held accountable.

Lambda Legal

Today’s majority ruling disregards decades of case law that drew a protective line between free religious expression and religious dominance of others. It is a radically dangerous decision that invites more misguided actions contrary to essential protections for employees, customers and the public. It is imperative that the U.S. Congress amend the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act to withdraw the blessing the Court mistakenly has given these companies to impose their beliefs on working women. Today’s ruling is about the ACA and women’s reproductive health and rights, but some may mistake this narrow ruling as a wide open door for religious liberty exemptions from other statutes that protect employees and the public. Today’s opinion says doing so would be incorrect. However, recent mistreatment of LGBT people in employment and other commercial settings still makes this extremely troubling. A business owner’s religious objection to a worker’s same-sex spouse or a customer’s LGBT identity is not acceptable grounds for discrimination. It is more important than ever that states and Congress enact strong, clear nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people.

National Center for Lesbian Rights

The majority’s holding that closely held corporations can claim religious liberty protections designed for individuals—and can rely on those protections to avoid complying with generally applicable laws—is a dangerous and radical departure from existing law that creates far more questions than it answers and shows a callous disregard for the health care needs of women workers. Thankfully, however, the majority recognized that even under its sweeping new rule, corporations cannot rely on claims of religious liberty to evade non-discrimination laws. That limitation is extremely important and means that employers cannot exploit today’s decision to justify non-compliance with laws that prohibit discrimination against LGBT people and other vulnerable groups, but we will need to be vigilant to make sure that principle is respected and enforced.

Matt Barber Predicts...

"The implications of this victory for freedom cannot be overemphasized as the decision holds essentially that First Amendment religious liberties are applicable to corporations. It protects those with pro-life views from being forced by the government to be complicit in (pay for or provide) abortion homicide procedures, whether chemical or surgical. There will be much analysis to follow and it remains unclear, but this bodes somewhat well for religious liberty in the context of how Christian business owners who sincerely hold to the biblical view of sexual morality may (or may not) 'associate' with others who are engaged in the counter-biblical 'LGBT' lifestyle or other forms of sexual immorality." - Hate group leader Matt Barber, writing for his website.

Hobby Lobby Owners Celebrate

RNC Vs DNC On Hobby Lobby

Perkins Cheers Hobby Lobby Ruling

"The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation. We are thankful the Supreme Court agreed that the government went too far by mandating that family businesses owners must violate their consciences under threat of crippling fines.  All Americans can be thankful that the Court reaffirmed that freedom of conscience is a long-held American tradition and that the government cannot impose a law on American men and women that forces them to violate their beliefs in order to hold a job, own a business, or purchase health insurance." - Hate group leader Tony Perkins, via press release.