Posted on 11/27/2013 12:03:48 PM PST by Impala64ssa
Andrew Koppelman, a long time supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, argued that those who disagree with him should have the freedom to live according to those beliefs.
"I've worked very hard to create a regime in which it is safe to be gay. I would also like that regime to be one in which it is safe to be a religious dissenter," Koppelman said to the applause of a group of mostly conservative lawyers.
Koppelman, professor of law and political science at Northwestern University School of Law, was speaking on a panel, "Religious Liberty & Conflicting Moral Visions," at The Federalist Society's "2013 National Lawyers Convention."
After the applause, the audience laughed as Koppelman joked, "The Federalist Society applauding me?"
Koppelman, author of Defending American Religious Neutrality, was speaking more specifically about the case of Elane Photography. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently ruled that Elane Photography violated an anti-discrimination law when it refused to provide services for a gay wedding because doing so would conflict with their religious beliefs. Koppelman disagreed with that decision.
"The strongest argument for accommodation [of Elane Photography's religious objections] here is a pretty simple one: there are lots of other wedding photographers," Koppelman argued.
When he makes this argument to audiences that agree with him about same-sex marriage, Koppelman explained, those who disagree argue that to allow religious accommodations would lead to a large amount of discrimination against gays. This view is shared by many gays, he believes, because of the "open, unapologetic, hateful, sometimes violent" discrimination experienced by gays.
Koppelman also believes that many gays wrongly associate religion with "irrational hatred," and if you believe that, "you're not inclined to accommodate" religion.
Koppelman reminded, though, that many liberal political movements have been influenced by religion.
"The association of religion with political conservatism is a recent development. The social gospel movement of the late 19th century, the role of Catholics in the New Deal, the role of religious groups in resistance to the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement – everything the American Left has ever accomplished in American politics, it has done by alignment with the religious," he said.
Koppelman was joined on the panel by Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and co-author of What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.
George argued that while there are some people like Koppelman among American liberals, it was never the case that liberals would allow accommodations for religious dissenters. During the debates over redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, liberals claimed that allowing same-sex couples to marry would have no effect on those who disagreed, George reminded. When George argued that was not true, he was accused of "scare-mongering" and "invalid slippery-slope reasoning."
Recent events, though, have demonstrated that George's warnings were valid. He pointed this out by saying: "No one, they assured us, would require Christian foster care and adoption services from placing children in same-sex households. No one would require religiously affiliated schools and social service agencies to treat same-sex partners as a spouse or impose penalties or disabilities on those that dissent. No one would be fired from his or her job or suffer employment discrimination for voicing support for conjugal marriage or criticizing same-sex sexual conduct and relationships. No business owners would be required to provide services for same-sex ceremonies that were contrary to the business owners moral beliefs, or punish if he or she declined to provide them. No one was proposing to recognize polyamorous relationships or normalize open marriages nor would redefinition undermine the norm of exclusivity and monogamy in theory and practice.
"That was then, this is now. I must say, though, that I still can't fathom why anybody believed any of it, even now."
The reason, George explained, that he knew liberals would not support the accommodation of those who disagree with them about the definition of marriage, is that "liberal secularism never was, and never will be, and never could be, ... a purely political doctrine." Rather, it is a "comprehensive view" of human nature.
Liberals like Koppelman will continue to present an argument for accommodating those who disagree with them, George believes, but "they will lose the battle in the end."
Robert George is right, they won’t let it go. But it’s refreshing every now and then to see a raving liberal, especially a gay one, who just shrugs and says, “hey, would you want them to be doing your gay wedding anyway?”
But the left wants no refusals, even if the flowers wilt as the “grooms” walk down the aisle and the cake turns out to be hard as a rock. Why would people even want an event catered by somebody who doesn’t want to do it?
Finally, a voice of reason about an unreasonable (or unlogical) topic. If this group wants equal treatment that means an equal chance of not always getting things done your way.
Homosexual “marriage” law is all about forcing the citizens to service and support homosexual behavior. Period.
Why does it have to be “religious dissenters” why can’t it be anyone who disagrees and disapproves their lifestyle?
There may be a few “gay activists” that actually think they’re working for equality instead of working to destroy the Christian influence in our society.
And it should be that way for both sides.
Soon our side is just going to sidestep the issue of state license and blessing by creating contracts of union.
Further, the more they force themselves on us they run the risk of being viewed as thugs using the state as their proxy to force us to act against our conscience and becoming objected as mere sexual creature primarily, rather than some with a first name who is interesting .
They are becoming someone the person no one wants to be around for their obnoxiousness.
Although the article doesn't indicate a constitutional basis as to why Koppleman disagreed with NM Supreme Court decision, here is my take on why the NMSC decision was unconstitutional.
The pro-gay activist justices of the NM Supreme Court wrongly ignored that, while the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect religious expresion as evidenced by the 1st Amendment, the states have never amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights. So NM Supreme Court is in violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, imo, because they interpreted a NM law in a way that abridged the constitutional protection of a citizen which that amendment prohibits the states from doing.
I understand that NMSC justices hid behind the PC, pro-gay interpretation of the Equal Protections Clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to justify their outcome-driven decision. And if such is the case, the problem with doing so is the following. The USSC had previously clarified in Minor v. Happersett (Wikipedia) that the 14th Amendment added no new personal protections to the Constitution but strengthened existing protections.
"3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had (emphasis added)." --Minor v. Happersett, 1984.
So since gay rights weren't constitutionally protected before the 14th Amendment was ratified, they aren't protected by the 14th Amendment now.
In fact, similarly as with constitutionally unprotect gay "rights," Virginia Minor had lost her case before the USSC, the Court not buying Minor's argument that the 14th Amendment prohibited the states from discriminating on the basis of sex concerning voting rights.
Love and force do not mix..
I thought client based jobs like photographers/painters were allowed to refuse work. Why couldn’t the photographer have an interview and say “I don’t think “we have the same artistic vision” and use that as an excuse to turn them down? It doesn’t seem logical that a gay couple would even want some photographer who isn’t enthusiastic about the job. Photographs are a one of a kind product. you want them to be top notch.
It puzzles me that gays want to participate in the Christian institution of marriage
And at the same time want to have hissy fits about Christian businesses who do not wan to service their weddings.
So, which is it, do they want to support Christianity, i.e., the institution of marriage, or do they want to tear down Christianity with their plaints?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.