Evangelical Experiences Non-Discriminatory Society As Persecutory
So let's codify sexual orientation discrimination back into law?
Welcome to Recasting Religious Trauma! Sometimes the news cycle is such that I just can’t not write about it, and this is one of those weeks. What will the Supreme Court do next???
The Supreme Court is deciding the 303 Creative LLC vs Elenis case this week. In this case, the website designer of the 303 Collective, Lorie Smith, wants to put a statement on her website for her web design services that she will not do websites for same-sex couples or any marriage not between a man and a woman. She has not been asked by any such couple to design their website - I guess she’s just trying to get out in front of the “problem.” So, she sued the state. Because the actual problem for her in this situation is that Colorado has an Anti Discrimination Act that state officials are trying to enforce, and now this case has made its way all the way to SCOTUS. Where, of course, it will be decided by justices who sit with a 6-3 swing towards very conservative justices.
describes the case as such:
This case, like Moore v. Harper, isn’t really a case either — but for different reasons. Here, the plaintiff, Lorie Smith, hasn’t started making wedding sites, let alone denied a same-sex couple her wedding website services, let alone faced legal consequences from Colorado because of it. And yet, here we are.
Oof. I have some thoughts.
First is just the general pattern of certain Christians to read some kind of persecution / discrimination / unfairness when expected to do things that involve, well, not discriminating against people. (At least not openly discriminating, as in flagrantly challenging the law). And some churches and religious institutions would like to keep their tax-exempt status while discriminating in their preferred ways.
The fact that SCOTUS is even taking up the case is mind-boggling in itself, given that this woman hasn’t even had her religious “freedoms” tested by being requested by a gay couple to do her website. But as I said previously… certain Christians perceive other people’s rights to live in a free, fair, and non-discriminatory society as persecutory.
Second, what I fail to understand (by which I mean I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE FEAR-MONGERING SHE’S PROBABLY INDOCTRINATED WITH AND HATE IT) is why she thinks the gays are surely going to come pounding down her door demanding she design their website. Like… hey, Lorie, but there is no gay agenda, sorry. Or there is, but it’s just wanting to be treated with decency and respect. The gay couples that I know want to pick providers that actually support and care about them, not those who think they shouldn’t exist.
Besides, there’s plenty of ways to indicate your close-mindedness on your advertising. Only have sample pictures of heterosexual couples. Use lots of language about “man and woman” and “holy matrimony” and “husband and wife” and “groom and bride.” Make sure you don’t say anything about pronouns. Throw in a couple Bible verses on your website in cutesy font, maybe something from Song of Songs and the Jeremiah verse about God knowing the plans he has for you. Pretty easy: I really don’t see the problem here.
People will get it real quick, Karen. I mean Lorie.
Third is that you can technically agree to see someone but be polite about referring out. As a mental health counselor, part of my education was in ethics. We learned things like the importance of being culturally competent, and not discriminating against who we would see based on things like sex, sexual orientation, race, etc.
I know that the training for being a counselor is quite a bit different and more intense than being a web designer, but a lot of this is just asking people to be decent humans. Also, as a therapist, my job is to basically read into people’s souls and hold their stories with tenderness and care, regardless how my personal morals and ethics line up with theirs. A web designer, on the other hand, puts words and images on the internet. I suppose to make a great wedding website, you’re also holding stories with tenderness, but the actual outcome is a web page. It’s not a long term relationship.
I also don’t think that if you were the hypothetical web designer who was asked to make a web page for a gay wedding, that you would be sent to hell if you agreed to do it. The designer could even see it as a chance to share the love of Jesus with those whose “lifestyle” she disagreed with. Not that I’m condoning proselytizing, but wouldn’t it be a better witness to agree to do a service for someone than to refuse them service?
Back to therapist ethics. As I mentioned last time, I got my degree at a seminary. While seeing an LGBTQ person did not create moral conflicts for most of us, some of my classmates struggled with that, based on their religious beliefs.
“What do I do?” a classmate asked our professor. “As a Christian, I believe being in a gay relationship is a sin.”
“You cannot refuse to see them,” was the grave answer. “But, you should probably refer out.” And if I recall correctly, there may have been an additional spirit of ‘and maybe check your theology out a bit deeper’ sort of suggestion as well. (Loved that professor).
As a therapist, if I feel like someone is not a good fit for me, I can refer out. If people call me seeking substance abuse treatment or couples counseling, I’m pretty honest and tell them those aren’t things I specialize in. I can give them referrals and I can tell them what I do specialize in. But it is literally against my ethical code of conduct to do something like tell people, “sorry, I don’t see gay people.” It’s MY JOB as a therapist to make sure that if I needed to, I would be capable of providing non-biased services to that person.
Luckily for me, I love it when members of the LGBTQ community contact me. I put hints all over my profile that I am friendly to queer people and progressive people (we live in a rural area, as I regularly mention, so this is not taken for granted). And guess what? These people find me. Not because I told everyone else that I won’t see people whose beliefs differ from mine (because I cannot and should not do that!), but because I advertised appropriately and my kindred spirits picked that up.
It’s not that hard, Lorie.
Now, for a heart-warming story to end us out today: in this same small town I live in, we recently had our annual Christmas parade. One of the floats was a drag queen riding a jet ski. She looked so joyful. I wasn’t there, but I saw pictures, and it was awesome. Of course, many of the conservative people and churches in town are now up in arms that this happened, but I’m hopeful that this might open up more conversation, and maybe move this town forward a bit.
The other nice news is that the Respect for Marriage Act is about to pass now that it cleared Congress. It doesn’t do everything, but it does something to protect same-sex couples’ right to marry and be recognized on a federal level. So that’s a thing worth celebrating!
What are your thoughts on the SCOTUS case? How have you been making sense of the news lately? Or just find me in the comments with your thoughts from the week! Comments below, if you’re on a computer, or click the comment button! And if you haven’t yet - please subscribe to make sure posts land in your inbox every week!
Powerful writing ✍️! If only more fellow Christian’s paused to soak in the True Meaning of the Golden Rule and paid close attention to Jesus’ actions- Love, Love, Love, and Love.
Christine, thanks for another informative column. I didn't know the SCOTUS is considering this issue, and of course, we know already what the right-wingnuts on the court plan to do with it--find some tortured logic that allows discrimination against gay people. Thank heaven the Congress and President Biden are cutting them off at the pass on the most important issue with protection of LGBTQ marriage rights. For the record, here's the text of the Fourteenth Amendmen: "No State shall... deny to *any person* within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." No, gay people are not specifically mentioned, just as bald people or tall people or heterosexual people are not. One phrase protects everybody: "any person." Hard to see where that leaves any room at all for an argument to allow discrimination, but I'm sure a SCOTUS representing the sick and hateful minds of the American right will find one. It's disgusting and hurts the heart of anyone who has a conscience.