Dear Mormons: Thanks But No Thanks
Yesterday's
announcement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the
Mormons) that they now support anti-discrimination legislation in
housing, employment and public accommodation makes absolutely no sense.
Anti-discrimination
bills, as the adjective would suggest, are meant to protect those named
from being discriminated against. The Mormons' "new" stance merely
proclaims that they now favor bills which would bar discrimination
against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, as long as
those who discriminate against them are given protection for doing so.
Such a twisted and distorted approach stretches both the language and
the substance of such legislation into an unrecognizable shape and takes
us into the realm of the absurd.
LGBT
people do not need protection from those who would not discriminate
anyway, but rather from those who would. It doesn't matter where the
discrimination comes from, or why, but rather such legislation says that
citizens of this country shall not be discriminated against in housing,
employment and public accommodations because of their sexual
orientation or gender identity. It says that a gay couple who gets
married on Sunday should not be fired from their jobs on Monday
for doing so, nor should that same couple be refused their honeymoon
hotel room because they are of the same gender. It means that if a
medical facility offers the public service of artificial insemination,
it should offer it to anyone who walks in desiring that service, not
just heterosexuals. It means that pharmacists have to fill a
prescription for HIV retroviral drugs whether or not they approve of the
sexual orientation of the person needing them.
For
a moment, let's contemplate the embarrassing spectacle of religious
people and groups advocating for their right to discriminate. Couched in
so-called "religious liberty" language, let's call these efforts what
they really are: a license to discriminate. The Mormons' support for
anti-discrimination is laudable, until you get to the part that begins
with "except." It would be unlawful to discriminate, their support says,
unless that discrimination comes from one's religious beliefs.
Presumably, a restaurant waiter need not serve two men or two women who
are quietly holding hands at their table, if the waiter objects to their
"lifestyle." Also, presumably, one need not serve an African-American
couple at that same restaurant if one's religion says that black people
are an inferior race and should not mingle with whites. Or a Jewish
couple who is not served by a waiter whose religion teaches her that
Jews are not only eternally damned, but are "Christ-killers" to boot!
For
a moment, let's pretend to be sympathetic to the notion that religious
people should not be compelled to offer public accommodation to those
who engage in behavior considered sinful according to the religious
beliefs of the owner/proprietor. I think one could support such a notion
if indeed it were applied consistently to everyone. Let's not offer
services to anyone who does not contribute the Biblical tithe (10%) of
one's income to God's work in the Church and elsewhere. (Yes, there are
people who follow this Biblical guideline - principal among them,
Mormons!) Prior to offering a room at a hotel or taking a lunch order,
patrons would be asked for proof that they indeed have contributed that
10% of their income to charity. Jesus is silent on the issue of
homosexuality, but speaks often, and vigorously, about greed,
possessions and the corrupting influence of money. Why serve anyone
wearing expensive clothes or seeking to dine at an outrageously
expensive restaurant, without proof that they are contributing
financially to the eradication of poverty, as the Bible prescribes? Why
serve food to someone grossly overweight who obviously hasn't gotten the
message about the sin of gluttony? Why not check patrons for spousal
abuse, foul and profane language, or number of speeding tickets before
offering service?
No,
the Mormons and other religious people who object to LGBT
anti-discrimination laws aren't really looking to discriminate against
sin and those who voluntarily participate in it. Why? Because they would
be unable to offer public services and accommodation to anyone, given
that we are all sinners. Such anti-discrimination legislation now
supported by the Mormon Church is concerned with one "sin" and one sin
only, as a basis for the denial of services. I see no evidence in
Scripture that the "sin" of homosexual behavior is greater or more
serious than all the other sins and those who practice it are to be
shunned above all others. This exception to following
anti-discrimination laws doesn't even make sense on its own religious
terms!
Many
were quick to hail this announcement by the Mormons as a step forward.
And I suppose it is, if dropping their opposition to LGBT protections in
Utah and elsewhere means that these protections might become law. But
if the religious exemption is allowed in such legislation, then the
Mormons' support is truly a wolf in sheep's clothing. It looks to be a
softening of their opposition to anti-discrimination laws, while at the
same time exempting those who are most likely to perpetrate that
discrimination and are the very people from whom that protection is
needed. Those who support such a religious exemption to
anti-discrimination legislation are trying to sound kind, while clinging
to their right to be mean. I, for one, am not buying it!
The
Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American
Progress, Washington, DC, and the retired IX Episcopal Bishop of New
Hampshire. Follow him on Twitter @BishopGRobinson.
No comments:
Post a Comment