This is a question which is not easy to answer. But there have been a lot of people on both sides of the argument answering a question that we do not know today. It will take the courts years to decide where the line between religious liberty and marriage equality should be drawn. But I have done a lot of research on the subject from legal minds far superior to my own. Here is where I now think the answers lie.
1. Now that same sex marriage is legal, will polygamy be next?
The answer is unclear at this point. But let me give an argument against it. Same sex marriage was about marriage equality. Nothing will make a marriage more unequal than polygamy. If a man is allowed to have more than one wife, it tips the scale in favor of the man. It increases sexual access and opportunity for the male, but reduces it for the females involved. If a woman is allowed to have more than one husband, then the opposite is true. It increases sexual opportunity for the female and decreases it for the males. A similar argument can be made if groups of females or groups of males are allowed to marry. There is always bound to be someone left out. Also, allowing a female to have more than one husband may make it more difficult to identify the paternity of a child. (Not that marriage equality is concerned about children,) Polygamy and sexual equality are not good partners.
Although a lot of marriage and family experts believe that it is only a matter of time before polygamy is legal because of same sex marriage, there are still good arguments against it.
2. Now that same sex marriage is legal, why should we even have marriage licenses?
People have argued that marriage is a right, and I have been one to believe that you can't license a right. But there are still good reasons for a marriage license. Without a marriage license, couples who are married in the eyes of the church are just cohabiting in the eyes of the law. And if a couple is merely cohabiting, it weakens the remedies for domestic violence and other family crimes. If you take away marriage licenses, then you have to re-write all sorts of laws.
This may be something that needs to happen, eventually, but it may not be time for that, just yet.
3. Now that same sex marriage is legal, churches that continue to preach against homosexual relationships should lose their tax-exempt status.
Doctors are allowed to opt out of abortions if it goes against their religious convictions, even if the facilities that employ them are federally funded. Hospitals can even refuse to perform abortions and not risk their federal funding. It is likely that this kind of precedent will, at least for the next several decades, protect churches and pastors from having to perform same-sex marriages. Even if churches are forced to pay taxes, many will pay the tax rather than go against something that is against their beliefs. There are now several churches, including the Episcopal Church, that will perform same-sex marriages, it is unlikely that the courts will be able to force churches to change their dogmas.
Hopefully, churches and same-sex couples will simply learn to agree to disagree on this one.
4. If a run a wedding-related business, will I be forced to serve same-sex couples?
The line of public accommodation isn't clear at this point. It is true that there have been cases where bakers and photographers who have refused to accommodate same-sex couples have been forced to pay large fines. But business law is complicated. It is very likely that if this trend continues, that everyone who has a religious conviction against homosexuality may avoid entering wedding-related businesses. If that does happen, you may see these services unavailable in some cities. The courts will eventually take all of this into consideration and eventually common-sense will win out.
But for the couple in Oregon, the case that has become so well-known, recently. I think they had a poor defense. If it were me defending their case, and I am NOT a lawyer, I would have argued that my business was targeted because of my religious beliefs. I would have argued that therefore, they, the plaintiffs, were guilty of religious discrimination against me. I would have turned the tables on them. If you really don't want to accommodate a gay wedding, be prepared to play hard-ball. Hit back as hard as they hit you. It is likely your only defense.
I would also add, as a Latter-Day Saint who has lived outside of Utah, that religious discrimination has been alive and well for a long time. In some towns where I have lived, I would have had a difficult time finding a photographer, a caterer, a baker or any other wedding service provider to accommodate my LDS Temple wedding. This is because Mormons aren't held in high regard in much of the Christian community. I wounder if a Baptist has a hard time planning a wedding in Provo? I suspect non-Mormons in Utah have experienced this difficulty as well.
In my legal mind, and I speak as someone who has had only two semesters of business law, I can think of only two defenses for the wedding cake couple in Oregon. First, by serving a same-sex couple, my reputation would have been irrecoverably damaged in the community that I serve that I would have lost my customer base, and eventually my business. Even if it is the case, I doubt it could be proved in court. Another possible defense is that even if the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, that there is no possible remedy. That the actions of the court to punish the bakers would not have served as enough of an example to the rest of the Christian community to change their minds. I suspect that if you look hard enough, you can find a Christian photographer, or baker, or seamstress that will accommodate a same-sex couple. I would not have used either of these defenses.
Therefore, I would advise people in the wedding industry to consider carefully who they serve. It is not true that you can turn away potential customer for any reason. If you are religious, I would ask you to consider making who you accommodate a matter of sincere prayer. And I would encourage you not to turn away anyone without cause.
Outside of the wedding industry, if you business is large enough that you must get a business license from your city, then you must accommodate. There is no excuse for you, no matter how uncomfortable you are with the prospect.
I would believe, however, that the same exceptions (The Mother Murphy exceptions) that apply in race and gender accommodations, should apply in regards to accommodating gay persons. For those of you not familiar with these exceptions, if means that if Mother Murphy is renting out rooms in her house to supplement her meager, fixed income, she should only be required to rent to those with whom she feels comfortable in serving.
One more suggestion that I have. If you are in the commercial real-estate business, I would consider putting in single-commode bathrooms in future buildings instead of the traditional male/female bathrooms. This means that you have several private bathrooms together where you have a commode and a sink inside. It is really not much more expensive and will save you for transgender lawsuits later.
That is all that I have to write about this topic now, but if you have more questions that I could research, I would be happy to do so for you. Please leave a comment.
In conclusion. I do not agree with those who feel our religious liberties are in danger or that our constitution is hanging by a thread. But if we over-react, we will get there sooner than we think. I believe that we can learn to live together, and that people faith really have nothing to fear from the LGBT community.
Posts
