Carlos A. Ball: Why the Claim of Religious Discrimination is the Next Big Battle in LGBT Rights

h/t Johanna.

Carlos A. Ball: Why the Claim of Religious Discrimination is the Next Big Battle in LGBT Rights:

We have to be careful, however, before we allow religious objections to serve as a shield against the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. Groups should be free to hold whatever religious or moral views they prefer. But when an organization (such as in the New Mexico case) offers services or goods to the public, it should have to abide by anti-discrimination rules. And when an organization seeks public subsidies (as in the California case), it should also have to abide by anti-discrimination laws.

In fact, if we replace "sexual orientation" with "race" in these cases, their outcomes would become obvious to almost everyone. If a photography business refused to provide services to African Americans customers due to religious objections, almost no one would argue that it should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. Similarly, if a law student organization refused to admit blacks or Asians on religious principles, few would argue that it should nonetheless be entitled to public funding. And if the racist student organization sued and lost, the Supreme Court would not agree to hear the case.

The truth is that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, especially when it is religiously motivated, still retains a disturbing level of legitimacy in our society. As the Supreme Court justices prepare themselves to hear the Christian law students' case, they should remember that only a few decades ago, laws prohibiting interracial marriages were regularly defended on religious grounds. In striking down anti-miscegenation statutes forty years ago, the Court made clear that religious objections cannot stand in the way of enforcing equality principles in the public sphere.