|
Ed, we are largely together here. We
need to understand, however, what “within the confines of those
organizations” means. But that, in turn, invites an inquiry more
generally into the reach or ambit of religious associational autonomy and privacy.
The difficulty largely concerns activities conducted by religious organizations
that, to use Noonan and Gaffney’s felicitous term, do double duty, that
is, serve both religious and secular purposes. The Court has indicated
some unwillingness, at least in Title VII cases, to probe too deeply into the boundary,
if any, that might exist between the religious and the secular. See
Amos. But it would be difficult to argue that the courts should never
consider the boundary question, regardless of circumstances. It would be fair to consider, given the
history of oppression, whether a claim that an activity is “religious”
might merely in reality be a sham, a cover for continued oppression.
Oppression should never qualify as “religious.” We won’t get neat and tidy results,
using such and approach, but we stand a good chance of getting fair and
defensible results if we do. From: Ed Brayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Newsom Michael wrote: While I agree with this, I don't think it really cuts
against Doug's argument. And I say this as a very vocal proponent of gay
rights. I absolutely agree that gay people have lived under an oppressive
system for far too long and I strongly support gay marriage, gay adoptions and
a myriad of other correctives. But I don't think that gay liberation requires
forcing churches and religious organizations to change either their personal
beliefs or their actions *within the confines of those organizations*. In fact,
I think it is dangerous for gay rights proponents to push for policies that
would place such a requirement because it undermines our own arguments in favor
of self-determination and freedom of association. It's not just a bad idea as a
practical matter, it's unprincipled as well. We certainly want to prevent such
people from imposing their beliefs on the private behavior of gays (and the
rest of us, in a wide range of other ways as well); but we undermine our
principled position if we then seek to have government impose restrictions on
their private behavior (as opposed to the laws they advocate). |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
