Not to keep beating a dead horse, but we really do accomplish a lot by analogizing gay and lesbian autonomy rights and religious liberty autonomy rights. As Chip suggests below, under this analogy you would exempt religious organizations from applicable anti-discrimination laws -- as was done in Title VII. Also, you ground each group's respect for the other group's autonomy on a strong foundation. If religious liberty means anything it means the freedom to be different -- to hold beliefs and engage in practices that other faiths may consider to be sinful. Legally protecting the autonomy of non-monotheistic faiths doesn't mean that monotheistic faiths accept or approve of the those beliefs. It means that our society respects the right to be different with regards to how each of us answers basic and very important questions about G-d, the meaning of life, and worship obligations and practices. Extending that principle to the right to be different in the way that each of us lov! es the person we want to share our lives with shouldn't be that large a leap.
Alan Brownstein -----Original Message----- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira (Chip) Lupu Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:31 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Same-sex marriage and religious exemptions Doug writes: "On the gay rights issues, religious conservatives are pretty much getting exemptions only within the church itself -- not even their affiliated religious organizations -- which is to say, they are getting only those exemptions that no sensible person on the gay rights side actually opposes." >From everything I have heard, no version of ENDA (the bill that would extend >Title VII to discrimination based on sexual orientation) can possibly pass >unless it includes the same exemption for religious organizations (not just >"houses of worship") as the current Title VII exemption for such organizations >to engage in religious selectivity. If that is right, such an exemption will >include a broad range of religiously affiliated entities (i.e., schools, >charities, etc, organized for religious purposes). So Doug's "pretty much" in >the first sentence above may be obscuring some very important matters. _______________________________________________ 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.
