"no one is talking about discrimination against gay and lesbian people as such"
That assertion is simply incorrect. In opposing ENDA, the Family Research Council complained that, under it, "[y]ou can’t decline to hire a homosexual for religious reasons." Similarly, in opposing the recent Utah legislation, the FRC objected that it "leaves profit-making businesses ... vulnerable to being forced to hire homosexual and transgender persons." Last I checked, FRC was still a pretty major player in conservative circles. Among other things, it sponsors the annual Values Voter summit that routinely draws leading Republican presidential candidates (Mitt Romney, among others, attended in both 2011 and 2012). I would have expected Ryan to be familiar with FRC's position given that he has appeared on its radio program at least twice in recent years, including one appearance that was all about opposing ENDA. And it's not just FRC that frames the discussion in terms of opposition to gay rights in general, not just same-sex marriage. The sponsor of a recent RFRA bill in Oklahoma proudly states on the front page of his website that "homosexuals do not have the right to be served in every store." And as I mentioned in my earlier message, the sponsor of the failed Arizona RFRA amendment indicated that hotel owners might be allowed to refuse to rent rooms to same-sex couples. This is not just about marriage. Rather, for many opponents of same-sex marriage, that opposition is part of a larger fight against what FRC President Tony Perkins has decried as the normalization of homosexuality. - Jim On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Ryan T. Anderson < ryantimothyander...@gmail.com> wrote: > What you call "discriminate" I call freedom to operate in public square in > accordance with well-founded beliefs about marriage. As Doug pointed out, > no one is talking about discrimination against gay and lesbian people as > such. No religion teaches that, and no case is about a blanket policy of > refusing to serve gays and lesbians. The religious liberty concerns are > about helping to celebrating a same-sex wedding. The candor that is truly > remarkable is that you think it an appropriate use of government coercion > to force a 70 year old florist to do this. Here I thought you embraced > liberty for all. > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Greg Lipper <lip...@au.org> wrote: > >> Ryan’s candor is refreshing: he very much wants businesses to be able >> to discriminate against same-sex couples, and he thinks that state RFRAs >> are important to that goal. That’s precisely why sports leagues, >> pharmaceutical companies, technology companies, and even certain houses of >> worship are reacting so strongly to the Indiana RFRA. >> >>
_______________________________________________ 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.
