Civil rights or religious liberty — What’s on top?

[rug]

By Joe Davidson | September 9 at 7:00 AM

Jumping into the fray over civil liberties vs. religious freedom, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission issued a report Wednesday that is sure to anger conservatives with this central finding:

“Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon these civil rights,”

the report said.

The chairman of the commission, Martin R. Castro, went to the hot spot of the debate with a separate statement in the report that uncloaks what often, but certainly not always, lurks behind protestations about freedom of religion.

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,”

Castro wrote.

Castro headed his statement with a quote attributed to John Adams: “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” That language comes from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by Adams in 1797.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/09/commission-says-religious-liberty-should-not-top-civil-rights/

PDF of the 300 page report:

https://securisync.intermedia.net/web/#/s/file?public_share=0Nv7dtHYDIwpoLI4da77wl

[tymorial]

1. Okay, I totally understand that a store owner should not be allowed to hide bigotry behind religion

What about a scenario where both the religious and a person's civil Liberty cause both parties to be disenfranchised? This is a theoretical question ( because I don't believe it will ever happen) what is the answer when clergy is ask to perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple? I am not advocating here. This is purely for discussion

[rug]

2. AFAIK, no statute or regulation has been proposed requiring anyone to perform a same sex marriage.

There has been and will be a lot of litigation around where these two positions intersect.

The rule of thumb emerging appears to be that while you cannot be forced to do anything, neither can you withhold services because of belief. Active versus passive.

Courts will earn their money on this one.