On June 26, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the national legalization of same-sex marriage in what is now known as Obergefell v. Hodges. This is old news, yet what many Americans are unsure of is exactly how this ruling will affect our society as a whole and particularly how this ruling will affect the religious liberty of conservative Americans. Has the ruling in favor of gay-marriage already ensured the inevitable demise of religious liberties across the nation?
So far, the largest supposed clash between the right to same-sex marriage and the right to religious liberty occurred when Kim Davis, clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, refused to issue a marriage license to a betrothed homosexual couple. According to the New York Times, since her refusal, Davis has been imprisoned and then released. In a statement she made via her lawyer, Davis said, “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.” This was clearly an attack on religious liberty in an effort to show Jesus who is boss, right?
Not quite. While Davis and the countless other conservatives who support her might think she is a 21st century Rosa Parks, I am not so convinced. Davis has the right to her own sense of morality but she also has the obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as a state-elected official. That is the kicker; Davis did not refuse a private religious service on eligible grounds of moral conviction. Her position as a government official was bestowed upon her with a firm knowledge of the separation of church and state as well as her agreement to perform the duties of her position as prescribed by the state and federal government. As far as Davis feeling like she was being forced to betray her beliefs is concerned, she clearly did not weigh her options. She could have just as easily resigned from her position, keeping her sense of religious dignity while also acknowledging the sovereignty of the American government. The American constitution is concerned with freedom, liberty and justice for all citizens, not just the ones who go to church. Davis’ case was not the result of an attack on religious liberty, but the result of a Kentucky woman’s failure to understand the fact that the right to love, devotion and loyalty through marriage takes, by its very nature, priority over her self-assumed “right” to withhold this union from a couple on the basis that Jesus would not approve.
Davis was just guilty of simple ignorance concerning the dynamics of the relationship between her sense of morality and the nature of working for an institution that disregards religious bias. What about back in 2013 when a gay couple attempted to buy a wedding cake from an Oregon bakery named Sweet Cakes, but were refused service because the owners did not approve of gay-weddings? According to Fox News, the owners of the cake shop, Aaron and Melissa Klein, were ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to the lesbian couple they refused service to and were consequently served an order to “cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.” Gosh, it seems like the religious rights of conservative Americans are threatened yet again.
Sweet Cakes is a privately owned bakery, so the owners have the constitutional right to refuse the indirect support of gay-marriage if it goes against their religious beliefs, right?
Not really. Here we have yet another case in which the law was disregarded and the personal convictions of one group impeded the rights of another. According to Fox News, despite the fact that there is currently no federal anti-discrimination law on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification, it was understood within Oregon’s public accommodations law that it is illegal to refuse a secular service to anyone due to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. A racist white baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding, just as a Christian baker, who is against gay marriage, cannot refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding. At least, this is the case in 19 American states.
It can be understandably tough to accept the idea that a private business must provide a service that conflicts with their religious convictions due to the sexual orientation of their customer(s), but because 19 of the states cherish freedom and liberty for all American citizens, to discriminate against another citizen on the basis of moral satisfaction is illegal.
Religious conservatives might fear this sort of toleration could spread to the other 31 states as well seeing as how the U.S. as a whole is progressively focused on ensuring the security of every man, woman and child’s right to love and happiness. It is only a matter of time before a federal law is passed preventing religious affiliation from promoting discrimination in services that are either secular or not exclusively religious. That is why the bakery owners’ right to religious freedom was not infringed; a business that bakes cakes is not exclusively religious.
Of course, in hypothetical situations that actually are exclusively religious, such as the pastor of a conservative Christian church refusing to marry a betrothed gay couple, it would surely be an attack on religious liberty if the state or national government attempted to force him to act against the Word of God that sustains who he is and what he stands for. If ever such a case occurred, it would be a clear attack on religious liberty due to the fact that this sort of situation concerns the tampering of sound moral doctrine within the actual sphere of the church and the traditional Christian ceremony of betrothal hosted by a religious marriage officiant.
However, situations like this have not occurred, and it is highly doubtful that they ever will. According to the Huffington Post, the Supreme Court majority acknowledged in their ruling, “Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.” The catch here is understanding that religious liberty will always be secured and protected in light of this new legislation so long as the religious convictions of certain Americans do not result in either secular bigotry or the breaking of American laws established to protect citizens against secular discrimination.
Understanding whether or not a religious conservative truly has the right to refuse service to a group due to a conflict with his or her religious convictions comes down to whether or not the service is exclusively religious. Contrastingly, the issuing of marriage licenses and the baking of wedding cakes are not exclusively religious services seeing as how atheists have managed to acquire both without a hitch. Wait, did Jesus say being an atheist was bad too?
At any rate, the cases involving Davis and the Kleins were not the results of direct attacks on religious liberty, but rather the consequences of the security of an even more important and fundamental right: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples across America.
As a people that cherish our right to religious liberty, and rightly so, it is often difficult for us to accept the fact that certain rights and liberties take precedence over other rights and liberties. However, if the latter must take a backseat so that the former may thrive, then I will gladly set my personal religious convictions aside so that my American brothers and sisters can partake in the greatest pleasures of life without fear of exclusion or persecution.
