Barronelle Stutzman

Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman is facing two lawsuits for refusing to provide the flowers for a same-sex wedding in violation of Washington law, but now she has filed a countersuit with support from the anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom. The suit claims that Stutzman is entitled to religious conscience protections that allow her to ignore nondiscrimination protections, as ADF attorney Dale Schowengerdt attempted to explain to WorldNetDaily:

“In America, the government is supposed to protect freedom, not use its intolerance for certain viewpoints to intimidate citizens into acting contrary to their faith convictions. Family business owners are constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to live and work according to their beliefs. It is this very freedom that gives America its cherished diversity and protects citizens from state-mandated conformity.”

ADF reports the Washington State Constitution uniquely protects the rights of conscience and religion, and the countersuit argues that Ferguson is “constitutionally precluded from compelling Stutzman to use her artistic skill to personally craft expressive floral arrangements” for a same-sex ceremony when it violates her religious beliefs and her conscience to do so, “particularly when there are many other florists willing, ready, and able to create floral arrangements” for such ceremonies.

Some lawmakers are trying to pass a law to justify discrimination in this way. When a staffer for one of those representatives was asked what a rural gay couple should do if all the local grocery stores refuse to serve them, he said “gay people can just grow their own food.” The fact that there may be other florists is irrelevant. Before the end of segregation, there may have been other lunch counters willing to serve African Americans, but that doesn’t mean the discrimination by some was not still a problem.

ADF isn’t wrong that the Washington Constitution refers to religious conscience protections, but Schowengerdt didn’t reference the entire provision:

Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

In other words, the state’s conscience protections are not without limits — they don’t justify violating the law or discriminating against an entire segment of the population. Stutzman’s case has clearly become a cause célèbre for conservatives, but by doubling down on defending her with a countersuit, ADF is making it quite clear that their intentions have little to do with protecting religion and everything to do with justifying anti-gay discrimination. As recent marriage equality votes in state legislatures have demonstrated, ADF’s argument isn’t very convincing.

As state legislatures around the country move to enact marriage equality and civil unions, an anti-gay Christian legal and policy coalition calling itself the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has become a ubiquitous presence at committee hearings. But their misleading testimony in defense of the right to discriminate has done virtually nothing to advance their cause — and may even undermine it.

As the Delaware Senate debated a marriage equality bill earlier this month, opponents brought ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence to the floor to offer testimony. Lorence noted a case in New Mexico (a state which don’t even allow same-sex marriage), in which an anti-gay vendor had faced legal action after violating state civil rights laws, and suggested that he believes such public accommodations laws are unconstitutional. “It’s the business owners that deal with weddings. It’s licensed professionals having their licenses threatened because they believe the wrong things about marriage,” he told the Senators.

Delaware state Sen. Dave Sokola (D), lead Senate sponsor of the bill, told ThinkProgress that Lorence’s right-to-discriminate arguments actually helped solidify support for the bill:

We had recently added “sexual orientation” to our non-discrimination statute in 2009, and debated and passed Civil Unions just 2 years ago. Even with a large turn-over in both the House and Senate, this issue was very fresh in many of our minds. Equality Delaware did a tremendous outreach to all, with a special emphasis on our newer legislators, so there was sufficient understanding of the matter, and I do think he just firmed up the positions of all on the prevailing side. We also now have a 4-year track record of how Delaware businesses are doing with respect to this, and the predictions of our opponents have not come true since we enacted either of the previous bills. The facts have significantly diminished their credibility.

Lorence also made this argument to the Delaware House of Representatives. Sokola’s House counterpart, Rep. Melanie Smith (D), told ThinkProgress: “I believe he was mistaken in much of what he said and misrepresented the bill significantly.” She added that as far as she knew, “no votes were swayed by his testimony.” The bill passed both chambers and was signed into law by Gov. Jack Markell (D).

Lorence also offered similar testimony in 2011 before the Maryland House Judiciary Committee, warning that “small businesses that decline to serve or participate in same-sex ceremonies could be sued for discrimination by a public accommodation,” ignoring the fact that Maryland law had prohibited such discrimination since 2001. The committee recommended the bill and voters enacted the law last year. Read more

This Friday (4/19) is the annual Day of Silence (DoS), when students across the country choose not speak in school in protest of the mistreatment of LGBT youth. While some conservative groups are once again encouraging parents to keep their kids home, Focus on the Family and the Alliance Defending Freedom are hosting their annual pre-buttal, the so-called “Day of Dialogue” (DoD) on Thursday (4/18). The blatant goal of this event is to encourage Christian students to condemn homosexuality and transgenderism to their peers, but under the facade of opposing bullying.

Most of the materials on the DoD page were written by Jeff Johnston, Focus on the Family’s resident ex-gay, who rejects transgender identities as disordered and healthy and who describes homosexuality as “sexual brokenness.” For the Day of Dialogue, he encourages young people to talk about homosexuality with their classmates by suggesting they pursue ex-gay therapy because being gay is the same as being a prostitute or an adulterer:

Without God, and without following His intentions for us, all the good of sexuality is distorted. The good news, in the midst of our sexual brokenness, is that God still loves us deeply. He longs to reconnect with each of us and to begin healing, restoring and transforming us. He invites each of us to respond to His love.

All throughout Scripture, we see that God has a special place in His heart for people who messed up sexually. Jesus’ ancestors included prostitutes and adulterers, and He brought forgiveness and restoration to many people who were caught in sexual brokenness.  In the same way, Jesus is standing with His arms open to each of us. We’ve all had our identity, relationships, sexuality and desires impacted by sin. He invites us to experience new life, forgiveness, true relational intimacy with Him and healthy relationships with others.

As Christians, children of God and followers of Jesus, we have a unique opportunity to offer this good news to our classmates and those around us. In a disordered and hurting world we can offer hope, healing and renewal.

Interestingly, the DoD site does not use the word “gay” or “homosexuality” except on its page, “Responding To Challenges.” Participants are not encouraged to use the words at all, but respond that “God has a plan for our sexuality” (and it’s not homosexuality). Here’s an example of how Focus on the Family encourages students to explain that being gay is a chosen identity:

The fact is that nobody knows how same-sex attractions develop—it appears to be a combination of factors (from biology to individual temperament to culture to environment). There is no proof that it is purely genetic. For more information, you can read Are People Really Born Gay? as well as other resources posted here.

You can explain that the real issue, for those who follow Jesus, is not about changing from “straight” to “gay”, or what kind of sexual identity a person has, but about having a relationship with God. And as our relationship with him grows, we learn to manage our feelings, desires and behavior according to His best plan for us.

The fact is that many people have experienced great changes in their lives and voluntarily chosen  to align their feelings to God’s best plan.

These are blatant falsehoods. The American Psychological Association has determined over decades of research that sexual orientation is innate and attempts to change it are ineffective and harmful. Moreover, the most recent research in a growing field known as epigenetics suggests that sexual orientation is at least partially determined by genes — just not directly. Rather than being coded into the DNA directly, certain sex-specific switches on the genes known as “epi-marks” can be triggered during fetal development, causing variations in hormone levels that determine how the genes will express gender and sexuality for the rest of the individual’s life. It’s still not a perfect explanation, but it’s a clear indicator that biology has a significant impact on determining sex and gender and that they cannot simply be changed by shame-based therapy.

Read more

There’s a polished new guide to opposing marriage equality released by a coalition of anti-gay organizations, whose partnership alone is notable: the Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, and Heritage Foundation. The entire argument put forth by the booklet is that marriage benefits children, citing only the thoroughly debunked Regnerus study to suggest same-sex parents should not be allowed to have children:

All people are capable of loving children, but all the love in the world can’t turn a mother into a father or a father into a mother. A child needs a mom and a dad. Children do better when raised by their married mom and dad, and decades of social science evidence show this. We shouldn’t place the desires of adults over the needs of children.

The latest and most comprehensive research continues to confirm what social science has shown for decades: children do better when raised by a married mother and father. The New Family Structures Study by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas–Austin and a report based on Census data recently released in the highly respected journal Demography supported this idea. Still, the social science on same-sex parenting is a matter of significant ongoing debate, and we shouldn’t let it dictate our choices about marriage.

The Demography report cited here attempted to apply the same faulty methodology from the Regnerus study to research that actually showed that children of same-sex parents perform as well academically as children from other families.

The document is set up in a “Frequently Asked Questions” format, but one question is notably missing: “What about the millions of children already being raised by same-sex couples who would benefit from the legal protections of marriage?” Instead, these groups make their arguments as if these families simply don’t exist — they have to, because they have no answer to the question.

This afternoon, the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Coalitions have already formed on both sides of the issue with Rhode Islanders United for Marriage supporting equality and the National Organization for Marriage’s Rhode Island for Marriage opposing it. It seems conservatives will not be holding back in their assault on the rights of same-sex couples, as demonstrated by the testimony Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kellie Fiedorek will offer at today’s meeting:

FIEDOREK: Religious freedom belongs to everyone, not just a handful of people. The government cannot limit constitutionally protected religious liberties in a way that’s foreign to our Constitution. This bill fails to ensure that those liberties of every Rhode Island citizen will be respected. The First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom for all Americans is not limited to the four walls of a church.

The OneNewsNow article highlighting Fiedorek’s remarks clarify her intention that justices, judges, court commissioners, business owners, and counselors should all have protections to not recognize same-sex marriages.

Unfortunately, this is a realistic problem for the Rhode Island legislation. When lawmakers attempted to pass marriage equality in 2011, they ended up settling on a civil unions bill with some of the most extreme “religious exemptions” of any similar bill in the country. According to that law, administrators at religion-run schools, hospitals, and businesses can simply refuse to treat civil unions as valid if doing so violates their religious beliefs, essentially making legal recognition of civil unions pointless. Combined with the access and recognition of same-sex marriages from neighboring states, it’s unsurprising that civil unions have been “a complete failure” in the state, with less than 100 couples bothering to get one after the law had been in effect over a year.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I), who is eager for the new legislation to pass, issued an executive order last May requiring all state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The kind of exemptions ADF is demanding could essentially roll back protections married same-sex couples already enjoy. Fortunately, there is little reason for lawmakers to cave to such inordinate invitations to discriminate, as 56 percent of voters support marriage equality.

Julea Ward

Eastern Michigan University has agreed to settle a suit with counseling student Julea Ward who insisted that she could not counsel somebody who was gay without condemning their sexual orientation. When the program expelled her for violating counseling ethics, she sued (with support from the anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom), and though a district court originally dismissed her complaint, the 6th Circuit ruled in her favor. EMU has agreed to pay a settlement and remove the expulsion from her record.

Ward argued that it was a violation of her religious beliefs to affirm a gay or lesbian client’s sexual orientation, but claimed she could counsel them on anything else. When such a client sought relationship counseling, she insisted that she should be able to refer that client to another counselor. EMU faculty argued that this constituted two ethics violations: “imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals” and “engaging in discrimination based on sexual orientation.” The 6th Circuit argued that “tolerance is a two-way street” for religious beliefs and that there was no negative impact on the client because the client never knew of the referral.

Unfortunately, the circumstances of the artificial counseling environment that benefited Ward in this case do not reflect the negative impact her approach could easily make in reality, which in turn would reflect on the university’s reputation. The American Psychological Association explains that sexual orientation defines an “essential component of personal identity” for many people. A gay client could start therapy with Ward for a different issue and face her rejection should his concerns arrive at an intersection with his gay identity. If Ward simply avoided serving gay and lesbian clients to prevent this from happening, then she would be engaging in discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This summer, a federal judge in Georgia ruled against a student who faced a similar conflict in the counseling program at Augusta State University. Judge J. Randal Hall took more careful note of the counseling impact of condemning homosexuality and accused student Jennifer Keeton of conflating “personal and professional values.” By the same standard, Ward is equally guilty of imposing her personal values over what the professional ethics of counseling demand on the question of sexual orientation. Unfortunately, conservatives will now champion her victory to further obfuscate the psychological importance of affirmation for gays and lesbians.

Back in march, the Kentucky-based T-shirt printer Hands On Originals refused to print apparel for the Lexington Pride festival, claiming that as a Christian company, the order violated its values. The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) filed a complaint, and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission has now ruled that Hands On Originals did discriminate in violation of local policies protecting sexual orientation.

Defending Hands On Originals, the Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the company shouldn’t have to “promote messages they disagree with,” including “that people should be ‘proud’ about engaging in homosexual behavior or same-sex relationships.” The Commission rejected this argument, noting that the company rejected the order not because of the message of the shirt — a stylized five marking the anniversary of Lexington Pride with a list of sponsors on the back — but because of the identity of the group ordering the shirts.

Hands On Originals also tried to argue that the situation was comparable to the Ku Klux Klan asking a black business owner to print shirts for a rally, but the Commission pointed out that the KKK is not a group within a protected class of people. Furthermore, the company has previously printed shirts with other designs that “could be interpreted as crude or in conflict with a person’s Christian beliefs.”

Though the T-shirt printer argued that it employs gay workers and has filled orders for gay customers in the past, the Commission pointed it out that that “does not eliminate the fact that they denied GLSO business based on their sexual orientation.”

The investigation is complete, but the case is ongoing. GLSO and Hands On Originals will now meet with an independent hearing examiner to determine possible compensatory damages. The law does not allow for punitive damages in such cases, but the GLSO is not seeking monetary damages anyway.

Rose Marie Belforti refused to offer same-sex marriage certificates as town clerk of Ledyard, New York.

The anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom is now encouraging local officials in Maine, Maryland, and Washington to arbitrarily reject the advance of marriage equality and choose not to grant licenses to same-sex couples. The group’s legal memos advise that the states’ clerks and auditors can delegate responsibility to deputies or assistants so that they do not have to violate their faith or conscience. ADF Senior Counsel Austin R. Nimocks explains:

NIMOCKS: No American should be forced to give up a constitutionally protected freedom, nor should any American be forced to give up his or her job to maintain that freedom. Religious freedom is paramount to every American, including those issuing marriage licenses. They can perform their job without violating their conscience.

This definition of religious freedom is quite a stretch. There’s a significant difference between one’s freedom not to participate in a same-sex marriage and one’s violation of job requirements to discriminate against citizens’ legal rights. It’s quite possible that a clerk’s assistants also oppose marriage equality, which could lead to whole towns denying same-sex couples marriage certificates. At the very least — as happened in New York last year — if an assistant is not available on a given day, couples could still be denied their legal right to marriage until a day someone else is in the office.

For some of these local officials, the advance of marriage equality will undoubtedly feel like a change to their job responsibilities. If they are no longer able or willing to perform all the functions of the job, they should acknowledge this by stepping down, not by imposing their own willful discrimination on gay and lesbian neighbors.

New Hampshire state Rep-elect Stacie Laughton (D). (Photo credit: William Wrobel, Nashua Telegraph.)

It’s fair to say that the 2012 elections were a big victory for the LGBT community, in terms of both issues and candidates, but that is much more true for the LGB than it is the T. Certainly the transgender community can benefit from same-sex marriage laws; some states will recognize their gender identity and others won’t, confusing who they can legally marry based on their identity documentation. Ideally, lawmakers who claim to be allies will also support transgender issues, but there is no guarantee. Vice President Joe Biden told a constituent recently that transgender justice is the “civil rights issue of our time,” but progress can only be made with visibility.

One important victory took place this week in New Hampshire: the state elected its first openly transgender lawmaker. Stacie Laughton (D) easily beat two Republican candidates for an open seat in Ward 4. She told the Nashua Telegraph that she believes the LGBT community “will hopefully be inspired,” but in her campaign she also advocated for the homeless, people with disabilities, and strengthening public schools. A seat in the huge New Hampshire House of Representatives is not the highest profile position, but Laughton’s election is a notable milestone for trans visibility.

The primary struggle facing trans people remains discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. The federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has languished in Congress for decades, and with Republicans maintaining control of the House, its status is not likely to change. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is the perfect example of a Republican who opposed ENDA specifically because it included transgender protections. President Obama could still issue an executive order protecting employees of federal contractors, but he has been reluctant to do so because it’s not a permanent solution. In 34 states, a person can still be legally fired just for being transgender. For example, though New York and Maryland have both advanced same-sex marriage, gender identity protections (bills known as GENDA and GIADA, respectively) struggle to advance.

Having a basic understanding of transgender identities continues to be a huge obstacle in discussing these issues. In Washington state, which also just passed marriage equality, controversy is erupting over a supposed “incident” where a 17-year-old girl saw a transgender woman changing in the locker room at Evergreen College. Even ABC News offensively felt the need to explain that this transgender student “identifies as a woman but has male genitalia.” It’s become a story because the Alliance Defending Freedom has threatened the college with ambiguous legal action, all because of the visibility of a person’s genitals in a space designated for changing clothes. Evergreen, admirably, is standing by its nondiscrimination protections, pointing out that there are privacy curtains available — for hiding one’s body or one’s eyes, as the need may arise. The controversy is a simple example of the everyday stigmatization trans people experience and how that stigma is used to justify discrimination.

Kerry Eleveld argues this week that President Obama will be a “better progressive” in his second term, and standing up for transgender people is the perfect opportunity to do just that. From ending the military’s exclusion of transgender servicemembers to protecting trans people from the discrimination that inhibits their basic life needs to ensuring they have access to proper medical care, there is plenty of room for progress.