• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

religious liberty and religious freedom news

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
Home » Opinion: Don’t Use Religious Liberty to Discriminate

Opinion: Don’t Use Religious Liberty to Discriminate

April 3, 2014 by ReligiousLiberty.TV

By James Coffin –

“What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.” But what happens in neighboring Arizona doesn’t necessarily stay in Arizona; it could be copied elsewhere.

That should concern us. Because Arizona’s legislators recently passed a shockingly ill-advised bill that would allow business owners, based on their religious beliefs, to refuse service to same-sex couples. Although Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed it, the fact that the bill ever passed the Legislature is disturbing.

In the United States, individuals and groups have a long history of discrimination against fellow humans.

But over many decades, legislators and judges have curtailed our freedom to negatively impact others’ lives based on our own prejudices. Such government actions have been a great blessing to the targets of discrimination.

Although anti-discrimination laws limit our freedom to say by our actions that we view certain categories of our fellow humans as inferior, unworthy or evil, they also help ensure justice for all.

Before such government intervention, if my prejudice were against blacks, Catholics, Jews, atheists, women or a long list of others, I was at liberty to withhold services from them that I’d willingly provide to those I viewed as worthy human beings.

The common denominator among the preceding categories is that, at some point in our national history, religion has been used to justify discrimination against each group.

But wait, some say. If religious liberty is one of our nation’s foundational values, don’t I have the right to discriminate against any who offend my religious sensitivities – including the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community, which was the specific motivation for Arizona’s recent legislation?

There’s a saying that we should be careful what we wish for – we just might get it.

If, based on my personal religious convictions, I demand the right to discriminate against any person or group I find offensive, why should I assume that those who are religiously offended by something about me won’t return the favor?

Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy argues that “the Arizona bill has a very simple premise: that Americans should be free to live and work according to their religious faith. It’s simply about protecting religious liberty …”

I disagree. Such a blank check for discrimination is a distortion of both religious liberty and religion itself.

###

James Coffin is executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida. This article was originally published in the Orlando Sentinel on March 9, 2014.

Filed Under: Church and State, Constitution, Discrimination, Free Speech, Peacemaking Tagged With: Arizona, Janet Brewer, religious freedom, religious liberty

Primary Sidebar

Geneva, Switzerland - December 03, 2019: World Health Organization (WHO / OMS) Headquarters - DepositPhotos.com

Biden admin could hand over US control of health emergencies to WHO next week

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The ultimate control over America’s health care and its national sovereignty will be put up for a vote next week at a meeting of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).  On May 22-28, 2022, the 75th World Health Assembly will convene at the United Nations […]

Statement on the Leak in Dobbs

The leak was intended to disrupt the processing of the decision and we are not going to dignify the leak or the unidentified leaker by analyzing it prematurely. As a constitutional republic we cannot go down that road without doing severe damage to the institution of the Supreme Court where there must be professional courtesy between the justices and their staffs.

Boston City Hall - photo from Supreme Court Opinion

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that Boston violated 1st Amendment in refusing Christian flag at City Hall

This morning the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Shurtleff v. Boston (Dec’d 5/2/2022) that the city of Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group when it refused to allow them to participate in a city flag raising program.

Active Liberty - a survey of Justice Stephen Breyer's religion clause jurisprudence - Supreme Court

Active Liberty: A Survey of Justice Stephen Breyer’s Religion Clause Decisions

A comprehensive review of retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s decisions in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause cases.

Canadian gov’t calculates that expansion of assisted suicide will save taxpayers millions of dollars

In Canada, it is easier for the disabled who do not suffer terminal illness to get approval for assisted suicide than approval for affordable housing. The government has calculated the cost of providing healthcare versus providing assisted suicide.

Random Quote

“It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much … to forget it.”

— James Madison

Get the ReligiousLiberty.TV Newsletter!

Comes out a couple of times a month. Unsubscribe anytime automatically, no questions asked.
* = required field
unsubscribe from list

powered by MailChimp!

Copyright © 2022 Founders' First Freedom is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
0
0
0
0