In April 2020, Governor Ralph Northam signed into law the Virginia Values Act which forbids businesses and organizations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity with no religious exemptions granted. The Governor also signed into law a requirement that if a ministry wishes to offer health insurance to their employees, they must cover sex reassignment and other gender affirming medical procedures as well. Those who do not comply with the newly passed legislature can face fines reaching upwards of $100,000. Ironically, this Act also prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion although religious groups have been the ones to most strongly criticize the Act. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed suit against these laws on behalf of two churches, three private religious schools, and a Christian-based pregnancy support network. The ADF believes they are not only fighting for the religious liberties of these people but ultimately everyone because the government could “just as easily violate others’ beliefs tomorrow”. Although I completely disagree with discrimination on all fronts, that is not the true issue and question at the heart of this case in regards to constitutionality or lack thereof. The issue in question is whether or not this law infringes upon these organizations’ rights to freely exercise their religion and in essence, whether or not religious institutions have the right to be “wrong”.
The government of Virginia believes this law is neutral in its application to all people along with it fulfilling an extremely compelling interest in preventing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. State Senator Adam Ebbin stated when asked about the case, “People have a right to be free from discrimination. We’re moving into a Virginia that can accept that. And there are a few people who want to hold onto the past, unfortunately.”
On the flip side, these organizations believe this law is not only directly targeting and suppressing their beliefs but is making them choose between practicing their religion and facing costly fines or adopting the mindset that the government wants them to. They want to be able to employ staff and volunteers who align with and further their values and mission as Christians and this law would make them act in a way that contradicted their beliefs. Each organization welcomes diverse sets of people of varying ethnic and racial backgrounds but does not want to hire individuals whose actions do not align with their beliefs specifically on marriage and sexuality. The ADF and these institutions see this as no different than PETA not wanting to hire an avid hunter or Planned Parenthood not wanting to hire a passionate pro-life advocate. These religious groups all want to hire qualified individuals who are deeply religious and committed to living out their faith and believe members of the LGBTQ+ community are not able to do so. The ADF also mentioned how tolerance of and respect for different opinions is what America was founded on and so there is a compelling interest in protecting that.
In an ideal world, religious groups would not have beliefs that unfortunately discriminate against certain groups of people but that is just not the reality of the situation. Ultimately, this law has beyond great intentions, but I do think these religious groups should be granted an exemption based on precedence established in recent cases and the meaning behind the First Amendment. The purpose of the free exercise clause is to protect religious minorities from the hands of the majority. Although Christianity can hardly be considered a minority religion, I do think their stance on same-sex marriage and sexuality is a minority viewpoint that is trying to be silenced or changed by the majority opinion of the state. Additionally, this law is making these religious groups choose between abandoning their religious beliefs or paying fees that then would substantially burden these groups and their ability to keep their buildings open and provide services to members of the community. Religious institutions are also special in that they receive ministerial exemptions which allows them to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws or in other words, allows them to discriminate against those who hold a title as minister. Therefore, it seems reasonable then that the religious institutions would be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation when it comes to ministers. However, in more recent years, the Court has widened its interpretation of what exactly "minister" means. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC and more recently in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, it was determined that teachers and others who do not exactly fit into the minister position also are able to be discriminated against by religious institutions. In terms of the organizations’ refusal to pay for gender-reassignment or related surgeries or procedures, I think parallels can be made to Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. In this case decided in June earlier this year, it was ruled objectors to paying for contraceptive coverage due to religious reasons can be provided exemptions. Therefore, it would seem as if these religious institutions who believe it is against their beliefs to pay for such procedures or surgeries should also be exempt as well. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that the Virginia law enacted is a state law and thus is inferior to the rights guaranteeing religious liberty outlined in the Constitution. With the potential appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court adding even more to the already high number of religious conservatives present, I would venture to guess if this case ever made it to be evaluated by the Justices, the decision would favor protecting the rights of the religious institutions.
5 comments:
As I can definitely understand your stance in this case, I'll just provide an argument against yours. I believe these laws are neutral because it does apply to every individual, and although, it may produce a direct burden on some religious organizations and businesses, the state's compelling interest in preventing discrimination of sexual orientation and gender identity on all grounds may bar that direct burden, especially because it's a narrowly tailored reasoning. It's important to note that this law only applies to business and organizations as well, which further supports the reasoning of the compelling interest. However, I do agree with your stance as well, especially viewing it through a Court's lens and think that the outcome would be in favor of the appellants.
I agree with you that the free exercise rights given to religious organizations and individuals allow them to negatively discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community. Especially given court precedent in cases regarding religious schools and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, I am doubtful that the Governor's statute will not be struck down or at least modified on grounds that it unconstitutionally restricts the free exercise of religion. While I agree that there is certainly state interest in protecting individuals from discrimination, the protections granted to religious minorities cannot be ignored. Unlike the Bob Jones case, in which tax exemptions were denied because the school conflicted with public interest against discrimination, religious employers who are forced to employ LGBTQ individuals are unable to practice their beliefs. In Bob Jones, the Christian Fundamentalists are still able to practice segregation and discrimination when the state interest disagrees with their beliefs.
I agree with your stance on this issue as well. In addition to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, I would look at cases such as Braunfeld v. Brown and Sherbert v. Verner. Like you stated in your post, it is forcing businesses to choose between their religions and their livelihoods and businesses, neither of which is a desirable choice. Then of course, the decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop provides precedent in favor of your argument. Finally, this fine that would be levied on businesses who refuse to comply could be looked at as a tax, which we know if not allowed by the Free Exercise Clause.
I agree with the OP and commenters that this is quite a hard decision for Christian-ran businesses to be put in. However, since these businesses are privately owned, this is a different conversation than the one I started last week on Kim Davis. That being said, I agree with "Emma Stone" that in light of the rulings from cases such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, this statute by the governor seems unconstitutional and likely to get struck down. Considering the substantial burden I identify here, I would have to disagree with the governor's ruling and agree with the OP.
I definitely understand where you're coming from and agree that precedent would say that the Court would rule in favor of religious organizations. That being said, I do want to provide a little push back, at least for the sake of fleshing out the issue. Do we weigh some amendments more than others? Do we rank amendments based on chronology? I would say that both the first and fourteenth amendments were created in order to protect minorities from undue discrimination. I find in situations like this that we have to choose which minorities the Constitution protects more, and that can vary circumstance to circumstance. The state has just as much of a compelling interest to protect LGBTQ+ people as they do religious organizations under a neutral constitutional perspective, and I do find that the state of Virginia has a seriously compelling interest to protect against discrimination based upon this idea: LGBTQ+ people are, at this moment in time, at more of a risk for persecution by a majority than religious organizations. This is mostly a hypothetical, I think this stuff is really tough, but I just wanted to throw out there that one could decide that one group is more at risk of being oppressed than another, and therefore you would want to prioritize their rights.
Post a Comment