Sexual Liberation’s War on Religious Freedom in Houston

Photo Credit: fineartamerica.com

As the relentless logic of homosexual liberation continues to work itself out in society, we are confronted with the sad spectacle of the loss of the most basic freedom, freedom of religion, and its vital corollary in supporting a free society, freedom of speech. What is especially painful to watch is that the American heartland, the so-called “red states” of recent elections, are succumbing to a program that overtakes basic and long established and cherished freedoms with the moral imperative of hurt feelings.

Earlier this month, IRD reported on an effort to pass a homosexual antidiscrimination ordinance in Springfield, Mo. Despite the articulate and thoughtful opposition of both the General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God (headquartered in Springfield) and the local Catholic bishop, the proposed ordinance, which denies liberty of conscience to local businesses and even religious organizations in declining to provide goods and services that contribute to homosexual behavior, was passed on Monday, October 13. Like so many other Americans, the citizens of Springfield are now legally required to sin by contributing to sinful behavior if it falls in the ordinary course of their work.

All is not lost in Springfield. As the OzarksFirst article notes, there will be an attempt to overturn the law in a referendum. Much the same thing is happening in Houston, Texas. As explained by Sarah Pulliam Bailey of Religion News Service, a local homosexual rights ordinance recently passed under the impetus of Houston’s new lesbian mayor, Annise Parker, prohibits discrimination against homosexuals “among businesses that serve the public, private employers, in housing and in city employment and city contracting.” What this of course means is not merely that homosexual customers may not be refused service (which is not likely to occur anyway), but that goods and services that contribute to homosexual behavior cannot be refused. Since contributing to sin is sin itself, as the present writer pointed out earlier this year, the law in Houston effectively requires that Christians sin, if providing such goods and services arises in the ordinary course of their work.

Although somewhat different from the Springfield ordinance in exempting religious institutions, many lay Christians are now at risk in Houston of having to choose between obeying God or obeying Caesar. Often the general public is distressingly unconcerned with the loss of religious liberty on the part of orthodox Christians, but this ordinance, like others now being advanced, is noticeable to the general public because it entails that public rest rooms be opened to persons of the opposite sex, if they believe they truly belong to the opposite sex.

Consequently, distressed citizens, encouraged by their pastors, initiated a petition for a referendum to overturn the ordinance. But City of Houston, in particular, the City Attorney, refused to certify the signatures of the petition, denying that they were clearly valid, although almost three times the number needed were gathered. This in turn resulted in a lawsuit against the city by the backers of the petition. In response, the city subpoenaed the sermons, and other communication related to homosexuality or Mayor Annise Parker, of pastors who actively and publicly opposed the ordinance, although the pastors were not sponsoring the ordinance. The Alliance Defending Freedom, which defends many cases of religious liberty against the claims of homosexual activism, in turn filed a motion in a Texas court to quash the subpoenas.

The clear implication of the subpoenas is that pastors need to exercise self-censorship in their sermons and other communication related to homosexuality, and in particular not to oppose homosexual activism. As noted above, the pastors were not parties to the lawsuit against the city, and sermons are easily obtainable, often from church websites. To subpoena other pastoral communication to church members is really intimidating. As noted by University of Pennsylvania law professor David Skeel in the RNS article, it is essentially an effort to “send a signal” to pastors, really attacking pastors’ right to speak on moral issues in the process.

Notable in coverage of the case is the mainstream media’s clear hostility to the defense of liberty of conscience. In Houston, as elsewhere, persons actively opposed to ordinances denying liberty of conscience are identified as “ERO [equal rights ordinance] foes,” “opponents of the equal rights ordinance,” and more generally as self-interested partisans who do not want another very reasonable antidiscrimination category added in view of the now universally acknowledged unreasonable racial discrimination of the past. But, reasonably, the press might use such terms as “ordinance opponents,” (which actually is factual and does not judge the ordinance as right or wrong) or alternatively “religious objectors” or “conscientious objectors” (which opponents actually are, since they object to taking action that violates their consciences).

In claiming that sexual orientation is simply another antidiscrimination category, that race, color, creed, and national origin already exist as such categories, whereas homosexuals “have no protection” in conservative communities, social liberals and their allies in the news media ignore that these categories are not, in fact, the same. First and foremost, discrimination based on the old categories was essentially a cultural preference, not a religious or moral conviction. Beyond that, racial distinctions in particular are reasonably superficial, a mere variety in the human species, whereas sexual differences are profound, going to the heart of what a person is (and thus making sex, and as well sexual orientation, less plausible as an antidiscrimination category). In the case of sexual orientation, however, one is not even dealing with an immutable characteristic (as race and sex are), but a behavior- based characteristic. But judging individuals by their behavior rather than identity was exactly what civil rights doctrine was supposed to do.

Finally, it should be noted, as those charged with violating sexual orientation laws and ordinances have long pleaded, that conscientious objectors do not object to serving homosexual customers, but only to providing goods and services that contribute to homosexual behavior. Probably few if any people object to serving homosexual customers, so the real, practical point of such laws is to require people to violate their consciences. With adequate protections for religious consciences, sexual orientation antidiscrimination laws could be compatible with religious liberty. But at present, there is no such protection for religious freedom, and intimidation of free speech, in Houston Texas.