The New Victim: The White, Straight Male

Some private businesses claim serving gay couples violates their civil rights. It may not hold up legally, but don’t underestimate its political appeal.

One more try: Protesters.
National Journal
Alex Roarty
Sept. 19, 2013, 4:10 p.m.

Con­ser­vat­ives may have found an­oth­er way to stem the rising tide of rights for Amer­ica’s gays and les­bi­ans. Rather than a front­al as­sault on the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of, say, same-sex mar­riage, they’re tak­ing an­oth­er tack — as­sert­ing that their own civil rights are vi­ol­ated when they’re forced to treat gay couples like straight ones.

Take the case of Elaine and Jonath­an Huguen­in, co-own­ers of a small Al­buquerque, N.M., pho­to­graphy com­pany. Last month, the New Mex­ico Su­preme Court de­term­ined the couple had ac­ted il­leg­ally in 2006 when they re­fused to take pic­tures of a com­mit­ment ce­re­mony (held in lieu of a still-il­leg­al mar­riage) between a gay couple. Not­ing that state law pro­hib­its dis­crim­in­a­tion based on sexu­al ori­ent­a­tion, the state court de­creed that ac­com­mod­at­ing dif­fer­ent types of people was the “price of cit­izen­ship” in Amer­ica.

It was yet an­oth­er vic­tory for gay-rights ad­voc­ates, who have watched pub­lic opin­ion swell in their fa­vor in re­cent years. But to the Hugeun­ins and those who have ral­lied to their cause, the case rep­res­ents something else: a rare op­por­tun­ity to shift pub­lic opin­ion in the oth­er dir­ec­tion.

The Huguen­ins ar­gue be­ing forced to pho­to­graph the ce­re­mony amoun­ted to a per­se­cu­tion of their faith and an in­fringe­ment on their First Amend­ment rights. “This idea that people in Amer­ica can be com­pelled by law to com­prom­ise the very re­li­gious be­liefs that in­spire their lives as the “˜price of cit­izen­ship’ is an un­be­liev­able at­tack on free­dom,” Jim Camp­bell, an at­tor­ney for the Huguen­ins, told Na­tion­al Journ­al. “Jonath­an and Elaine Huguen­in were simply try­ing to live their lives and op­er­ate their busi­ness in ac­cord­ance with their faith.”

Camp­bell is selling the no­tion that people of faith — not gay men and wo­men — are the real vic­tims. That’s a jar­ring claim to LGBT ad­voc­ates, but it’s a tac­tic they ac­know­ledge could upend the gay-rights de­bate. It’s not a new idea; claims of re­li­gious free­dom have been used for dec­ades to stave off the reach of nondis­crim­in­a­tion laws. But it’s one that op­pon­ents of gay rights hope res­on­ates with the pub­lic — and per­haps, down the road, the courts. They feel they have found a high­er ground in a de­bate they oth­er­wise ap­peared destined to lose. “I think there is an op­por­tun­ity for our side if we can help people un­der­stand how this move­ment is not, or isn’t any­more, about ob­tain­ing free­dom for ho­mo­sexu­als,” said Peter Sprigg, seni­or fel­low for policy stud­ies at the Fam­ily Re­search Coun­cil. “It’s about tak­ing free­dom away from any­one who dis­agrees with them or their con­duct. I do think that goes bey­ond what most Amer­ic­ans sup­port.”

The Huguen­ins’ case isn’t an isol­ated one. Camp­bell, who is part of the Chris­ti­an non­profit group Al­li­ance De­fend­ing Free­dom, said he is work­ing on sim­il­ar cases in Lex­ing­ton, Ky., where a T-shirt print­er re­fused to make ap­par­el for a gay-pride cel­eb­ra­tion, and in Wash­ing­ton state, where a flor­ist de­clined to make flor­al ar­range­ments for a gay-mar­riage ce­re­mony.

Bey­ond those cases, the is­sue may move to the fore­front of the pub­lic’s mind when the Sen­ate be­gins de­bate this fall on the Em­ploy­ment Non-Dis­crim­in­a­tion Act, which would ban dis­crim­in­a­tion on the basis of sexu­al ori­ent­a­tion in hir­ing and fir­ing em­ploy­ees. The act, known as ENDA, is dif­fer­ent be­cause it’s about em­ploy­ment rather than pub­lic ac­com­mod­a­tion, but it raises sim­il­ar ques­tions of re­li­gious liberty — wheth­er, for ex­ample, a private Chris­ti­an book­store can re­fuse to hire a gay clerk. (Gays and les­bi­ans are not con­sidered a pro­tec­ted group un­der the land­mark Civil Rights Act of 1964.)

Gay-rights sup­port­ers ac­know­ledge the con­tours of the fight will be dif­fer­ent — and likely more dif­fi­cult — than the battle over mar­riage equal­ity. An ar­gu­ment fo­cused on re­li­gious liberty, they say, is a po­tent one. “That’s ab­so­lutely now the primary ar­gu­ment op­pon­ents of LGBT equal­ity are mak­ing,” said Bri­an Moulton, leg­al dir­ect­or of the Hu­man Rights Cam­paign. “They’re try­ing to as­sert that the people ex­per­i­en­cing dis­crim­in­a­tion here aren’t LGBT people ne­ces­sar­ily but are people of faith who want to pre­serve their op­pos­i­tion to ho­mo­sexu­al­ity.”

Polling sug­gests that Moulton shouldn’t worry. A sur­vey con­duc­ted earli­er this year by the Hu­man Rights Cam­paign and the Third Way, a cent­rist Demo­crat­ic think tank, found broad op­pos­i­tion to new laws that would al­low busi­nesses to deny ser­vices to gay men and wo­men. Sixty-four per­cent, for in­stance, said they op­pose such a law even if it only ap­plied to small busi­nesses provid­ing wed­ding-re­lated ser­vices. In a ques­tion tailored for the New Mex­ico case, 54 per­cent of adults said it was wrong for a busi­ness to deny wed­ding-re­lated ser­vices to a gay couple; only 15 per­cent agreed the com­pany should be al­lowed to re­fuse ser­vice for wed­dings be­cause of re­li­gious reas­ons.

The key polit­ic­ally, Moulton said, is dis­tin­guish­ing between busi­nesses that op­er­ate in the pub­lic sphere and strictly re­li­gious in­sti­tu­tions such as churches. The pub­lic sup­ports let­ting churches hire based on their be­liefs, he said. Re­gard­less of pub­lic opin­ion, Moulton might also have the law on his side. Tra­di­tion­ally, groups that lose a civil-rights de­bate re­sort to claim­ing a re­li­gious ex­emp­tion for their be­liefs — and courts rarely re­cog­nize such an ex­emp­tion.

But cases like the one in New Mex­ico of­fer Re­pub­lic­an politi­cians a chance to sidestep their in­creas­ingly fraught op­pos­i­tion to gay mar­riage while still de­fend­ing the val­ues of so­cial con­ser­vat­ives. The ques­tion is likely to be cent­ral to the 2016 pres­id­en­tial race. One lead­ing can­did­ate for the GOP nom­in­a­tion, Sen. Rand Paul of Ken­tucky, sparked a fur­or three years ago when he sug­ges­ted that own­ers of private busi­nesses such as res­taur­ants should be bey­ond the reach of fed­er­al civil-rights law. (Paul has since walked back those com­ments.)

But it’s easy to see the ap­peal of the ar­gu­ment to re­li­gious voters in Iowa, South Car­o­lina, and else­where. And while the Huguen­ins are still con­sid­er­ing wheth­er to ap­peal the New Mex­ico de­cision to the U.S. Su­preme Court, it’s en­tirely pos­sible this will be a ques­tion that plays out in the polit­ic­al arena be­fore it’s defin­it­ively settled by a court. That makes the battle for pub­lic opin­ion now all the more cru­cial.

What We're Following See More »
FOLLOWED CLOSED DOOR MEETING
Peña Nieto, Trump Trade Subtle Jabs in Statements
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Following their meeting, President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico and Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, briefly addressed the media, with Peña Nieto subtly rebuking Trump's rhetoric. While he spoke respectfully about Trump, Peña Nieto did not back down, saying that free trade has proved effective and that illegal immigration into America from the south has decreased over the last ten years while the flow of people and drugs into Mexico has increased. Additionally, he stressed that Mexicans in America are "honest" and "deserve respect." Trump responded, calling some Mexicans "tremendous people" while saying others are "beyond reproach." Trump laid out five important issues, including the end of illegal immigration and the ability for either country to build a wall or border. However, Trump said he did not discuss who would pay for the wall.

LOWER COURT RULING STANDS
SCOTUS Won’t Restore NC Voter ID Law
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

A divided Supreme Court "refused Wednesday to reinstate North Carolina’s voter identification requirement and keep just 10 days of early in-person voting. The court rejected a request by Gov. Pat McCrory and other state officials to delay a lower court ruling that found the state law was tainted by racial discrimination."

Source:
SMOKIN’ AND SHOOTIN’
Court: 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Protect Pot Users’ Gun Rights
10 hours ago
THE DETAILS
THE QUESTION
How Many Offices Does Trump Have in Battleground States?
15 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Eighty-eight, according to PBS. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has 291 offices in those same 15 states.

Source:
BUT HE’S NOT ADVOCATING FOR IT
Grassley Open to Lame Duck Hearings on Garland
1 days ago
THE LATEST

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said Monday he'd now be willing to hold a hearing on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in a lame-duck session of Congress. While he said he wouldn't push for it, he said if "Hillary Clinton wins the White House, and a majority of senators convinced him to do so," he would soften his previous opposition.

Source:
×