Discrimination Not Allowed

This week saw two significant decisions in supreme courts, one in the United States Supreme Court, the other one here in Arizona. Both of them affirm that discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation are illegal, although on the surface the U.S. case looks quite the opposite. These decisions are encouraging, though the SCOTUS case may create a host of problems in the short-term.

When I first saw the decision of SCOTUS in regards to the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, I felt very discouraged. It appeared that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of discrimination on religious grounds. As I started reading more though, I saw that the decision actually presents language that solidifies the civil rights of LGBTQ persons, stating in its legal analysis:

“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights.”

In other words, we’re entitled to the fundamental protection of our civil rights by our society. That’s a win, one that was amplified when the Arizona Supreme Court, not exactly known as a bastion of liberalism, ruled in favor of the City of Phoenix’s ordinance banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. That court stated:

“What Appellants cannot do is use their religion as a shield to discriminate against potential customers.”

I find these two statements very refreshing and hopeful. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS ruling leaves open the possibility that the court will allow some exemptions on religious grounds in the future and has greatly energized all those who proclaim their right to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs. This deeply disturbs me, not only as a transgender lesbian, but as a human being. To allow any business the right to discriminate against any other group or individual on the basis of their personal religious beliefs reverses all the (limited) progress we have made in civil rights in this country in the past 50-60 years.

What gives a business owner the right to refuse service to someone simply because they disagree with who that person is? How would Christians, who are the loudest ones in favor of such “religious freedom” laws, feel if those same laws were turned against them by someone of a different faith? In fact, Christians are quick to decry, and rightfully so, when their coreligionists face legal and social discrimination in other countries where Christians are in the minority. Yet they turn around and want to practice the same discrimination here, simply because they believe they are the majority and have the power to do so. That reeks of hypocrisy.

The issue comes down, at least in part, to privilege. Christians feels safe arguing for laws that allow them to discriminate based on their beliefs (which are far from unitary), because they already have enshrined in law the protection to not be discriminated against on the basis of those beliefs. They can exclude others, but the law currently says no one can exclude them on the basis of their religion – and rightfully so. But having achieved their protection under the law doesn’t give them the right to now use that privilege to exclude others from those same protections. 

Looking at it from a different angle, if we refuse to grant full civil rights to the LGBTQ community, we begin to chip away at the protected groups already defined by law, such as race, ethnicity, religion, etc. We open the door to a society that becomes increasingly divided and in which those with the most power and wealth will determine who receives what services. The White Christian business owner could choose not to serve Blacks, or gays, or Native Americans. Conversely, the Black Muslim business owner could choose not to serve Whites, or Christians, or whoever they feel is unworthy. Unfortunately, that type of society seems to be precisely what wealthy White Christians want, because the majority of power and wealth in this country still rests in the hands of White people, who largely identify as Christian. This mentality underlies the whole MAGA philosophy espoused by our current unpresident.

Ultimately I do not know how to engage in a reasonable conversation with someone who believes that their interpretation of some supposedly divine moral code allows them to determine who is worthy of full participation in society and who isn’t. I can point out the inconsistencies in their logic or the application of it. I can point out how their logic could in fact be turned against them by others who view their religious beliefs as ungodly. But in the end, those arguments are unlikely to sway people. If they cannot see me as a human being worthy of full dignity and equal rights, logical arguments will not change their minds. I continue to live my life openly as a public rebuttal of those who belief I do not have the right to be myself.

These two court rulings give me hope that sanity and justice will prevail even in the warped political environment that dominates our country. But I remain wary and will continue to advocate for the full equality and inclusion of everyone in society, because until all are free and equal, none are.