My sincerely held religious belief should not allow me to discriminate
Mark Wingfield says Jesus and the Bill of Rights require that we give each other the grace we expect to receive.
Imagine this scenario: An evangelical Christian couple is planning their wedding and wants a cake for their reception from the best bakery in town. So they visit the Jewish baker to make arrangements but are greeted with bad news: “Sorry, we don’t bake cakes for Christian weddings.” Can you imagine the outcry in the Christian community?
Or how about this: You are involved in a horrific automobile accident near a small town and rushed by ambulance to the nearest hospital. You are taken to an emergency room to be treated by a doctor who first takes down vital demographic information, only to conclude: “I’m sorry. I’m a Muslim and my faith will not allow me to do the procedure you need to live. You’ll have to wait until we can transport you to a larger hospital with other doctors.” Again, can you imagine the outcry in the Christian community?
All these things happen in America today, but usually with the roles reversed or with different categories of people involved. Hearing these tales with a twist shines a light on how wrong they are. Things look different when you’re the minority instead of the majority. Or at least, things should look different.
In almost every contemporary instance of calls for additional legislation or presidential executive orders or city ordinances to address religious liberty concerns, Christians, particularly evangelical Christians, are presented as the aggrieved parties who desire additional protections to freely express their religious convictions. Seldom, however, does anyone stop to consider how it would feel for the shoe to be on the other foot. How might evangelical Christians see ourselves on the other side of the story, not as the persecuted but as potential persecutors? Would that make a difference in what we demand for ourselves?
One idea is to think about how the First Amendment in particular is a double-edged sword: What we expect of others, we must be willing to do ourselves.
And that, in case you’ve forgotten, is a decidedly Jewish and Christian idea. It was Jesus who said, quoting the Torah: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Of course, Jesus isn’t the only one to have taught the Golden Rule; this idea of reciprocity permeates many cultures and teachings. But Christians, of all people, should understand the concept.
Contemporary calls for religious freedom legislation or presidential executive orders or city ordinances mostly run afoul of the First Amendment because they forget the Golden Rule. Most often, these are attempts to prevent me from having to do something for you that I don’t want to do while still demanding that you be required to do that same thing for me. There’s another simple word for this: Selfishness.
Both the Golden Rule and the First Amendment call us to selflessness instead. My freedom is only as secure as your freedom. Even if I disagree with your religion or if my religion causes me to be suspicious of your sexual orientation or gender identity or race, I am called by Jesus and the Bill of Rights to walk the extra mile with you. And you are required to walk the extra mile with me, when it is my time of need. We’ve got to give each other the same grace we expect to receive.
There has arisen among us a line of reasoning that elevates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment above the establishment clause.
The establishment clause says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Which means the government may not prefer one religion over another. Adherents of all religions must be treated equally. And the free exercise clause adds that government may not make any law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Not just the free exercise of my religion, but the free exercise of all religions.
If we give the upper hand to ensuring the free exercise of my religion despite creating an infringement on the free exercise of your religion, we “establish” my religion as superior to yours. Or if the free exercise of my religion would do harm to you or your rights afforded under settled law, we “establish” my religion as superior to your legal rights. However entitled we may feel to get preferential treatment, American law and the Golden Rule alike require us to aspire to a level playing field.
Religious discrimination happens when an adherent of one religion refuses service to an adherent of a different religion or when someone uses their religion as an excuse not to serve someone whose identity they dislike. Businesses can still have rules, such as the restaurant that states on its door: “No shoes, no shirt, no service.” These are requirements that can reasonably be fixed. But a person cannot change his or her race or gender or sexual orientation or gender identity or religious identity in order to come back and receive service. Thus, such demands are unreasonable.
My “sincerely held religious belief ” should not allow me to discriminate against others on the basis of things they cannot change. No workaround to the First Amendment and existing law is needed to solve this “problem,” because it should not be a problem if we follow the Golden Rule.