In Arizona earlier this month, the state Supreme Court ruled that two young Christian artists could not be forced to design invitations to a same-sex wedding. It was one more piecemeal decision in the national struggle between religious liberty and the rights LGBTQ people claim against discrimination.
These cases — chunks and bits to the larger questions of how to balance what seem to be competing rights — wind their way slowly to the top court in the land, while Americans anxiously await rulings.
As the Supreme Court’s new session begins in October, it will have an opportunity to broadly resolve some of the conflicts that have rent society along the intersection of religious freedom and discrimination. But the court will be empowered to do so only because the people’s representatives have failed in their duty.
Four years ago, Utah lawmakers passed an anti-discrimination law that protects both LGBTQ rights in relation to housing and employment, and religious liberty. We know of no other state that has been able to bring both sides together — in Utah’s case leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and leaders of the gay community — to craft compromise legislation to which both sides agree.
Utah’s law has kept the state out of many of the conflicts that have arisen elsewhere. It is not perfect. It does not, for example, specifically address the issue of business owners refusing to provide services to people on the basis of religious beliefs.
Too often these days ... hard things are punted to the courts or to the whims of a presidential executive order.
But it isn’t hard to imagine a compromise that would extend to that issue, as well. That certainly would be preferable to a decision by an unelected court that, as the abortion decision handed down 46 years ago has shown, provides little in the way of finality.
Americans elect representatives to do hard things and settle weighty matters through compromise and debate. Too often these days, those hard things are punted to the courts or to the whims of a presidential executive order.
In the upcoming session, Supreme Court justices have agreed to consider four cases that involve conflicts between religious liberty and LGBTQ rights, and they may take up four more.
As the Deseret News outlined earlier this week, three of these first four cases center on the question of whether a company may fire someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could inhibit a religious organization from exercising its standards in regard to sexual orientation and gender identity. In other words, a religious organization may be prohibited from carrying out its mission.
Advocates for the LGTBQ community said an opposite verdict would hurt gay and transgender Americans while legalizing a form of discrimination.
A fourth case involves the legality of so-called Blaine amendments, passed by many states in the 19th century. These amendments prohibit state governments from giving taxpayer funds directly to religious schools. They were promoted by Congressman James G. Blaine, who reflected the sentiments of many at the time against Catholic immigrants and the parochial schools they were building. Today, many states still have these amendments in their constitutions, although some have either repealed or softened them. They have been used to keep states from adopting school voucher programs that would include religious schools.
These cases represent problems that should have been solved through legislative compromise. That is the only way to enact solutions that not only protect the rights of all, but that allow all sides to agree in a way that takes the edge off anger and mistrust.