The Freedom to Oppress Others

Not quite a quote. See if you can figure out which word I changed, and if it really makes a difference.

Diament and other panelists cited a number of scenarios in which Americans’ religious rights might be infringed on when they clash with legal recognition of “interracial marriage.” They questioned if accommodations or exemptions would be permitted for religious adherents or institutions in the following situations, among others:

  • County clerks who oppose issuing marriage licenses to interracial couples.
  • Employees who disapprove of diversity training programs that endorse “interracial marriage.”
  • Insurance company workers who do not want to sell policies or process claims for interracial couples’ partner benefits.
  • Owners of small hotels and bed-and-breakfast inns who refuse to serve interracial couples.
  • Lawyers who decline to provide estate planning for interracial couples.
  • Psychologists and psychiatrists who refuse to counsel interracial couples.
  • Doctors who will not provide some services, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), for interracial couples.
  • Religious colleges that will not open married student housing to interracial couples.
  • Religious institutions that refuse requests from interracial couples to hold wedding receptions in their buildings.
  • Christian bookstores and other parachurch organizations that decline spousal benefits for “interracial marriage” partners.

Original version here.

What’s next? Will Christians be complaining that their religious freedom is imperiled because they’re no longer allowed to burn witches at the stake or put heretics to the rack?

4 Responses to “The Freedom to Oppress Others”

  1. John Cowan Says:

    That’s nothing new. “We’re oppressed because <insert sect of “infamous heretics” here> are allowed to practice their religion right out in public!” was already a popular idea in sixth-century Rome.

    Read up on Loving v. Virginia some time. It’s right on the money.

  2. Porter Says:

    If I had to guess – you could just replace “gay” with “interracial” – and that should cover it. Most of the same arguments used to prevent interracial marriage (miscegenation) are being reused for homosexual relationships.

    This is perhaps one of the all time great responses over the clash of religious values:

    I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    I’ve used a similar argument about the “what’s next…” I mean in this supposed argument over whether or not evolution should be taught in schools – many Christians are claiming to be the oppressed. I say – when the scientists start burning them at the stake – then they can claim to be the oppressed – after all, what happened to that guy Copernicus?

  3. Michael Roberts Says:

    You are trying to equate race (based on a physical human characteristic), with sexual behavior (based on moral choice, impulse, desire). Homosexuals are not a new class of people of people entitled to special rights anymore than rapists, pedophiles, or polygamists.

  4. cubiclegrrl Says:

    Mr Robert: You’re behind the times. People are pretty born wired for homo- or hetero-sexuality. (A good sample of the science behind it: I happen be be wired straight, but recognize that it’s my genes, rather than learned behaviors that make me not interested in men. There is no “moral” component to my sexuality, other than my choice to not sleep around on my husband.

    And your implicit equation of homosexuality with criminal behavior is disgusting and the pity is that you don’t have the decency to be ashamed of your bigotry.

Leave a Reply