This We Believe: The Christian Case for Gay Civil Rights

English Choose a language for shopping. Not Enabled Word Wise: Enabled Amazon Best Sellers Rank: Amazon Music Stream millions of songs. Amazon Advertising Find, attract, and engage customers. Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Alexa Actionable Analytics for the Web. AmazonGlobal Ship Orders Internationally.

Amazon Inspire Digital Educational Resources. Amazon Rapids Fun stories for kids on the go. Amazon Restaurants Food delivery from local restaurants. ComiXology Thousands of Digital Comics. East Dane Designer Men's Fashion. Shopbop Designer Fashion Brands. Withoutabox Submit to Film Festivals. Amazon Renewed Refurbished products with a warranty. Other individuals simply will not obtain the service at all, forgoing whatever they needed because of the rejection. One lesbian woman in Mississippi recalled that, after their first son was born, she and her partner returned to the OB-GYN they had worked with to discuss having a second child.

To their surprise, the OB-GYN burst into tears, and informed them that the practice had instituted a policy after the previous insemination stating they would no longer be inseminating couples who were not married. At the time, same-sex couples could not marry in Mississippi, and the couple did not know of other providers who would assist with the procedure. Ultimately, the couple only had their first child and did not try for a second.

Finally, even where LGBT people are ultimately able to obtain needed services elsewhere, incidents of discrimination can be psychologically traumatic and degrading. She described how these incidents affected him, making him unwilling to seek medical care even when it was urgently needed:. As the incidents described above help illustrate, the absence of laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity leaves LGBT people vulnerable to mistreatment, including mistreatment motivated by moral or religious convictions.

• Leredità: Idee e canzoni di un sessantottino: Federico Ceratti (Gli specchi) (Italian Edition).
• Dreams, Smiles, and Bloody Tears.
• U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple | Reuters.
• Product details?
• Supreme court sides with baker who refused to make gay wedding cake.
• Advances and Struggles in LGBT Equality!

Many of the incidents above occurred prior to the introduction of religious exemption laws, but were legally permissible because the state lacked any law providing protection from discriminatory treatment. Many interviewees pointed out that religious exemption laws exacerbate their legal vulnerability in multiple ways. First, exemptions expressly licensed religious refusals in particular domains. Second, as statutory provisions, religious exemption laws can override other protections that may exist for LGBT people.

In Mississippi, for example, the cities of Jackson and Magnolia have nondiscrimination laws that protect sexual orientation and gender identity; the statewide imposition of HB allows religious objectors in those cities to cite the state law excusing them from compliance.

As statutory provisions, these exemptions can also override administrative policies and practices that departments of health or child welfare have adopted to combat discrimination. Finally, interviewees emphasized that the scope of religious exemptions is poorly understood, and many people perceive these exemptions as blanket permission to discriminate based on religious beliefs.

As noted above, most states in the US do not specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and discrimination against LGBT people remains widespread. Religious exemptions not only license the kinds of refusals discussed above, but encourage people to expect and fear discrimination and adapt accordingly.

Share this

In addition to discrimination they had experienced, interviewees told Human Rights Watch about the discrimination they feared because of their lack of legal protections. In part, concerns about discrimination were motivated by past mistreatment that LGBT people had faced at the hands of service providers. In the context of these incidents, religious exemptions gave a tacit stamp of approval to the mistreatment that LGBT interviewees had come to fear or expect. Kevin filed a complaint with the state board, but had not received a response three months later.

Many interviewees indicated they altered their behavior because of these concerns. I want to do it out of here.

1. Daughter Am I?
2. 3 customer reviews.
3. Highway to Happiness!

Advocates and service providers told Human Rights Watch that, in response to religious exemption laws, they had seen a spike in LGBT people taking preemptive steps to avoid experiencing discriminatory refusals and contacting them for referrals to providers who were known to be friendly. Once you leave the confines of the urban environment, you get scared as you imagine.

Research from the Center for American Progress indicates that LGBT people who face discrimination are more likely to fear or expect discrimination in the future. Krista Contreras, whose newborn daughter had been refused service by a pediatrician who had religious objections to same-sex couples, described how that experience lingered nearly three years after the refusal: The pediatrician was the place I least expected it. In response to religious exemptions, LGBT organizations and supportive providers have done their best to fill the gaps created by discriminatory refusals.

It is important to note that, while these initiatives can alleviate gaps in service, they are not a sufficient substitute for full equality under the law. Many LGBT organizations do not have the resources to compile and maintain lists of affirming providers. Where they are developed, such lists tend to be ad hoc and non-exhaustive, as they rely on providers who are known to advocates to be reliably LGBT inclusive.

A provider with competency with one population—for example, adult gay men—may not be similarly equipped to serve the needs of another—for example, transgender youth. The approach is particularly limited insofar as known providers are often concentrated in urban areas, with the result that LGBT people who live in rural areas may have to travel hundreds of miles to reach a provider who they know will serve them.

This We Believe - The Christian Case for Gay Civil Rights (Paperback)

And because these lists typically list only a fraction of the providers in a given state, the roster of providers can be quickly overwhelmed by demand. In Tennessee, where state law allows counselors to decline to see LGBT patients based on their religious beliefs, researchers at the University of Tennessee have studied how these refusal laws impact self-concealment and psychological distress. One researcher on the project noted:. The research additionally found that, when those who strongly identified with the LGBT community were aware of the law, they were more likely to conceal their sexual orientation or gender identity, and were more likely to experience psychological distress, even without personally experiencing an incident of discrimination.

The inability or reluctance to seek out and obtain services can have serious consequences for LGBT people, who often are both less able to access services and in greater need of the services that religious exemptions deny them.

Liberals' worst nightmare: a second supreme court pick for Trump

Research suggests that LGBT individuals are at higher risk for physical and mental health issues than non-LGBT individuals, due in part to the chronic stress and stigma they encounter. Healthcare providers expressed concern about how fears of discrimination were affecting the mental and physical health of LGBT populations in their states.

One pediatrician in Alabama observed:. The harms of religious exemptions are not limited to outright refusals or deterring LGBT people from seeking goods and services. Interviewees in states with LGBT-targeted religious exemption laws in place also emphasized the harms to dignity and stigma that the laws impose on LGBT individuals and families.

Interviewees explained that, by enacting religious exemptions to blunt the advancement of LGBT equality, lawmakers sent a powerful signal that they were unequal or unvalued in their community. Brandiilyne Mangum-Dear described that harm in these words: Even in small things—disapproving looks, hateful stares.

While this message could be received from those who discriminated based on their faith generally, some interviewees indicated it was particularly injurious when it was endorsed by the state:.

“All We Want is Equality”

Proponents of sweeping religious exemptions have typically couched their claims in the language of religious freedom or religious liberty. International human rights law recognizes the importance of those rights, but also elaborates their limits, particularly where their exercise threatens to negatively impact the fundamental rights of others. Not only does the United States carry obligations under international law to respect these limits and safeguards, but more broadly the jurisprudence developed under international human rights law offers sound guidance to legislators seeking to strike a careful balance between rights that seem to stand in tension with one another.

In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The UN Human Rights Committee has clarified that the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion does not protect religiously motivated discrimination against women, or racial and religious minorities.

The religious exemptions being introduced to license discrimination in child welfare services, physical and mental healthcare, and public accommodations not only impinge upon the rights of LGBT individuals to equal treatment, they also jeopardize the enjoyment of several other rights as well. While the religious exemption laws examined in this report were introduced as a result of gains that LGBT people have made in attaining nondiscrimination protections and the ability to adopt, marry, and form families under state and federal law, many of the exemptions being introduced at the state level are not limited to religious objections related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

As critics have pointed out, many bills would broadly preclude states from taking action against religious objectors who operate according to their religious principles to the detriment of other groups as well, and potentially authorize forms of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, nationality, disability, veteran status, HIV status, and other classifications.

States that enact these laws relinquish their ability to ensure that state funding and contracts support services available to all qualified recipients, and give a free pass to potentially sweeping discrimination under the color of state authority. Exemptions that deny or deter people from seeking healthcare services jeopardize the right to health. Individuals may be denied services outright; have difficulty finding services of comparable quality, accessibility, or affordability; or avoid seeking services for fear of being turned away. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has noted that the right to health is threatened both by direct discrimination and by indirect discrimination, in which laws appear neutral on their face but disproportionately harm a minority group in practice.

However, the ICESCR and the jurisprudence of the Committee remain a useful and authoritative guide to the kind of state action necessary to advance and protect the right to health. Permitting child welfare agencies to turn away qualified parents because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, for example, limits the options available to children in need of placement and may delay or deny foster or adoptive placements for those youth. Skip to main content. Summary All anybody is trying to do is live their lives and be given the service, be treated with respect as anyone else is treated.

All we want is equality. Related Content February 19, News Release. Progress and Backlash II. Legal Obligations Recommendations Acknowledgments. Most Viewed December 14, Dispatches.

Kevin Rudd launches passionate defence of gay marriage

The legal action was originally brought against family-run Ashers bakery in Belfast by gay rights activist Gareth Lee, who won his case initially in the county court and then at the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. Announcing the court's decision, its president, Lady Hale, said: T he court also said Mr Lee had no claim against Ashers on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion, but speaking outside of court, the customer said: I had no idea when I ordered the cake that this would happen.

H e said that the ruling made him feel like a "second class citizen" in Northern Ireland, adding: Anyone can walk into a shop - you shouldn't have to work out if you're going to be served based on their religious beliefs. Ashers general manager Mr McArthur thanked God outside court, saying he knew all along he had done nothing wrong. D aniel and Amy McArthur, who have said the law risked "extinguishing" their consciences, were in court for the ruling. The bakery's appeal against the finding of discrimination was heard at the Supreme Court sitting in Belfast in May.

During the hearing the justices were told that the owners were being forced to act against their religious beliefs. David Scoffield QC, for Ashers, argued that the state was penalising the baking firm, with the courts effectively compelling or forcing them to make a cake bearing a message with which they disagree as a matter of religious conscience.

His order was accepted and he paid in full but, two days later, the company called to say it could not proceed due to the message requested. Mounting an unsuccessful challenge at the Court of Appeal in Belfast in , Ashers contended that it never had an issue with Mr Lee's sexuality, rather the message he was seeking to put on the cake.