Category Archives: LGBTQ Rights

EEOC Proposed Guidance Shows We Can Protect Religious Freedom & LGBTQ Rights

Press Release:
March 23, 2017

From:
Columbia Law School, The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Subject:
EEOC Proposed Guidance Shows We Can Protect Religious Freedom & LGBTQ Rights

Contact:
Liz Boylan, eboyla@law.columbia.edu, 212.854.0167

March 23, 2017: While the President and Congress consider acts to expand religious exemptions at the expense of LGBTQ and other rights, a proposed federal regulation demonstrates that we can—and should—protect both religious and LGBTQ communities. The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) at Columbia Law School submitted commentary this week commending the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on their “Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment,” which protects the right of religious employees to discuss their beliefs while prohibiting religiously-motivated harassment in the workplace.

Professor Katherine Franke, Faculty Director for the PRPCP commented, “At a time when we are witnessing government officials engaging in both troubling violations of the Establishment Clause and blatant forms of religion-based discrimination, the EEOC’s proposed guidelines offer a reasoned and careful way to harmonize religious liberty and equality in the workplace.”

Elizabeth Reiner Platt, Director of the PRPCP elaborates, “The proposed guidelines respect both the right to express one’s religious beliefs and the right to a safe and productive work environment. This kind of carefully tailored religious accommodation protects all workers from discrimination.”

The PRPCP’s letter notes that nearly one in three transgender workers, and up to 43% of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, have faced employment discrimination. The proposed EEOC guidelines “appropriately explain that Title VII’s duty to accommodate religion does not amount to an official sanctioning of religiously-motivated harassment-including against LGBTQ employees, who already face pervasive discrimination in the workplace.”

The EEOC’s responsibility to protect religious minorities and LGBTQ persons is of critical importance, as the Trump Administration continues to issue Executive Orders that roll back LGBTQ protections and express disapproval of Muslims. Of particular concern is a potential Executive Order on Religious Freedom. If signed, the order could provide a special license for those holding certain conservative religious beliefs— including opposition to same-sex marriage, sex outside different-sex marriage, and abortion—to violate any regulations that conflict with these beliefs.

The PRPCP’s mission is to address contexts in which religious liberty rights conflict with or undermine fundamental rights to equality and liberty through academic legal analysis.  PRPCP approaches the developing law of religion in a manner that respects the importance of religious liberty while recognizing the ways in which broad religious accommodations may violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which, “not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.”[1]

Read the full letter from the PRPCP here: http://tinyurl.com/PRPCP-Columbia-EEOC-Letter

For more information on the PRPCP, visit the PRPCP’s webpage, here: http://tinyurl.com/PRPCP-Columbia

The EEOC’s Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment is available here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EEOC-2016-0009-0001

________________________________

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

WA Supreme Court: LGBT Discrimination No More About Flowers than Civil Rights Were About Sandwiches

Originally posted at Religion Dispatches, February 22, 2017

Last Thursday, the Washington Supreme Court issued a significant and unanimous decision in the ongoing dispute—being litigated in courts across the country—over whether antidiscrimination law must yield to the religious beliefs of business owners opposed to marriage equality. The case involved a florist, Barronelle Stutzman, who refused to provide floral arrangements for a wedding between same-sex partners because of her deeply held religious beliefs about marriage.

In prior cases including Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock and Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, courts have come down against business owners who refuse to provide goods and services for weddings between same-sex couples. Opinions in these cases have found that antidiscrimination laws are neutral, generally applicable measures that do not favor secularism over religion, or single out particular religious groups for ill treatment. The right-wing legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom represented the business owners in both of those suits, and is currently representing Stutzman, who says she plans to appeal Thursday’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The opinions in Elane Photography and Masterpiece Cakeshop have declined to analyze the application of LGBT antidiscrimination laws to religious objectors using the rigorous “strict scrutiny” test. This test, used to evaluate government actions that specifically disadvantage religion, requires a law to be the least restrictive (to the religious objector) means of achieving a “compelling” government interest.

In this latest opinion, State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, the court did subject Washington’s antidiscrimination law to the strict scrutiny test. They did so because the free exercise provision of Washington’s state constitution has been interpreted to be more protective of religion than the federal First Amendment, raising the possibility that the lower level of scrutiny required under the federal Free Exercise Clause may be insufficient.

While the court declined to hold that the strict scrutiny test was necessary when evaluating neutral laws under the Washington constitution, it found that applying antidiscrimination law to religious objectors satisfied even this demanding test. Importantly, the court recognized that providing exemptions for religious objectors was inherently inconsistent with the entire purpose of antidiscrimination law.

Stutzman had argued that applying the law to her could not be necessary to achieving any compelling government interest, since there was no “access problem.” In other words—since the couple could purchase flowers elsewhere, application of antidiscrimination law in this case served no purpose. In response, the court held:

We emphatically reject this argument…”[t]his case is no more about access to flowers than civil rights cases in the 1960s were about access to sandwiches.” Br. of Resp’ts Ingersoll and Freed at 32. As every other court to address the question has concluded, public accommodations laws do not simply guarantee access to goods or services. Instead, they serve a broader societal purpose: eradicating barriers to the equal treatment of all citizens in the commercial marketplace. Were we to carve out a patchwork of exceptions for ostensibly justified discrimination, that purpose would be fatally undermined.

This statement strikes at the heart of the dispute between religious objectors and LGBT couples and families. Too often, the vital role that antidiscrimination law plays in establishing the equal place of long-subordinated groups in civil society gets lost or ignored in claims that focus on the availability of flowers or cake. Efforts to limit the scope of antidiscrimination law will not stop at wedding-related services (and, indeed, a federal judge ruled last summer that the religious beliefs of a funeral home owner justified his discrimination against a transgender employee). Washington’s opinion is clear on the real purpose of these laws: guaranteeing equality, not roses.