A Few Florist Thoughts

Share

One of the news stories that broke this past week was that the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a florist who decided not to offer her services to a same-sex couple for their wedding. This case has ignited much furor in both the LGBT and evangelical worlds because it seems to place the debate as a battle between civil liberties and religious liberty. I have only slightly followed this case, but as this discussion will soon (and already has) become heated, here are a few thoughts I have to hopefully bring some nuance to this case that addresses both sides:

• If you hear conservative Christians saying this story was "buried" this week in some attempt to secretly take away religious liberty, don't believe the hype. Mainstream media did in fact cover the story (how else do you think people became aware of it?) Furthermore, if this story did not rise to the level of prominence many conservatives felt it deserved, it was likely the result of the current chaos in the Trump administration, not because of some conspiracy theory.
• It seems pretty obvious that Barronelle Stutzman (the florist) was in violation of the law. Our current laws clearly state that same-sex unions enjoy the same privileges and rights as heterosexual marriages. Furthermore, it is a crime to discriminate against a person based on either gender or sexual orientation. A business refusing to provide a service because of a person's sexual orientation is a crime. Under the eyes of the law, it is really no different from refusing to provide a person a service because of their race or ethnicity. This is why the Washington Supreme Court was unanimous--it's pretty cut and dry.

Conservative Christians at this point will say this infringes on Stutzman's religious liberty. But here are a few things to consider:

• One's religious liberty is not unlimited. The law only grants religious liberty so long as that liberty does not infringe upon the well-being of society (this is how all rights work). For instance, I cannot kill my child even if I followed a religion that said this was acceptable. In this current case, the laws and perception of our society state that such discrimination is detrimental to society. Thus, the court ruled that the practice of her religious conscience in a place of business was problematic.
• What all does religious liberty actually cover? I am not a constitutional scholar, so I'll largely leave this question open. However, it is good to note that the State is not forcing Stutzman to change her beliefs, per se. She can still worship as she pleases, she can still speak out against gay marriage, she can refuse to attend gay weeddings, etc. The court simply said that, if she is going to operate a place of business in the public sphere, then she must treat all citizens equally.
• Which leads to this last point on religious liberty. I'm not sure religious liberty extends to a business. An individual can be a "Christian," and a church congregation can be "Christian," but I'm not convinced a business can be "Christian." The reality is that when you open a business, you agree to abide by the laws and regulations affecting businesses. This include anti-discrimination statues. If you are not willing to serve certain customers because of demographics that fall under those statutes, then you probably shouldn't run that business or you should be willing to face the consequences of breaking the law. It may even be right to defy a law you see as unjust, but be truthful and don't whine or complain when you get in trouble for breaking that law. Ironically, I've seen a number of conservatives this past week say, "You're free to express your beliefs, but you're not free from the consequences of those expressions" in response to employees getting fired for taking off work on the "Day without Immigrants." Shouldn't we say the same about Stutzman? She was free to express her beliefs, but she's not free from the legal consequences of those actions.

But before my more liberal friends get to excited, I do have a few thoughts for that side as well.

• This court case has often been characterized in terms of "civil liberties." As noted above, I won't argue with the legal realities here, but there is one aspect of the LGBT movement that's never set quite well with me, and that's the comparison between LGBT rights and the racial civil rights movement. In this particular case Stutzman's actions have been compared to refusing to serve a customer because she is black. While legally speaking this is true, I think we'd be amiss if we didn't acknowledge some substantial differences. The main difference I see is that most educated Christians who don't approve of same-sex unions take issue with the ACTS of homosexuality, not the impulses or orientation itself. This is quite different from discrimination based on race which is a trait you are born with and can't escape. There is no way to not act out on being your color. Your race race remains the same regardless of your actions. Regarding being gay, even if sexual orientation is genetic, a person still has a decision about whether or not to act out on those impulses, which makes it somewhat different than racial discrimination.
• Bring this point onto the Stutzman case. What if a man who identifies as gay but chooses not to act out on those impulses (perhaps because of a religious conviction or some other reason) decided to buy flowers from Ms. Stutzman, perhaps for his mom. And let's say the florist sells him flowers and she knows he identifies as gay. But, at the same time, she refuses to offer services for a gay wedding. Is this truly discrimination against a person for being gay, or is it discrimination against the actions of homosexuality? It may be a fine line, but I think it's worth at least acknowledging.
• Additionally, I think it's easy for LGBT advocates to get overly militaristic at times (just as evangelicals often do). From some of what I have read, it seems Stutzman did attempt to offer the gay couple a referral for another florist. So, it does not seem like she is some evil lady trying to hate on "the gays." Rather, she is a person of conscience (like a significant minority of Americans) who are not comfortable with gay marriage and who view homosexuality as a sin. For many of us, we strive to love our LGBT brothers and sisters, but the liberal narratives of being anti-gay marriage as equivalent to being hateful or bigoted or uneducated are simply not fair. Those who are pro-LGBT rights would do well to remember that it has only been very recently that a majority (and only a slim majority) of Americans back their cause. Triumphalism and shouting down the opposition does nothing to draw us toward unity or truth. Not all who oppose gay marriage are hateful. Many of us continue to wrestle with the issue.
• Finally, pro-gay rights individuals should remember that (for Christians) this is a debate about sin. Is homosexuality a sin or not? This is no small question and the Church remains incredibly divided on this issue. So, for Christians who have become convicted that gay marriage is acceptable because it is something different than what the Bible addresses, be patient with the other half. Don't get angry or judgmental just because you are passionate about what you see as an issue of "justice." Remember you are asking your brothers and sisters to change their minds about sin. For any Christian, this is not a matter to be taken lightly as getting the answer wrong (in either direction) could amount to an offense against God. So, be filled with grace (both sides).

So there are my thoughts. In summary, the law seems pretty clear, but the underlying issue is not. I don't think Christians can really argue that Stutzman wasn't breaking the law (I think she probably was), but what remains open is whether those laws themselves are unjust or how people on both sides of the debate choose to relate to and characterize each other going forward.

Don't Get Angry at the Supreme Court

Share

The past two weeks have been a roller coaster ride of Supreme Court decisions for parties on both sides of the aisle. Obama's immigration plan gets stalled, but UT's affirmative action policy is upheld. This week, they also decided prohibiting individuals convicted of misdemeanor family violence crimes from owning firearms was not a violation of the second amendment--relieving domestic violence advocates but angering some gun rights advocates.

However, the case that has gotten the most attention this week was its ruling on Texas' most recent abortion law. For those of you not familiar with this law, one of the central mandates required abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges (see full statute here). The result of this has been that about half of the abortion clinics in Texas have had to shut down because they could not meet this high criterion. One of these clinics initiated the current lawsuit against the state, arguing that this law is not necessary to provide safe medical procedures and places an undue burden on those seeking an abortion. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed with the analysis and struck down the law in a 5-3 decision.

As expected, many pro-life advocates are lamenting the decision and directing their anger at the Supreme Court. I've seen comments about the justices being "dumb" and "stupid," and characterized as dictators and zealots. Some have even called for Texas to defy the ruling. Is this apocalyptic and hateful language really necessary? I don't think so. And here's why from a pro-life perspective:

1) This was not really about women's safety if we're truly honest

Sure, you can argue that one of the benefits of the Texas law would be increased women's safety because abortion clinics would have higher medical standards, but don't be deceptive and claim that was the primary motivation. As I've listened to pro-life individuals discuss the law prior to this court case and after Monday's decision, it is clear that the primary concern has been to reduce the number of abortions. After all, the proposal in question came along with other measures to ban certain types of abortions and make abortion more difficult to get. Furthermore, most doctors agree that the hospital admitting privileges are not really necessary for performing an abortion. The evidence seems to suggest that this was an answer in want of a problem, unless of course you admit that the problem trying to be solved was abortion itself. This leads to #2...

2) The Supreme Court is simply upholding what already exists in our laws

The fact is Roe v. Wade is still the determining court case that sets precedent for everything, and that court case decided that abortion should be accessible by American women. This court decision means that any future laws must not place an "undue burden" on abortion access. If abortion is now considered a "right," then that means every women must have access to such services. However, as a result of Texas' law, only about 20 clinics remain open (down from about 40 when the law went into effect), and more of those remaining clinics would have likely shut down in the near future had the law continued. 

Now, keep in mind Texas is a massive state geographically (you don't really understand this until you live here), and as such 20 clinics are very few. For example, the domestic violence agency I work at serves 8 counties (an area about the size of Hawaii and containing half a million people) but there is not an abortion clinic in any of our counties. Furthermore, this is a particular problem for those who are low income and lack the finances or transportation to be able to travel to such a clinic, and they would need to make several trips as well, not just one.

As long as Roe v. Wade is seen as valid, then it would seem that this law is infringing upon the ability of many women to access an abortion and must be struck down. The problem is not with the current Supreme Court, but with the existing precedent of Roe v. Wade. If you are unhappy with Monday’s decision, you should probably focus your efforts on overturning the existing precedent, not complaining about the outcomes of that precedent.

3) Was Texas’ law really reducing abortions that much anyways?

One of the arguments that helped get Roe v Wade passed in the first place was that women will have abortions regardless of the law. The problem, as it was argued, was that women were seeking illegal abortions and putting both their lives and the lives of the unborn child at risk. Abortion advocates argued that it was better to legalize this unfortunate practice and thus be able to regulate abortions, rather than putting women’s health in danger.

While our current culture has gone far beyond that original vision (seeking abortions out of personal/preference reasons in addition to medical reasons), there is certainly some truth to this concern. Indeed, in the past year or two there have been numerous reports and account of many women seeking illegal abortions in Texas. Some, who live near the Mexico border, are buying cheap drugs and self-administering abortions without any oversight from doctors. Others simply choose to neglect any prenatal care and allowed their pregnancy to result in a miscarriage. Far from promoting women’s health and medical safety, this Texas law actually has had some unintended consequences of harming women’s health.

If we truly want to be “pro-life” for everyone involved, then we cannot ignore these realities. Can we really argue that the negligible benefit of forcing abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges is pro-women’s health if that decision simultaneously drives many more women to unsafe abortion methods?

Additionally, when we consider the increase in illegal abortions happening, we have to ask what the net effect of the law actually was. Those who really want or feel a need to get an abortion will find ways to do so—legally or illegally. Did this Texas law really tip the scales that much? And if the net effect was negligible, is there really much point in getting worked up about such a law being struck down?

4) We are right to be skeptical of pro-abortion cheering on this day

While I am not too shocked or horrified by the Supreme Court’s decision, I also cannot join the cheering and celebration of abortion rights advocates. The bottom line is that everyone on all sides should be grieved that abortions are even necessary in the first place. Whether we are grieving the loss of an unborn life, the fact that a pregnancy was unwanted, or the circumstances that led to “needing” an abortion, all individuals—on the Right and Left—should recognize that abortion is not a joyous thing. It is painful. It’s unfortunate. If it is a “right,” it is not a right or freedom like any others we enjoy. It is more along the lines of a necessary evil than liberty.

However, anger and bile will not change the conversation. Sadly, we do live in a “throw-away culture” as the Pope has put it, but mocking or cursing abortion advocates will not alter their opinions. Instead, we should approach this issue with humility, refuse to participate in polarizing rhetoric that is actually one of the forces that drives abortion rights groups to celebrate, and mourn the loss of life and opportunity that was occurring under the Texas law and that will continue to occur without it.

5) Finally, we must seek out better pro-life strategies than legislating morality

One of the central reasons why I am not too upset by this week’s decision is that abortion laws are generally ineffective anyways. Sure, they might reduce the number of legal abortions happening, but you still must account for the illegal abortions that occur under the radar. A number of studies have also demonstrated that laws which simply restrict or ban abortions can actually result in higher numbers of total abortions than situations with more open abortion laws.

The real problem is that a law cannot change a person’s heart or mind. A person who supported abortion before a law will continue to support abortion even after it is banned. If you really want to end abortion, you must win over people’s hearts and minds. The pro-life movement has often done well at this, but it must do better. I believe the pro-life position has a compelling narrative—that unborn life is valuable and precious regardless of the circumstances. Science also seems to be on our side as the more we learn about unborn children, the more we realize the continuity between life inside and outside the womb. This naturally poses an ethical problem for abortion advocates. If we could focus more on this compassionate narrative and excise some of the hateful, condemning rhetoric that often accompanies it, this would likely do more good than any restrictive law.

Finally, abortion opponents need to shift their focus away from abortion legislation to legislation that addresses the ROOT CAUSES of abortion. There are two reasons for this. First, simply restricting or banning abortion is merely a Band-Aid solution in that it only acknowledges the symptom, not the sickness. Second, shifting our focus in this manner can actually create common ground with the pro-choice side. Let me explain.

What are the primary reasons a person would seek an abortion? Lack of money/resources to care for a child, lack of access to birth control, teen pregnancy, rape, and medical complications with the child or mother. The amazing thing about each of these causes is that neither pro-life nor pro-choice advocates want these things to happen. They are all bad situations. What would the conversation look like if, instead of trying to limit or ban abortions outright (thus angering the other side), we instead came together to find meaningful legislation and practices that reduce poverty, reduced teen pregnancies, deterred sexual assaults, and promoted medical research to fix pregnancy complications and genetic defects. Surely there is enough common ground on these issues to get the conversation going.

If we actually came together around the root causes of abortion, then we would actually see abortion rates drop without needing to limit access to abortion. If we stuck with the simple narrative that unborn life is precious, there would be less need for abortion clinics as more and more people become convinced of this truth.

So am I saddened by this week’s court ruling? Yes, but only in the sense that it serves as a reminder of the continuing desire and need for abortion as well as of the continuing polarization in this debate. I am not angered because I think the Court is sentencing babies to death or anything like that. The Supreme Court has simply acted in accordance to its legal obligations. It is up to us on the ground to change the conversation so that such rulings and arguments ultimately become irrelevant.